[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 
                  AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               FOR 2024
_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                               ___________
                      
         SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 
                          AND RELATED AGENCIES

                     JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman

  DAVID G. VALADAO, California		DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida		SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  TONY GONZALES, Texas			SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi		HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana		CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida


  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. Granger, as chairwoman of the full 
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                        Betsy Bina, Jason Wheelock
                  Keri Lyn Michalke, and Arianna Delgado
                            Subcommittee Staff

                               ___________
        
                                  PART 1

  Quality of Life in the Military.......                             1
                                        
  Fiscal Year 2024 Request for Army 
Military Construction and Family Housing...                         45
                                        
  U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...                            69
                                        
  Navy and Marine Corps Military 
Construction and Family Housing.........                            131
                                        
  Air Force and Space Force Military 
Construction and Family Housing.........                            163
                                        
  Veterans Affairs......................                            187
                                        

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                  

                                         _________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
                                U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                               
52-197                                WASHINGTON : 2023
  
_______________________________________________________________________
          

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                     KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman


  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
  JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona

  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
  STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

              Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

                              ----------                             


                                        Tuesday, February 28, 2023.

                    QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE MILITARY

                               WITNESSES

SERGEANT MAJOR MICHAEL A. GRINSTON, U.S. ARMY, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE 
    ARMY
MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JAMES M. HONEA, U.S. NAVY, MASTER CHIEF 
    PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY
SERGEANT MAJOR TROY E. BLACK, U.S. MARINE CORPS, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE 
    MARINE CORPS
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT JOANNE S. BASS, U.S. AIR FORCE, CHIEF MASTER 
    SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT ROGER A. TOWBERMAN, U.S. SPACE FORCE, CHIEF 
    MASTER SERGEANT OF THE SPACE FORCE
    Mr. Carter. Welcome, everyone, here today. Our first 
hearing, in my opinion, is the best hearing. I have always 
thought we would learn more from this particular gathering of 
our warriors than anything we do in this committee.
    I want to say hello and welcome to my good friend, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. She and I have worked well together. We will 
continue to work well together for the men and women of our 
Armed Forces. And we are very proud to have this position to do 
it. But you are the guys and gals that are closest to your 
people. That is why I think this is a great hearing. I love to 
have this hearing because we can learn about the ordinary 
warrior and their needs from you. And so thank you for being 
here. I consider you very important.
    Come on in. We got a member out there; let him in.
    Come on in, Mr. Cuellar, we got room for you. We forgive 
you.
    And to start off with what happened to my face, I am not 
going to just--you make up whatever story you want, but for 
today it will be I have been fighting for more money for our 
men and women of the military. And that is good enough. That is 
good enough. All right.
    So welcome. We want to talk to you about the quality of 
life of our enlisted personnel, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
Marines, and guardians. You know the answers. We need to hear 
the answers.
    We have five witnesses today at our table who represent the 
highest in the enlisted leadership of our respected branches. 
And for the first time since 2019, we have been able to gather 
all together again. So this is really an important--I have been 
on this subcommittee now, well, since I think 2004, and this 
has always been where we learn the nuts and bolts of what we 
need to talk about. So I am looking forward to it greatly.
    We want to talk facilities, we want to talk readiness, we 
want to talk quality of life. We have the job of investing in 
infrastructure to bolster our military's ability to train and 
fight, also ensuring our servicemembers and their families are 
taken care of at home every day. And my colleague and good 
friend, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, she and I agree on 90 percent of 
the things that we do in this committee, and I am going to 
yield to her for her comment.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Congratulations.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I look forward to continuing our 
partnership, as you mentioned. I always brag about how you and 
I are nearly interchangeable when it comes to the issues that 
come before us on the MILCON VA Subcommittee, and I just am 
really excited to continue our partnership.
    You know, I will also just be a little bit parochial and 
emphasize that Florida, on this sub, is in the House--Mr. 
Rutherford, now Mr. Franklin, welcome to the committee. It is 
good to have you. So three Floridians, just saying. If the bill 
ends up coming out disproportionately favoring our State or our 
region, Mr. Bishop, then all the better. You know, only kind of 
kidding.
    Mr. Carter. Well, we count Texas too.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah, yeah, you can. You can. Most 
definitely.
    Mr. Carter. And our neighbor to the north, Mrs. Bice, is 
from Oklahoma.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. So welcome to all the 
new members. You will really enjoy being on this sub. We really 
are like a little family of friends.
    I want to thank all five witnesses for joining us this 
morning to testify on the crucial topics that are affecting the 
quality of life, not just for our servicemembers, but for their 
families as well.
    This hearing is really always a great opportunity to 
identify areas where we can do more to help those who protect 
us and defend our Nation. It is imperative that we prioritize 
their well-being and guarantee their optimal readiness. The 
witnesses before us are well positioned to convey the views and 
needs of our enlisted men and women, as you always so ably do.
    Over the last several years, this subcommittee has sent a 
strong message with the overall funding levels that we have 
provided that go above and beyond the levels requested by the 
Department in budget requests. Specifically, we made strong--
and that includes both parties' administrations.
    Specifically, we have made strong investments to target 
quality of life issues most important to our servicemembers. We 
have targeted funding to increase the number of child 
development centers to chip away at the backlog of families 
waiting to get their children into childcare facilities. No 
servicemember can focus on their job if they are worrying about 
how their children are being taken care of when they are away.
    For the first time last year, we included an additional $30 
million to provide much needed, more robust oversight over the 
housing portfolio. It is despicable for servicemembers and 
their families to be subject to deplorable housing conditions. 
And we will not rest until this housing crisis is solved.
    We continue to prioritize the cleanup of PFOS. As more and 
more evidence comes to light of the serious long-term side 
effects of PFOS chemicals, we need quick and efficient 
remediation. And I am proud that our 2023 bill included an 
additional $200 million for PFOS identification, mitigation, 
and cleanup at closed military locations under our BRAC 
account. We must continue to build on this and protect our 
servicemembers.
    Lastly, the issue of sexual assault in the military remains 
dire, and the problem only seems to be getting worse. According 
to the Department of Defense's annual Sexual Assault and 
Prevention Report released in September, sexual assault rates 
are up. And this is not just attributed to an increase in 
reporting. In fact, reporting is down. And trust in the 
military to protect victims is low. There has been significant 
focus on this year over year, and yet no progress is being 
made. In fact, we seem to be losing ground.
    I cannot stress enough the importance of protecting our 
women and men from sexual assault and harassment. And I want to 
hear about necessary policy and cultural changes to reverse the 
prevalence of sexual assault in the military.
    These issues, among others, that we will get into during 
our questioning, directly affect the recruitment and retention 
of our servicemembers. I remember at a hearing that we had, I 
believe it was last year, we heard from an enlisted man who 
testified virtually that he had planned to make serving in the 
military his career choice. And if you remember, Judge Carter, 
he said to us, about a year in, that he was seriously 
rethinking that because of the deplorable housing conditions in 
which his family was living. I mean, that is not a retention 
magnet, to say the least.
    If we want to build the force of the future, we must take 
care of our servicemen and -women while they are in the 
military and after they leave. While we don't yet have the 
President's budget, I am hopeful it will include a strong 
request for military construction funding that addresses many 
of the quality of life issues we will discuss today, and that 
it will not follow the historic pattern among presidents of 
both parties of underfunding military infrastructure.
    What concerns me is Speaker McCarthy's purported proposal 
to limit discretionary spending levels to fiscal year 2022 
levels. This can have disastrous effects across our government, 
including on military construction, and specifically on efforts 
to fund additional projects related to quality of life. At that 
funding level, the strides we have taken to provide more 
quality safe housing for our troops and their families would be 
in danger. At that funding level, the committee would have to 
make hard choices between mission critical projects and those 
that improve the quality of life for our troops. At that 
funding level, crucial construction projects would stretch 
further into the future, affecting mission readiness.
    We need to continue to build on the success of the prior 
fiscal years to continue to invest in military construction and 
the members of our armed services. We cannot take a giant leap 
backwards. So the message that would send to our enlisted men 
and women would be terrible.
    So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to 
discuss what more is needed, not only through funding, but also 
through policy and leadership, to improve the lives of our 
servicemembers and their families. Thank you all for joining us 
today. Thank you for your service.
    And, Sergeant Major, really, congratulations on your 
impending retirement. It has really been an honor and a 
pleasure to work with you. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
    And let me introduce who we have got here with us today. 
Sergeant Major of the Army, Michael Grinston, who is about to 
retire pretty quickly, and you have done a heck of a good job. 
And we appreciate what you have done, and wish you luck in your 
retirement.
    Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, James Honea. He is 
from Lubbock, Texas. I went to school in Lubbock, Texas, and I 
love to tell this story. The guy had a cartoon in the local 
paper and showed a guy walking out--remember, this was back in 
the sixties, it was early fifties--actually, late fifties. A 
guy walks out with a shovel and starts digging. The next frame 
of the cartoon says: What are you doing? He said, I am digging 
a bomb shelter. In the third cartoon you see the guy two-thirds 
of the way down pitching dirt out. And the guy says: Who bombed 
Lubbock? In the fourth frame, he is filling the hole back up. 
If you know Lubbock, you know what I mean. We are happy to have 
you here.
    Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Troy Black. He has been 
at his post since the--as of the 19th, at the Marine Corps, 
19th of July of 2019.
    Master Sergeant--Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, 
JoAnne Bass. She has been in this role, her current role, since 
August of 2020.
    Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force, Roger Towberman. 
Chief Master Sergeant Towberman became the first Chief Master 
Sergeant of the Space Force in April 2020. While he has 
testified before this committee in the past when we had this 
hearing 2020 and 2019, we didn't have a Space Force. So we are 
glad to have you here. And we are proud to have your Space 
Force operational because you are going to have a tough part of 
the fight when the fight starts, if it does, praise God. Let's 
hope it doesn't.
    So, with that, I am going to tell you that you have each 
submitted a written document, which you don't have to review 
other than try to keep it--you know, we are not going to hit 
you in the head, like me, if you go past 5 minutes. But I would 
appreciate it if you try to review it within 5 minutes, and 
then it would give us some time to ask questions.
    So I think we will start with Sergeant Major Grinston.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairman Carter, Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the invitation to speak today on behalf of the 
soldiers, their families, and the Army civilians who make up 
our all-volunteer force. Thank you for all the work you have 
done to support your Army.
    The $1.5 billion in Army military construction funding, 
which provided more than $574 million for family housing and 
$154 million for barracks, and $99 million for child 
development centers, will directly improve soldier and family 
quality of life.
    And thank you to my fellow senior enlisted advisors. I talk 
a lot about my squad--and having more than one squad--and I am 
proud to be a part of this squad with you today.
    I would like to take a moment upfront to tell you a little 
bit about your Army and what they have done in the past year. 
Right now, more than 23,000 soldiers are supporting combat 
operations in places like Africa, Iraq, and Syria. Not just 
training and advising; combat. What started as a no-notice 
deployment for the 82nd Airborne Division to Europe last year 
now includes 17,000 additional troops to the region.
    The first armored brigade combat team of the 3rd Infantry 
Division had just returned from a rotation in Korea when they 
deployed to Europe. Never before have I seen an armored brigade 
combat team sent on a no-notice deployment. Not only did they 
go, but 7 days later they were shooting gunnery in Germany.
    America's soldiers are lethal, effective, and ready to 
surge when called upon in times of crisis. Standing with every 
one of these soldiers is a family enduring the stress of a 
loved one away from home or prepared to leave at a moment's 
notice. Their sacrifice is not unnoticed.
    Along with the sacrifices of our services, no soldier, 
airman, guardian, sailor, marine, or coastguardsman should also 
have to experience economic or food insecurity, period. I 
welcome a hard review of military pay, beginning with our 
junior enlisted servicemembers. More than that, we have got to 
continue providing the resources and education to help our 
soldiers manage their finances the right way.
    Recruiting and retaining the best talent begins with 
providing every American an opportunity to make a difference. 
Young Americans want to be a part of something larger than 
themselves. Polling shows propensity to serve in the military 
at 9 percent, the lowest in 15 years. Of that 9 percent, the 
qualification rate for military service among 17- to 24-year-
olds has decreased from 29 percent to 23 percent.
    This is not just an Army problem. It is not just a military 
problem. If we cannot field an Army able to accomplish the 
missions I mentioned at the beginning, that is an American 
problem. We are your Army, and ensuring we have the people to 
protect this Nation is an absolute security imperative. We need 
a national call to public service. But unless we have full 
support of this committee to take care of them, that call only 
goes so far.
    This means timely, adequate, predictable, and sustained 
funding to invest in barracks, dining facilities, and Child 
Development Centers. It means selecting, training, educating, 
and promoting the best leaders at every echelon. It means 
investments to prevent harmful behaviors which result in things 
like suicide, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.
    Prevention is a personal mission of mine, and I have been 
very clear the goal is zero suicides and zero sexual assaults. 
The work of leaders across the Army has brought us one step 
closer to that goal. Last year, we saw 69 fewer suicides than 
the year before. However, one suicide is too many. We also saw 
a reduction in sexual assaults and sexual harassment reporting. 
But, again, one sexual assault or sexual harassment is too 
many.
    I am concerned with the gap existing between the prevalence 
data and the number of reports. We are currently working with 
OSD to receive and collect the prevalence data in a more timely 
manner. And I continue to challenge the Army to find ways to 
get something more recent than 3 years ago so we can better 
inform prevention strategies. There is much work to do, and I 
speak for everyone on this panel when I say I am committed to 
do it.
    I am often told, Thank you for your service. And as I 
reflect on 36 years of service in uniform, 5 of them in combat, 
I would do it all again because I believe the Nation is worth 
it, our soldiers are worth it, and each of you are worth it.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look 
forward to our conversation.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Master Sergeant--or Sergeant Major.
    Now, Master Sergeant Petty Honea, you are up.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Thank, you sir.
    Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for 
the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the quality of 
life of our sailors and their families.
    During my tenure, I want to do all that I can with inside 
my sphere of influence to improve the quality of naval service 
and remove barriers that impact the readiness, so that we can 
remain a dominant naval force to deter conflict, keep the sea 
lanes open and free, and when called upon, decisively win our 
Nation's wars.
    In an era of strategic competition, if we are to maintain, 
train, and equip a combat-credible force, we owe our sailors 
and their families stability in their pay, access to timely 
healthcare and services, as well as opportunities to develop 
personally and professionally. Their individual success and the 
Navy's collective mission accomplishment rely on our ability to 
provide an environment that promotes inclusiveness and a sense 
of value to the team that ensures retaining the talent our 
Nation requires.
    In the 6 months of being MCPON, I have traveled to our 
fleet concentrated areas to hear from our sailors about their 
concerns. Access to adequate medical services and timely care 
is one of the top concerns.
    In places like the Pacific Northwest, there are two naval 
hospitals that have been downgraded, requiring sailors and 
families to drive an hour or more to seek military medicine and 
specialized care. Obtaining access to care isn't just a problem 
for our servicemembers, though. It also includes our DOD 
civilians and their families, who are an integral component to 
our total naval force. In some of our overseas locations, they 
face medical care challenges because they are unable to access 
military medical treatment facilities. Our DOD civilians are a 
part of our total military family and work directly alongside 
our military teams.
    As it stands, we will begin losing employees that are 
mission critical and are going to be challenged to stay on 
their missions in support. To prepare our sailors for combat, 
we must also ensure each member of our team is resilient. 
Mental health is a warfighting readiness necessity, and we are 
facing significant mental health challenges. The emphasis on 
the critical need for mental health support and resources 
remains prominent in our fleet.
    TRICARE has partnered with telehealth programs. However, 
Active Duty members must still make an appointment with their 
primary care provider for a referral. This increases the wait 
time and therefore missing the intent of the more accessible 
healthcare. I ask for your continued support in these programs.
    If our team is to remain the dominant naval force, we must 
continue focusing on the factors that influence our recruiting 
and retention efforts, assessing situations that impact our 
all-volunteer force's propensity to serve and build a stronger 
national call to service.
    This year's pay increases were a historical milestone for 
our military compensation package, and we are all very 
grateful. However, our sailors are still facing challenges to 
meet basic needs in their local economies. Affordable housing, 
food costs, and finding adequate childcare remain an enormous 
stressor within our high cost of living fleet-concentrated 
areas.
    If we want to retain a professional and qualified 
servicemembers and give tangible incentives to sustain a 
military career, I ask that Congress continue to look at pay 
increases and retention bonuses to ensure our force is 
appropriately compensated. We are asking men and women to be 
the best and most skilled warfighters to defend our Nation, and 
risk of losing these talented sailors will have dire 
consequences on our future fighting force.
    In addition to medical care and paid compensation, the 
United States Naval Community College reinforces our 
warfighting advantage, enhances operational readiness by 
providing world-class naval-relevant education to a globally 
deployed force. This program is partnered with colleges 
throughout the United States to provide a degree and 
professional certificate options. This empowers our elicit 
force to succeed in complex and uncertain situations that 
sailors and Marines and coastguardsmen will find themselves in 
future conflict, and serves as a force multiplier that will be 
the advantage over our adversaries.
    I am honored to be here today to appear before you on 
behalf of our 390,000 sailors, their families, and our 
civilians deployed across the globe. I am committed to removing 
barriers from service that prevent them from having a safe and 
secure place to live and to work in executing their oath of 
enlistment. Military service is one of the hardest things our 
sailors, Marines, soldiers, airmen, and guardians will ever be 
asked to do. And with your continued support to our Navy and 
our families, you enable us to remain ready for any situation.
    I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Sergeant Major Black.
    Sergeant Major Black. Chairman Carter, Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz, and distinguished members of this committee, 
I am honored to speak to you today on behalf of your United 
States Marines. You have never given up on the care and 
attention to our Marines and our families, and I am grateful. 
Thank you for your time and allowing me to provide you with the 
state of your Marine Corps.
    The bottom line upfront: Your Marines are ready to fight. 
Through all the challenges that we faced, we have remained 
ready. We will always remain ready to fight and win, and we 
will never give that up.
    The Marine Corps continues to modernize to meet current and 
future threats and respond to crisis, provide deterrence, and 
win in conflicts. For this, we must thank our people, our 
Marines, who are our greatest strategic advantage in all we do.
    The technological enhancements and the paradigm of how we 
fight has evolved to better prepare us for an uncertain future 
but a certain foe. Those who may choose to agitate us, our 
friends, or the global rule of law need to understand that this 
Congress already knows that the United States military--your 
Marines, in particular--are stronger, faster, smarter, and 
trusted.
    Year after year, generation after generation, the Marine 
Corps has remained the Few and the Proud. Our brand has not 
changed, nor has our warrior spirit. The Marine Corps 
warfighting ethos is woven in how we recruit, retain, and train 
our women and men, giving our leaders a beacon to follow and a 
reputation to uphold. We will never let this Nation down when 
we have the standup people who choose a place among the few. 
Today we do, and they are ready.
    During the past 4 years of my life, at the twilight of my 
career, I have had the privilege to have access to the entire 
Marine Corps, to our entire force. I have toured buildings, 
flight lines, hangars, and ships and, of course, the barracks. 
It is clear to me that we must increase our investment in the 
quality of life of our Marines and all servicemembers.
    As we approach the 50th anniversary of the all-volunteer 
force, the American people know that the service--that service 
is not given. In our society, that service is recruited, and we 
must increase the propensity, the desire to serve our Nation. 
We need to make bigger strides in valuing our people. Many of 
our barracks are more than 30 years old and in need of repair 
and renovations. And I thank this committee for your attention 
and support in this endeavor.
    Along with a quality home, our Marines and families require 
quality care. The Defense Health Agency has undertaken the 
largest transformation in the history of military health 
systems. Adequate healthcare for our families is the minimum 
standard and vital to the all-volunteer force. To care for our 
families and those who support our service adjacent in our 
ranks is how we would like to exceed that minimum. We are after 
career longevity and healthy homes, and that comes with proper 
and persistent healthcare of our people. We must improve our 
current health system.
    Furthermore, we are ensuring and integrating a 
comprehensive prevention system that enhances the perseverance 
of every marine by aligning health crisis prevention resources. 
This is a focus on our people.
    With the continued support from this committee and the 
resources requested, we will better prepare our force to 
persevere in the face of adversity and win battles both in 
combat and in life.
    Suicide and harmful behaviors remain Corps-wide concerns 
that have lasting negative effects on Marines and their 
families, the Marine Corps, and our communities. Access to 
mental health providers, which are in dire shortage across our 
Nation and within our services, and resources remain paramount 
and something with which we remain very concerned.
    Continuing to ensure adequate mental healthcare access is 
not just limited to the Marine Corps or Department of Defense. 
As I mentioned previously, this is a nationwide concern. Since 
2011, the Marine Corps suicide rate is generally comparable to 
U.S. population; however, this remains too high and is 
unacceptable.
    We train our Marines to find the signs associated with 
depression and harmful behaviors and to preserve the life and 
well-being of our sisters and brothers. I would like to thank 
this committee for your continuing actions and your continued 
support in our prevention programs and the effects to deliver 
in human performance.
    Sometimes the toughest part of the mental health challenge 
is being able to know and understand that something isn't 
right. I am proud to see that our leaders are sharing their 
stories, more opening doors of conversations about perseverance 
and closing the doors on the stigmas associated with help-
seeking behaviors. I am thankful for these stories from Marines 
who continue to lead in the ranks today, who continue to fight 
and win, and who continue to exemplify ``Semper Fidelis,'' 
meaning always faithful.
    Know your Marines and looking out for their welfare is one 
of the 11 Marine Corps leadership principles. These principles 
are the bedrock of the way we train and operate and live daily. 
Marines serve with honor, courage, and commitment, and we will 
continue to do so with respect for human life.
    The lifeblood of our unit cohesion and esprit de corps is 
respect for one another. Your Marine Corps strategic advantage 
against any adversary, as I have mentioned, is our people, and 
we are closer knit as a team. We prevail. When harmful and 
destructive behaviors are present amongst our ranks, we depart 
from that cohesiveness.
    All Marines, from our most senior leaders to our newest 
entry-level graduates, know and understand the importance of a 
healthy workplace and healthy practices away from duty. We 
remain committed to the prevention of sexual harassment and 
sexual assault and promoting trust within the chain of command.
    Presently, prior-to-service reports are 16 percent of the 
Marine Corps' annual total. We are proud of all who step 
forward after they enter our service and seek to support a 
healthier person and stronger warfighter. The Marine Corps will 
continue to foster a culture of accountability and trust as you 
provide and support and care for those who enter our Corps, and 
with their experience that truly describes the character of 
your Marines.
    We are resolute in this endeavor to remove sexual assault 
and harassment and other behaviors from our ranks that diminish 
our warfighting capabilities. Marines do not tolerate sexual 
assault, sexual harassment, or any behaviors or attitudes that 
would lead to this. I would like to thank this committee for 
highlighting and continuing to highlight and serving your 
servicemembers in taking care of this issue.
    The topic of childcare has come up, and we will address 
this through further questioning. We are 77 percent manned--or 
unmanned--or manned and meet our requirements. However, our 
biggest challenge is the hiring of childcare professionals and 
being able to pay them in adequate ways to meet the comparative 
assessments throughout the civilian sector.
    We must continue to pay our enlisted servicemembers the 
highest rates possible for service they provide in protection 
of our Nation. I look forward to continued conversations in 
this as well.
    Today, as always, we have more than 30,000 Marines who are 
forward deployed and forward stationed in 40 different nations 
across the world. We have a detachment of Marines standing on 
watch at every embassy and consulate around the globe. Your 
Marines are currently conducting 23 real-war operations, 3 
amphibious operations, 8 large-scale exercises, and 7 theater 
security cooperation engagements. And we recently reactivated 
Camp Blaz, a strategic hub in Guam, to base 5,000 additional 
Marines.
    Lastly, I would like to thank this committee for your 
support in modernizing the force in accordance with the 
commandant's force design. Trust in the leadership and 
warfighting ethos of the Marine Corps has encouraged more 
Marines to stay in our Corps, and due to the modernization and 
talent, management training, and education and development of 
the operational concepts meant to prepare the Marines today for 
the current or future needs of the Nation.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity this afternoon--or 
this morning to speak with you. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Chief Master Sergeant Bass.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes. Good morning.
    Good morning, Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank 
you for your continued interest and support in the quality of 
life of the men and women who serve our great Nation. I am 
honored for this opportunity to join my brothers in arms 
sitting here with me today to speak with you, specifically on 
the issues impacting your Air Force and the lives of our airmen 
and their families.
    Right now as we speak, 15,564 airmen are deployed across 
the globe, conducting operations to defend our homeland, to 
build strong alliances and partnerships, and ensure the rules-
based international order remains unchallenged.
    We find ourselves at a critical point in the trajectory of 
our great Nation. For the first time in modern history we are 
facing challenges from two strategic competitors: China and 
Russia. While China may be our most significant pacing 
challenge, we cannot ignore the acute threat that Russia also 
plays. I am here to tell you today that more than any platform, 
any weapon system, or any program, it is our airmen, it is all 
of our servicemembers, who are and will always be our most 
competitive advantage that we have.
    As the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, I have been 
able to meet and dialogue with airmen and families during my 
travels, hear their stories, hear their concerns and the unique 
challenges that they face as members of our team. I am honored 
to be their voice as they continue to answer our Nation's call 
without hesitation and without fail. Therefore, it falls on us 
to ensure that the airmen of today have the resources required 
to continue to serve in the highest trained, best equipped, and 
best led Air Force this world has ever seen.
    In order to be the Air Force our Nation needs, we must 
prioritize both the quality of life and the quality of service 
of our airmen and their families. The over 689,000 total force 
airmen that I represent have afforded me a unique perspective 
on the direction that our Air Force needs to go.
    Over the past year, I have seen examples of our airmen 
working extremely hard to get after the operational imperatives 
and accelerate the change that our Air Force needs to maintain 
our dominance even while China attempts to close that gap. They 
understand that rapidly evolving challenges, new domains and 
warfare, and near-peer competitors will define future state 
operations. We must continue to support them as they faithfully 
support and defend this Nation.
    How we recruit, train, develop, compensate, retain, care 
for, and transition our airmen are key to success and they are 
key to readiness. We have a strong strategy that will move us 
in the right direction, and we will need your assistance to 
help get us there.
    As we continue to move forward and focus on the Air Force 
of 2030 and beyond, there is much to be done. We will continue 
to develop the airmen that we need and create an environment 
where every single one of them can thrive and be their very 
best. We need our airmen to remain focused and committed to 
defending the homeland. And as you mentioned, we can't have 
them distracted by whether or not they can find quality and 
affordable housing, spouse employment opportunities, or any 
other challenges such as healthcare, childcare, inflation, and 
food insecurity.
    We also can't have a serious discussion about the quality 
of life of our servicemembers without addressing the need to 
take a holistic look at military pay and compensation. The 
scope of responsibility of our enlisted force has never been 
greater. However, we will be challenged in recruiting. We will 
be challenged in retaining the talent we need if we are not 
able to appropriately compensate them.
    For 50 years, every servicemember has willingly raised 
their right hand and accepted a life of service to this Nation. 
We must ensure that the care and welfare for them and their 
family remains our undisputed priority. These things are 
integral to who we are and imperative to our future success. 
Taking these issues on demonstrates our commitment to our 
servicemembers and their families and ultimately builds great 
trust in this institution.
    As we work with each of you, our willing partners, in 
developing actionable solutions to build that trust and care 
for our airmen and our families, we cannot turn a blind eye to 
the infrastructure and the facilities which are fundamentally 
linked to the quality of service.
    Thank you so much for your continued focus and attention on 
our installations. They are not only key components of the 
warfighting mission, but they are where all of us calls home.
    Years of competing priorities and fiscal constraints have 
forced us as the United States Air Force to manage that risk 
and infrastructure and continue to create challenges and 
hardships for our airmen. We must provide a safe place, whether 
it be in the dormitories, government housing, privatized 
housing, where airmen can come together as communities. Those 
things absolutely impact retention, they absolutely impact our 
readiness, and they impact our ability to build the force of 
the future.
    To Representative Gonzales, thank you for joining me at 
Laughlin last year and seeing firsthand how these things impact 
your airmen. Your visit absolutely made a difference. They are 
America's sons and daughters. They are serving at the forward 
edge of strategic competition. An all-volunteer force that is 
absolutely ready to fight tonight and to defend our Nation. The 
work that we do with this subcommittee absolutely matters. So 
thank you.
    We are grateful for your efforts, your continued support, 
and we look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    And finally, Chief Master Sergeant Towberman.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 
distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for 
everything you do, for your Space Force, our guardians, and the 
loved ones who make up our service. Thank you for your service 
to our country and your steadfast leadership in support for our 
servicemembers and their quality of life. On behalf of our now 
8,308 uniformed guardians and our 4,000 civil servants, I thank 
you from the bottom of my heart.
    And while I am giving thanks, I would also like to extend 
my direct and sincere thank you to our deployed guardians and 
the nearly 75 percent of Space Force units who are employed in 
place, working 24 hours a day, to ensure space superiority for 
the joint force, the Nation, and the world.
    Without question, the most decisive warfighting advantage 
in history are the human beings who serve our Nation's 
military. No weapon system, technology, or strategy sets us 
apart further or more definitively.
    This year, we mark the 50th anniversary of the all-
volunteer military force, and that force has never been more 
capable or more lethal. It has been an honor to dedicate my 
life to our ancient and noble profession.
    For the past 3 years, I have had the additional honor of 
visiting thousands of our guardians and their families across 
the globe and hearing what is on their minds. My commitment to 
represent them could not be stronger, and I work hard to get 
truth from every level.
    Every connection in every story matters, and we do our best 
to ensure guardians know we have their backs and their service 
is important to us. Your guardians represent some of America's 
most highly technical, professionally skilled and talented 
cohorts, which makes them at times difficult to recruit and 
difficult to retain. Rest assured, we are finding them, we are 
investing in them, and they are ready. Quality of life is no 
small part of that journey.
    Because, as I mentioned, nearly 75 percent are employed in 
place, they have unique challenges to their resilience and 
quality of life. The better we understand and address these 
unique challenges, the better our hope to maximize their 
skills, talent, and experience, which is so critical to our 
mission, a mission that is growing more complex and more 
complicated by the day.
    Since I first spoke to this committee just 2 years ago, the 
number of active spacecraft and total objects we track in space 
have nearly doubled. There is no question our domain has never 
been more congested, more contested, or more competitive, and 
finding and retaining the most talented guardians possible is a 
matter of national security.
    Young Americans value their choices, and talented, capable 
young Americans have many. We continue to see leading 
indicators of propensity to serve maybe waning, and the 
recruiting and retention challenge is real even for our small 
force. We cannot ignore these indicators, and must do whatever 
we can to become an employer of choice focused on the future, 
focused on their future. Our guardians' quality of life and the 
opportunity we give their loved ones and them to have a 
healthy, purposeful, and meaningful experience while serving is 
essential. Delivering a value proposition commensurate with 
their talents and abilities is critical to our combat readiness 
and our continued ability to win.
    When talking to guardians, one of the keys to the value 
proposition is the work. They want to be on the cutting edge. 
They want to explore, analyze, and solve difficult problems. 
They value autonomy and they invite challenge. Luckily for us, 
there is no shortage of challenge. And our continual efforts as 
a Space Force to be lean and mission-focused lend themselves to 
autonomy and empowerment.
    We want to amplify their guardian spirit and allow them to 
use their exceptional talents in ways that matter to them. From 
our super coders program to our space tests and advanced 
weapons courses, we have found that guardians are happiest when 
the problems are difficult, and we trust them to find 
solutions.
    While this may be the most important, it certainly isn't 
the only part of their value proposition. They value direct 
compensation. And their talents and training are certainly 
compensated well by industry and the rest of the world. To this 
end, I look forward to helping my teammates and OSD with the 
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation kicking off now.
    Our guardians also value, in general, a quality of life 
commensurate with their hard work. The entire ecosystem must 
provide their families and them at least enough to take worry 
off the table. To that end, the leadership and support of this 
subcommittee could not be more valued or appreciated. The 
better we work together to insulate them from unnecessary 
worry, the better they can focus on the hard work they enjoy 
doing.
    Thank you in advance for continuing to help us improve 
their quality of life, the quality of housing, the quality of 
childcare, the quality of morale, including their families' 
health, including nutrition and welfare, including prevention 
of interpersonal and self-inflicted violence. It is not lost on 
any of us that we address these quality-of-life topics, and it 
is mission critical.
    Without a quality of life they value and know will always 
be there, an all-volunteer force may no longer be something we 
can safely assume. Without quality of life, the most decisive 
military advantage in history could be at risk.
    Thank you again for your leadership and your support, and 
thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Carter. I want to thank each of you for your comments 
today. And we are going to have some questions now. We are 
going to try to get through at least two rounds of questions, 
if possible. But I will start out, and then will yield to my 
counterpart, and we will go from there.
    Sergeant Major Grinston, you are about to look back on 
history and decide about our Army. What advice do you give to 
us on the support of our soldiers? How can we do it better? And 
where should we invest?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairman, thank you for the 
question. My first ask would be similar to what I said in my 
opening comments was we need each member, each American to talk 
well about your Army, to kind of advocate for us and not go off 
those myths of something you have heard in the past before. 
Just talking and saying, it is an admirable profession.
    And when we have looked and we have asked some of those on 
why they would join and why they wouldn't, they said, Well, I 
would be putting my life on hold. And I don't believe I put my 
life on hold; I think the military service has enhanced my 
life. I wouldn't have met my wife without the military. I got 
kids. They were born abroad. So I didn't think my life was on 
hold.
    But when we have asked our young men and women why they 
wouldn't serve, that was the number one reason. So I would ask 
this committee and all Americans just to say the, military, not 
just the Army is a great place to serve, but it is also a great 
place to grow.
    And as for the help, I would continue to say, please 
support those quality of life initiatives. Clearly, we need to 
invest more in our family housing and in our barracks, and that 
is why I have advocated for years now to spend at least $1 
billion, and that is in all COMPOs, not just in MILCON, but 
sustainment and restoration and modernization of our barracks.
    So continue to support family housing, but please don't 
forget about our single soldier housing too. And that is 
extremely important in the help that I would ask from this 
committee.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for your comment.
    I guess I have got--Sergeant Major Black, your testimony 
mentions the need for a national dialogue on the value of 
military service. Could you share with us what you think about 
that? Is the Marine Corps shaping this dialogue? And what is 
the role of paid benefits and quality of life issues in the 
dialogue?
    Sergeant Major Black. Chairman, sir, thank you for the 
question. Sergeant Major of the Army kind of gave a good lead-
in to your question.
    In a bigger sense, what is the Marine Corps doing to shape 
that message? Several weeks ago, the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps actually released a memo on call to service. And if I 
could translate that in my own words, because I believe the 
same obviously, the narrative of service in your military--and 
I won't speak for but I will speak of all the other services--
has diminished.
    I think unless we can talk about the positive lifestyle of 
being in the service, the Marine Corps; until we can talk about 
the positive service to your Nation, defense of our 
Constitution--and I will expand that to first responders. I 
will expand it to community service. Call to serve is not just 
for our military. It is the payback that we give to our fellow 
citizens and our Nation.
    I have often joked about military movies recently in this 
sort of thing. You can kind of get a sense of what people think 
about serving in the military by watching what popular culture 
provides to us. The best military movie recently has probably 
been Maverick. It is a flashback of the eighties.
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Sergeant Major Black. The flashback of the eighties.
    Mr. Carter. Yes, sir.
    Sergeant Major Black. And so I would offer, any dialogue we 
have on the military, it is like most things, we are not--no 
one will sit here and profess that what we represent is 
perfection, but it is as close to perfect as we have. We 
continue to strive in all things to be able to be the best 
warfighters that our Nation can provide. But if we can't 
attract a deep enough talent of pool, increase the propensity 
to serve in these uniforms, then we will see a challenge to our 
all-volunteer force.
    Last point I will make, sir, is on quality, qualifications. 
Those that meet the qualifications to enter service. Those are 
also challenged across our society. And at the end of the day, 
we are a product of our society. A desire to serve and meeting 
the qualifications to serve are the opening solve over all of 
us as services to have members come in and then serve in these 
uniforms to protect our Nation, sir.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    I will yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you all for your presentations.
    I mentioned in my opening remarks that, over the last 
several weeks, there has been a lot of reporting on 
Republicans' promises to cut discretionary spending back to 
fiscal year 2022 funding levels. And I think we all know this 
would have extremely detrimental effects on government programs 
that affect all Americans. But what I want to focus on in this 
subcommittee is what it would mean, what those cuts would mean 
for our servicemembers.
    So I would like each of the witnesses to explain how, if 
funding for MILCON projects was reduced to the fiscal year 2022 
level, it would impact the quality of life for our 
servicemembers and their families. This would be at least a $4 
billion cut from current funding levels.
    And, Chief Master Sergeant Bass, if we could start with 
you, that would be great.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely. Thank you, 
Congresswoman. You know, it almost ties into the question 
previously that Sergeant Major of the Army and Sergeant Major 
of the Marine Corps just asked. We always often talk about you 
recruit the member and you retain the family. And so any--you 
know, when it comes to being able to take care of the quality 
of service and the quality of life of our servicemembers that 
we all spoke about in our opening comments, that is a risk, and 
it forces us to have to make very tough decisions that we don't 
want to have to make as a service, right, especially when we 
have to consider that based on our pacing challenge that we 
have.
    And so big concern on where we are in the decisions that we 
have had to make, when it comes to infrastructure, we need the 
MILCON that we are supposed to have for dormitories, for 
barracks, for Child Development Centers, because those are the 
things that will help us to be able to retain the families that 
we need to continue being the warfighting organizations that we 
are. And any cut to those would, again, put your services in a 
position where they have to make those very tough decisions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Each of you--if you could also 
mention let's say that we hold you harmless from those cuts in 
MILCON, but of course, that would mean that the other programs 
that servicemembers benefit from would be disproportionately 
impacted. So how would cuts to some of those other programs 
that families rely on, SNAP benefits and other important 
programs, affect servicemembers' quality of life?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. You know, ma'am, I would offer 
that--when I talk about quality of service and quality of life, 
I feel like they are linked together completely. And so any 
change in the services that we provide our family members today 
absolutely impact our folks.
    You know, as you mentioned SNAP, I would offer to you, 
right, it--I think we all agree that we shouldn't have any 
servicemembers that qualify for SNAP.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Right. Any of those things are 
Band-Aid fixes. And we appreciate all the help that this 
committee in Congress does to that end. But I think that is why 
we continue to focus on we really need to take a holistic look 
at military pay and compensation. We need a holistic look at 
our healthcare for servicemembers and their families, to make 
sure that the decisions that we make today are helpful to the 
future that we have got to have.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Sergeant Major Grinston.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, 
thank you for the question. To answer your first question, as 
prices rise, if we were to keep a flat line of what we have 
seen in the past, that requires the Army to make those hard 
decisions. With a flat budget, we still have a requirement to 
send currently one corps, two divisions, and several brigades 
to do a rotation over to Europe. And with a flat line budget, 
we are just going to have to do more with the same money we had 
last year.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It could be a rollback, not a flat 
line. We are in fiscal year 2023.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Or even worse. So no one's asked 
us to take all those requirements and do less. So with that 
amount of funding, we have some difficult choices. Actually, 
the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff will have very 
difficult choices.
    We have to modernize the Army, and then we have to also 
take care of our people. And that is going to be extremely 
difficult choices for the Secretary and the Chief to make if we 
roll back our budget, considering all the requirements that we 
have on the military currently, right now, on all those 
soldiers and families deployed.
    And on your second question, if we hold MILCON at a rate 
and say we are just going do the military construction, and we 
said that is what we are going to really fund, that comes also 
at a risk for other areas. That billion dollars--and I will 
give you one example. The billion dollars that I talked about 
with the barracks, well, that is not just military 
construction, that is an old building that we need to 
modernize. That is a--how do we sustain it? If we hold MILCON 
at a certain level, it may come at risk to do sustainment.
    And I use the story of this is--it is like buying a new 
car. You got to really great new car. And you don't give us the 
money to change the oil, the engine is going to blow. And so 
that is what is at risk if we hold MILCON at a certain level 
and we are not allowed to sustain some of those things, like 
our barracks, our motor pools, and upgrade the motor pools. And 
that is what is at risk for the Army.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, good morning again. What you pose would leave us with 
very, very challenged resources and would lead us to very 
difficult decisions against warfighting capability versus our 
quality of life. And that would be very, very challenging for 
all of us, as you could imagine.
    As Sergeant Major of the Army described, we are trying to 
modernize a force. The world is going to get a vote, and we 
continue to deploy and have presence over the world in greater 
numbers than we have in the past. With those type of decisions, 
as much of a priority as our people are, urgency would trump 
our priorities, and it would leave us in a very, very bad place 
as far as quality of life. It is going to make a lot of 
difficult choices for us in regards to retention.
    How that would affect us in other ways outside our fence 
line besides military spending, such as you described in SNAP, 
the last quadrennial review of military pay and compensation, I 
think we were less than 2 percent of our military 
servicemembers were utilizing SNAP. I don't have an exact 
number, but looking at data of commissary usage and others, we 
are pooling five times over that amount today than we were at 
the last QRMC.
    So I can only imagine how that is just going to further 
fuel that kind of a problem with our pay and our challenging 
times of our servicemembers and their families are having to 
meet in all of those needs to give themselves a secure and 
proper place to live and raise their families.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Sergeant Major Black.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, good morning. It is good to 
see you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good to see you too.
    Sergeant Major Black. To your question, if I could just 
pull out a little bit bigger and then get to the specific 
question. First and foremost on any budget: consistent, 
predictable, and on time. I think if you look over the course 
of several years in the past, one of our biggest challenges is 
being able to program the funds that we are going to get in a 
timely fashion to then be able to spend those resources in 
order to meet the requirements that we have. So that would be 
my upfront comment writ large.
    To MILCON, as all of us have mentioned during our travels, 
we spend a lot of time invested in seeing what the quality of 
life is for our servicemembers. For myself, I was just at Camp 
Pelham here a couple weeks ago, touring barracks. Some barracks 
I am actually familiar with because I have either lived in them 
or, you know, had Marines live in them in recent years.
    I went to one building that the maintenance has been 
deferred for 12 straight years. Twelve years to defer the 
maintenance on this one building that has Marines living in it. 
Now, there is a thousand good reasons why that is. It is not 
from neglected, the resource. But 12 years ago, we are coming 
out, thinking about coming out significant combat operations. 
Readiness became the issue. The resources provided for 
readiness are competing with other priorities. We started to 
see some of these accounts being used for the readiness.
    The right decision. I would now argue that. But the fact is 
now here we are. If we cannot improve the living conditions of 
those who raised their hand that serve in our services, we are 
probably going to see a decrement in one of the foundational 
elements of the all-volunteer force.
    And just one quick last closing comment, if I could, ma'am. 
I think we are probably all familiar with the Gates Commission 
soon after, you know, the creation of the all-volunteer force. 
There were five pillars, five pillars looking into the future 
we must maintain. One, connection with the American people. 
This is our propensity conversation. Two, equitable pay in 
compensation. We have discussed that already. Quality of living 
condition. That is our barracks, our housing for families. 
Equitable medical care. We may have a conversation on that 
later. And then our retirement benefits which track well. But 
those are five pillars. They have eroded, and it is time for us 
to address them, ma'am.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    And I am sorry, and thank you for your indulgence, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so 
much for the question. You know, we, by far, the smallest part 
of this pie, but such an important piece it is as we are trying 
to grow in new services, we are trying to onboard new missions. 
And so tying us to something yesterday is really, really 
difficult for us to navigate.
    The numbers are small, but I think of the dormitory project 
that Clear Space Force Station, Alaska, which on a good day is 
an hour from Fairbanks. We need that for the new radar. We need 
that for mission capability. The CDC at Peterson, we need that 
facility built upon and grown so that we can supply childcare 
for these 24-hour missions for these people that need it.
    I think of our training pipeline where we are borrowing--I 
went down to Lackland not too long ago, and the dormitory I 
went through 32 years ago is still standing barely. They gave 
me a piece of the ceiling, and they said, here you go because 
we are going to tear it down soon. But right next door to it is 
where guardians right now--this is the space that we have found 
to do our training. And the Air Force has been fantastic to 
help us with that space. But if we can't move forward, if we 
can't get the MILCON and the things that we need, like, the 
mission is impacted, the people are impacted, the Nation's 
security is impacted.
    So we really, really need this, even though the numbers are 
small, I would suggest, at least as much as everyone else, 
because our past performance isn't what we need, right, in the 
future.
    Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you all so much.
    I yield back the time I don't have.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you to all our witnesses for testifying before the 
committee today. I know that we all share a commitment in 
supporting our servicemembers both at home and abroad.
    There is a lot of things we need to talk about, obviously, 
and we only have so much time. But in the Navy testimony, 
Master Chief Petty Officer Honea noted that demand for 
telehealth services such as a doctor or on-demand--services 
such as Doctor on Demand and TeleMed are highly requested. But 
the services still struggle with long wait times, and 
servicemembers need referrals before they can access mental 
health services. So this is a big deal.
    Master Chief Honea, your testimony noted that many sailors 
continue to struggle with the long wait times for healthcare, 
especially mental healthcare. Can you elaborate more on the 
fixes you are looking at to ensure servicemembers receive care 
in a timely manner.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman, what I was 
specifically mentioning there in my testimony was the ability 
to have telehealth for immediate access for our servicemembers 
to reach out to a mental health counselor. Currently, our 
dependents, they can use that service, call up, make an 
appointment, and get an immediate consultation and 
conversation. Our Active-Duty servicemembers cannot. They must 
go through their primary care manager or provider for a 
referral.
    So they make that first appointment, try to get it--sit 
down with their primary care provider, that will be so much 
amount of time, and then add that to the referral approval 
process. And then they can make an appointment through TeleMed 
or Doctors on Demand. And that takes away the intent of the 
program is for us to have more accessible mental healthcare 
service.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. No, I appreciate that. And obviously 
with the mental health services, that is something that we are 
noticing some problems there.
    And my next question is for Chief Master Sergeant Bass, but 
I know that any of you can probably address this one as well. 
Your testimony includes a remarkable 40 percent drop in suicide 
rate among airmen. Can you elaborate on the strategies that 
have helped the Air Force recognize and support airmen who may 
be at risk?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes, thank you for the 
question, Congressman. You know, we have, as always, been 
working really hard to really build the resiliency of our 
force, focused on mental wellness, focused on health in 
general. And so to that point, we have stood up several focus 
groups to help us identify barriers that have been in the way 
of perhaps our folks really just fortifying themselves and 
being their best. And to that end, you know, we have--I mean it 
is a multipronged approach to be able to get after some of 
those barriers. Some of them are our own policies that created 
mental health stigmas. And so we have taken a holistic look at 
what those mental health policies are.
    Recently, myself and General Brown, our Chief of Staff, 
pushed out a memorandum to all airmen talking about a spectrum 
of resilience. And that spectrum really is a continuum of how 
folks can take care of themselves, with mental health really 
being kind of on the far right part of the spectrum, because 
the reality is our Nation is short mental health providers, 
which means the Department of Defense is, which means the Air 
Force is, but what we are not short of is other supporting 
agencies, to include we are not short on leadership. And so we 
have worked really hard to build the leaders that we need to 
have the interpersonal skills to actually just be the wingmen 
that we need them to be. We are capitalizing on telehealth and 
really excited for DHA rolling that out broadly.
    Where I think that we have some work to do with respect to 
our suicide rates are with our dependents, though. And my 
concern, they are on some of our policies and, specifically 
TRICARE policies, where I think we can--we have an opportunity 
to help get after to help tackle some of those numbers, sir.
    Mr. Valadao. And not to draw too much attention on the Navy 
side, but there was a few stories over the last couple years, 
and there are some even recent stories I have been reading 
about USS George Washington. Now, that is right here nearby in 
Virginia.
    Is there anything being done to try to address this in a 
way that we can--or is there anything we should be doing or on 
our side to try to address this so we don't continue to see 
these stories with the suicides? I think there were three that 
I read about.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Sir, I would have to do a 
little bit more digging to understand about the three that you 
are speaking about specifically.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, there were three, I think, in April 
within a week, and so then there are some new articles that 
just came out over the last couple of days that highlighted 
those and pointed out that there had been some more suicides on 
some aircraft carriers or on some vessels.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Yes, sir.
    So I will start with the primary stressor that we have in 
the United States Navy is simply exhaustion. We are really 
working our force pretty hard, and we are going to continue to 
have to do so. So I need to create environments that allow for 
a little bit more positivity.
    But if there is something that I could ask from this 
committee is to look for more ways, possibly through military 
construction, that we can reduce some of those operational 
requirements of over expeditionary or float units. I can think 
of several that I could speak to you about in a different 
session rather than this open session, but if we could reduce 
the operational demand in tempo of our float units, that could 
really draw down on the exhaustion and the consistent demand we 
have for requests for forces over our float units.
    Mr. Valadao. On the facility in my district, in naval Air 
Station Lemoore, I have spent some time out there, and I know 
some of the captains out there worked really hard with 
activities to try to keep some of the younger enlisted busy, 
have some fun on the job; but also had some issues with some of 
the housing over the years; had to actually personally go out 
and spent some time with the folks who are managing the 
project, and the captain to make sure that the housing issues 
are addressed.
    And I know that this happens across many other bases in the 
country. I am, I guess, most focused on the one right there 
close to home to me.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Yes, sir.
    As me and my peers have already mentioned, you know, 
investments in our barracks and quality of life of where they 
live would be of great importance.
    Additionally, our E1 through E3, our most junior of sailors 
in the United States, they were treated a little bit 
differently than the other services when they are assigned to 
sea duty. They are not authorized by law to receive basic 
allowance for housing. So we consider shipboard living to be 
adequate quarters for them to live in.
    For a sailor that grew up living on ships, I am telling 
you, it is not a very nice place to live. And I would ask that 
we could look at that law of making those changes so that we 
could afford a greater break from their place of work to their 
place of home to give them some of that separation. I think 
that will help out tremendously as well.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz for hosting this hearing.
    And I want to send a warm welcome to all of the witnesses, 
and thank you for your service to our Nation and for your 
testimony here today.
    I want to take a special point of privilege to thank 
Sergeant Major Grinston for your service and your appearances 
over the years before this committee to enhance our 
understanding of how we can support our military families and 
our troops, and so, we appreciate that so much and wish you the 
best as you turn over a new chapter in your life.
    Let me just ask, and I will start with Sergeant Major 
Grinston and ask the others if you would comment briefly. The 
Secretary of Defense submitted a report in July to the Senate 
and House Committees on Armed Services that found that 24 
percent of Active Duty servicemembers experienced food 
insecurity in the preceding year with 14 percent reporting low 
food security and 10 percent reporting very low food securities 
defined by the USDA's parameters.
    Food insecurity is a national security concern as a need to 
support health outcomes, affect recruiting and retention of our 
military personnel; and we can all agree that the high number 
of enlisted families experiencing food insecurity may 
compromise the physical eligibility of our future recruits.
    How is the Army, and how are the other services addressing 
the issue of food insecurity among military families to ensure 
that every military family can afford to put meals on the table 
and, more importantly, ensure soldiers and their families have 
an abundant access to healthy, nutritious food?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Bishop, thank you for 
your kind words, and thank you for allowing us to be here with 
you today, and thank you for the question.
    For food insecurities, that is why most of my fellow panel 
members have a hard time with the need to do their quadrennial 
review of military compensation. Until we take a holistic look 
at our pay, we may continue to see the need for soldiers to be 
food insecure.
    But I also want to say that no soldier should ever have to 
go and skip and miss a meal. No soldier, no family should be 
food insecure in our military.
    And I do want to thank this committee and everyone for the 
basic needs allowance, allowing us to increase some of the pay 
for our servicemembers. And I know that has just recently been 
put out, and we just released the Army guidance, I think it was 
this morning or yesterday, on how to apply for the basic needs 
allowance. So I would like to thank this committee for that.
    But the other piece of that, of what we are doing 
specifically is once we do get our money, are we managing our 
money the right way?
    And we have increased our education on how we manage our 
money. We are starting at basic training all the way to the 
United States Army Sergeant Majors' Academy on how to manage 
your finances, financial classes. And every enlisted PME class 
in the United States Army, up to the Sergeant Majors' Academy, 
there will be a class on financial management. We have added 
financial counselors at most of our installations.
    So we have to review our pay and then we have got to take a 
strong initiative, which we are doing now, to look at how to 
manage the money that we do have, and that is what we are 
doing.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Any other?
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman Bishop, thank 
you for your question, sir.
    I would like to highlight a place like San Diego, 
California, where we had an increase in housing cost there 
greater than 26 percent. Our most junior servicemembers do not 
have enough money to make ends meet and to have an emergency 
savings in reserve to handle that kind of an increase while 
they waited for us to catch up with their BAH increases to 
offset those expenses. So many of them found themselves deep, 
well deep into their savings.
    And it is certainly understandable why many of them found 
themselves food insecure during those times. Again, to my point 
that I said earlier to Ranking Member's question, we have seen 
a significant uptake in the enrollment in SNAP benefits across 
the Navy during this period of time.
    And I do believe that the QRMC is definitely needed, but it 
is not going to be quick enough to the need to solve these 
problems today.
    Thank you, sir.
    Sergeant Major Black. Congressman Bishop, sir, thanks for 
the question.
    I think we will probably all have almost the same answer, 
but one piece that hasn't come out yet is inflation is real. 
Supply chain is real. And how the pay system is structured, 
there is not a buffer developed in the pay system to account 
for the immediacy of inflation increases. It just is not there.
    It tracks along with it at some percentage, but over the 
last couple of years, as we all are aware, we have all felt the 
effects, right, of the food in our home is based upon the 
inflation rate. There is no way to close that.
    So a lot of insecurity comes from competing with the 
electric bill, the insurance, the car payment, the rent, and 
food. Those basic needs, as they are, are in competition with 
each other. Those haven't tracked well, sir.
    Thank you.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congressman, if I could just 
add, you know, the numbers are really hard to track. We have 
been trying to figure this out for the past several years. Some 
of it is largely in part because, you know, you only understand 
the numbers of people who might self-identify, but there are a 
lot of folks who, perhaps, won't self-identify that they need 
assistance and help.
    And so we have really engaged our command teams, our first 
sergeants to help us ensure that we are getting a really good 
look at what is going on at the grassroots level.
    I would offer, your question, you know, how are we helping 
to get after that? So all of us I think can fully say that we 
are providing the education. Like, we are providing financial 
readiness and literacy training all the way from the day you 
enter the United States Air Force and really touch points 
throughout your career.
    We have command teams that are engaged. We are very 
appreciative of organizations, such as the Air Force Aid 
Society, that provide grants to our Airmen and their families, 
which should never happen. You know, one data point to that is, 
you know, in the past year, over 1,029 members have received 
help from the Air Force Aid Society, and over $240,000 worth of 
food help.
    So this is why we are pretty passionate about the need to 
take a holistic look at our pay and compensation.
    The supply chain is one more additive I would add. The 
complications with the supply chain are even more challenging 
as we look to take care of our servicemembers that are serving 
overseas.
    And so, those are some of the things that we, as a service, 
and as the Department of Defense have to be more responsive to 
be able to help take care of our servicemembers.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir.
    And I would just add that the Defense Commissary Agency has 
taken full advantage of the new, you know, opportunities that 
they have. The commissary continues to improve that experience.
    All the services, we are doing everything that we can. As 
said, we are teaching nutrition in tech school. We are taking 
them shopping. We are doing everything that we can. Still, 
Space Force data from the commissary, 7 percent of our E-6 and 
below are using WIC or SNAP benefits at the commissary.
    So we all look forward to the QRMC and seeing what 
solutions might be found there, and until then, we will 
continue to do everything that we can to educate and inspire 
folks to eat healthy and get them the food that they need.
    Mr. Bishop. If I can, if you will indulge me just to follow 
up on this, one of the things that is a possibility is to have 
a seamless relationship between the Department of Defense 
career services and the Department of Agriculture that 
administers the food programs. And there is some stigma 
associated with servicemembers having to go to these agencies 
and apply.
    So if that were a seamless process by which servicemembers 
could almost obviously be included in the programs at a certain 
level and be allowed to opt out if they did not want to, rather 
than having to go and apply, do you think that that would be 
helpful for the immediacy of it?
    And for those who want to or need the assistance, it would 
be built in automatically based upon the information, the 
financial information that you already have, and the 
eligibility, the categorical eligibility for servicemembers 
that fall within that category, with certain things excluded, 
are to make them more likely to be eligible. Would that be 
helpful?
    We have got legislation that has been pending to do that.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, I will kind of lead 
with this one if that is okay.
    I would say any time you have a benefit that is, you know, 
already applied, this is human nature. And I would say to your 
phone, normally you don't change the default on your phone.
    So when we looked at the blended retirement pay system to 
go ahead and put the default to 5 percent, most people don't go 
in and actually change the default. So I believe your 
initiative to automatically do something, it would be 
important.
    And just for the theory of human nature is that we don't 
like the defaults, and we would go in, and it would be 
difficult to go and, you know, I don't want to go change it, 
and I am one of those. I didn't change the default in my phone. 
So if it is automatic, I think that would be helpful to the 
servicemember.
    But number one, you know, that is why we keep going back to 
the pay is we really wouldn't want our servicemembers to be 
eligible for that kind of benefit.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    My time has more than expired.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First I would like to go back and identify with and concur 
with the comments made by my colleague from Florida, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, about the idea of cutting quality of life 
dollars out of our service military academies or freezing it.
    I can tell you I am opposed to that, and, you know, as the 
son of a chief petty officer, I can tell you that I greatly 
appreciate you that are here because I know the senior enlisted 
members and the work that you put into developing these 
soldiers and airmen and sailors and guardians, that is 
important work.
    And what I see in these MILCON dollars for quality of life, 
these are not just dollars dealing with retention. We get a 
double benefit from these dollars that we spend on quality of 
life within our military. We get retention, but we also get 
recruitment.
    I am going to tell you why. I had two older brothers that 
went into the Navy, and so, when we are looking at this from a 
family standpoint--so my question is because I haven't heard 
anybody talk about this yet, but what is your percentage of 
what in law enforcement--I went into law enforcement. They went 
into the Navy, my brothers.
    So what is the--we call it legacy members. What is the 
percentage of legacy members that are going into your 
individual branches of service? And are those numbers going up 
or down? Because I suspect that the way we have treated our 
military for the past 20-plus years, it is probably going down.
    We will start with you, Sergeant Major.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    And I just want to make sure I am clear. A legacy member, 
it is a family member or father or somebody else served in the 
military?
    Mr. Rutherford. Right. Right.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. From the Army perspective, it is 
extremely high. I don't have the exact number. It is over 80 
percent. 85, 86 percent actually have a close relative that was 
in the military.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. And that holds true. Congressman, 
that is somewhat worrisome. We need to track new members.
    Mr. Rutherford. Outside that, yes.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Outside that.
    So we don't want it to be a family business, and, you know, 
when we connect to the people, we have to reach all the people 
of America, and it has got to go outside those norms where you 
don't have a family member serving in the military.
    I am a product of that. I had no family member. Like, you 
know, they had served, maybe my grandfather, but my father 
didn't serve. Maybe it is good or not that I joined the 
military, but that is where we need to go is get those military 
men and women that haven't had the propense, meaning my father, 
my mother, my cousin, my uncle served.
    We have an extremely high amount of servicemembers, and it 
is a family business, and I think we need to reach beyond that.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, look, I would agree with that, but I 
think the way that you can reach outside is when you have a 
member who says, I think that this is a good enough calling 
that I want my son or my daughter to follow in those footsteps. 
That says something to the neighbors and others who see you 
make that commitment through your family. So I think it is a 
good thing.
    But I do believe it has got to be expanded. We are not just 
going after people within the military, but I can tell you 
this: I think if we are losing family members and they are 
choosing not to go in the military, or, you know, my father is 
telling me do not follow in my footsteps, then I think that is 
the wrong message that we want to be sending.
    So I am curious what, just quickly, what are the numbers in 
the other branches? Because I have got some other questions, 
too.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Sir, similar to the Army. 
I don't have the exact number, but the preponderance is very, 
very high, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Sergeant Major Black. Congressman, I can't provide you 
numbers, but I can provide you facts to your point. There is a 
system called JAMRS that most of our recruiting services use. 
It is an assessment of what in society and how people join. It 
is a system, and what it tells us is, I will use some of the 
Army's words, it is becoming more and more a family business.
    And it actually reflects back to one of those points I made 
about that foundation of the all-volunteer force. The 
attachment with the Nation and the military, that becomes too 
restrictive, obviously challenging to have a continually large 
propensed group of people in society to come into our ranks.
    So I can confirm you are right, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Sir, I would add, I am the 
daughter of an Army soldier, and so, our numbers, though, 
unlike the gentleman to my right, our numbers have gone down on 
military currently serving airmen that had prior military 
parents, except that we appreciate that most Army dads and 
Marine dads send their kids to join the Air Force. So we do 
appreciate that.
    But it gets back to your point----
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, my grandson is in the Army. I will 
tell you that.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. It gets back to your point that 
our Airmen and/or their family members are the best recruiters, 
and if their quality of service and their quality of life is 
not, you know, on par, they will then share those experiences.
    But we are doing a lot in the United States Air Force to 
help get our message out beyond military family members, and 
that is through schools. That is through opening up our bases 
and getting our communities back onto our bases. We are doing 
more than we can.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Congressman, it is all 
true, right. So the propensity overall is going down. We have 
got to tell a better story. We have got to make sure that we 
are taking care of folks. It is absolutely tied to recruitment, 
whether they have got firsthand experience or not.
    So every person whose experience is good and they return to 
the world, it is good for us. I think it is all true at the 
same time.
    Mr. Rutherford. I see my time has expired.
    But I think, Sergeant Major, you made the point earlier 
about, you know, we need to have this dialogue about the value 
of service, and I think that is incredibly important, but I 
think we need to be able to tell a good story.
    You know, one of you mentioned that 6 percent of our E6s 
and below are on WIC. That is, you know, not the story that we 
can go out there and dialogue about. So that is why I am so 
adamantly supportive of what my colleague, Wasserman Schultz, 
said earlier, because this is retention and recruiting.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I agree with you, this is an incredibly important 
hearing, especially when we talk about our readiness with our 
services.
    And as a proud member, representative of military families 
at Creech and Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, I might be 
outnumbered on the committee, but those servicemembers who call 
Southern Nevada home, I thank you all for being here today.
    Chief Bass, I am going to focus primarily on you. And 
access for affordable housing remains such a major stressor in 
Southern Nevada, across the country, but Nevada has seen an 
influx of people coming into our state driving up the price of 
housing. And as you know, Creech, which is home to 5,000 
servicemembers, does not have any on-base accommodations.
    Nellis, home to 11,000, does have a dorm project underway, 
but it remains 700 rooms or dorms short with a lengthy list for 
on-base options. And our junior enlisted Airmen, especially, 
are left to choose between inconvenient, expensive, and even 
unsafe options, and they are not being set up for success.
    Could you please identify some of the steps that the Air 
Force is taking to address these shortages in places like 
Nevada?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely. Thank you, 
Congresswoman, for the question.
    In fact, I was just at Nellis several weeks ago spending 
some time and remembering a time when I was an E2 in the Air 
Force, and frequented some of the locations that were outside 
of the gate there at Nellis.
    I will tell you that our command teams, especially at that 
location, are very engaged with how do we ensure that we have 
the appropriate unaccompanied housing on our installation? And 
two, what degree and prioritization do we allow our Airmen then 
to move off base? And how can we make sure that we are in 
lockstep with our housing offices who are also engaged with OSD 
to make sure that we have the appropriate BAH levels that can 
keep up with the inflation as it's gone?
    So, you know, I am really proud of the push that this team 
sitting with me has really had in sharing our concerns with OSD 
on that, and I am proud that OSD also has made some advances on 
BAH levels. Nellis, in fact, increased their BAH I think 20 
percent, you know, from last year. So that was a big win for 
our servicemembers.
    And as I mentioned, specifically for unaccompanied Airmen, 
every one of our command teams are involved in them being able 
to either stay on base or have to find safe housing somewhere 
else.
    There are, as you mentioned, some renovation projects that 
are happening at Nellis. There is also--we have a pretty strong 
dorm strategic plan, if you will, on which dorms do we need to 
fund first, and Nellis is one of them where it is up in the 
queue that we are looking at providing some dorms.
    But whether it is Nellis or whether it is Davis-Monthan or 
Langley or Offutt, we are challenged with our ability to house. 
We have a lot of excess infrastructure. It is not in the places 
that we need it, though, and so those are the decisions that 
that dorm master plan and that dorm strategic plan is getting 
after, ma'am.
    Ms. Lee. You know, recognizing the timing and that many of 
our members are traveling offsite, getting housing offsite, I 
wanted to ask what are your thoughts on extending the COLA 
allowance to more bases across the U.S., especially in places 
like Las Vegas?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely.
    You know, when I think about places like Creech, what I 
would offer, we have an opportunity and we are at some of our 
other remote locations looking at assignment incentive pays 
versus COLA. COLA is more specific to cost of living. I would 
offer that we are taking a look at some of our more remote 
locations and looking at assignment incentive pays for that 
very thing.
    And Congresswoman, if I can just add one more piece on the 
importance of the relationship with our communities, we have 
really, our command teams, at the installation levels, have 
really integrated with our community to share the needs and to 
find out how the communities can help get after that, to 
include even doing a lot of partnerships with colleges and 
universities to help house some of our folks.
    And so, I appreciate your advocacy with our communities and 
them helping us with the housing challenges.
    Ms. Lee. Do you think that assignment incentive pay would 
replace this, you know, before the junior members--Creech, 
which many of you know, is 50 miles outside of Las Vegas. So 
many of these Airmen are spending, some of them, almost a third 
of their pay on gas. Would this stipend be in place of the gas 
stipend that was eliminated in 2011, or do you plan on 
potentially replacing that?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman, we can get back 
with you on--you know, I would like to take that for the record 
to be able to provide you a better answer----
    Ms. Lee. Okay.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass [continuing]. On what it might 
look like.
    But, you know, I never want our servicemembers to be paying 
money out of their pocket to be able to travel one hour each 
way. We do have a free shuttle that takes our folks there, but 
sometimes, you know, based on work hours and how accommodating 
that might be, we have to look into something.
    So if we can get back with you, I would appreciate that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I would appreciate that. Thanks.
    I yield.
    Mr. Rutherford [presiding]. The lady yields back.
    Now Mr. Gonzales is not here.
    Ms. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank all of the servicemembers for joining 
us today.
    Let me start by talking a little bit about quality of life 
as it relates to housing. My State of Oklahoma, military 
housing has been an issue and the privatization specifically of 
such. We had serious issues, including mold, mildew, pest-
control issues, and legislation was passed to try to address 
those things.
    Chief Sergeant Bass, can you talk a little bit about the 
steps that the Air Force is taking to improve the privatized 
military housing on bases?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely. Thank you for that 
question, especially since it is kind of near and dear to me, 
since my previous assignment before I came to the Pentagon was 
at Keesler Air Force Base, where we were not short of mold and 
mildew challenges.
    And so I will tell you it really did highlight the 
opportunity that we had to provide more oversight at the 
headquarters Air Force level, but all the way down to the 
installation level and really putting that accountability for 
installation commanders to have more oversight with the project 
owners and the tenants, and to make sure that we have that.
    We also added 218 government oversight employees at our 
locations to make sure that, again, our tenants have somebody 
that is there that is providing oversight on behalf of the 
government to help really interact with that. And so, you know, 
I will say there is still work that needs to be done, but we 
have worked really hard to get after those things.
    We also have been having really meaningful discussions on 
the tenant Bill of Rights. Eight out of 10 of our owners have 
agreed to all of those, and we are still in discussions with 
the other two, and hopefully we will get there by 2025.
    Mrs. Bice. Would anyone else like to address that 
particular issue?
    Sergeant Major.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, thank you very much.
    Never want to ask for more testimonies. Just to make sure I 
am clear on what I am getting ready to say, but right before 
the pandemic hit, we really had stopped the testimony season. 
The service chiefs and the service 4s were in testimony on PPV, 
and some of the progress the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air 
Force mentioned about the Bill of Rights for the tenants, those 
were results that came out of that testimony.
    I am not sure where we are with that, but I think for the 
Marine Corps, and, again, I won't speak for everyone, but it is 
PPV. We are all kind of in the same boat here. We were 
beginning to address some of the challenges for both the 
partner and for the services to influence better living 
conditions for the servicemembers in those housing units.
    The same challenges still persist because I don't think we 
have come back at least at this level and tried to re-address, 
getting all the partners together once again, working on the 
things that we still need to complete as part of that original 
testimony, again, not asking for more sessions of testimony, 
but I think the problems are still relevant, to be quite 
frankly.
    The mold, the mildew, the maintenance contracts, the cost, 
the upkeep, the recapitalization funds, those are all still 
issues that still exist, ma'am.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that.
    Another priority that I routinely hear from Air Force 
personnel is the need for additional food service options at 
the Air Force Sustainment Center. And, actually, Sergeant Major 
Grinston, you brought this up in your testimony. Food service 
tends to be a challenge, it sounds like, across the board.
    Workers at Tinker Air Force Base number in the tens of 
thousands, and these professionals are working every day to 
ensure that our aircraft, including the B-52, KC-46, and F-35 
are in good order.
    But food options are really a huge challenge, and this 
campus, if you haven't visited it, is enormous, and it has 
become a big problem where these long shifts and there is 
limited access to food options.
    So across the board, does anyone want to talk about sort of 
what you are doing to improve the food option services on your 
bases across the country?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. I think we probably all could talk 
about this, but I would like to thank the Army Materiel Command 
for taking an initiative on how we can modernize, how we feed 
our servicemen and women, mostly our soldiers on our bases, 
because we do have joint bases. So it applies to all of us.
    So the initiative is what we are trying to do, is like a 
campus style feeding where if I am a single soldier, instead of 
you must go to the dining facility, you know, can we have other 
options? That is not a complete program, but we are looking to 
pilot that at Fort Drum, New York.
    So that if I have a meal card, and we don't know is it 
going to be a meal card or is it going to be something else? 
Preferably just your ID card, and you can go to the commissary 
and say I need this meal. It is healthy. You know, you have to 
have so many choices. You can't get all the choices in there, 
but you can get a healthy meal. And the service member wouldn't 
be charged. That would be charged to the government. And that 
would be that meal for that period of time. So if you went for 
breakfast, you would get the meal.
    So we are looking at how do we open up our entire 
installations to have all the food service options so that you 
are not limited, especially on those large bases like Fort 
Bragg and Joint Base Lewis-McChord; that you can use anything 
that is open and you can go and get those healthy foods.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. If I can speak to Tinker 
specifically, I will tell you it is a huge depot with, you 
know, tens of thousands of civilian personnel, which I am 
pretty happy to say that every one of our civilians are able to 
eat at our dining facilities. What we are hoping to do is 
establish a dining facility food 2.0 structure, but we will 
need some, I think, State help with some of those authorities 
on being able to do some of that.
    I am also aware that in 2025, I believe we are going to 
open up a second cafeteria, if you will, to help take care of 
the food piece for them. We have done a lot of work, and the 
local leadership teams have done a lot of work with AFES and 
with the commissary there to make sure that those food options 
and self-serve options at those locations at the depot are 
available.
    The local leadership team also has approved where they 
allow the mobile food services to be able to come onto the 
installations as long as you are an ID card holder and be able 
to deliver food. And, again, the community has been engaged. 
So, you know, there are food options there.
    We look forward to the cafeteria, and we look forward to 
hopefully being able to partner with the State to be able to 
get some relief on being able to have a food 2.0 transformation 
at the dining facility there.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
    And just last I would like to say I don't have time to dive 
into the childcare discussion, but it is something that I am 
very passionate about. I want to make sure that we are 
continuing to provide for our servicemembers.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter [presiding]. Mr. Gonzales.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thank you for your service to our country.
    I don't know what you did to upset the Pentagon to be the 
first ones to come before a committee ahead of some of the four 
stars and whatnot, but thank you for doing it.
    I want to thank Chief Bass. I appreciate you going out to 
Del Rio with us and visiting Laughlin Air Force Base.
    I would love to take a trip with any one of you all to any 
base that you all would like to. I know I visited Schriever in 
Colorado, a Space Force base. Clearly not in my district in 
Texas, but one of the things that we saw there was the need for 
a gym, of all things. Why? Because people were committing 
suicide at record numbers. So it is these type of things.
    I know the chairman and the ranking member, this committee 
is dedicated towards getting ahead of any problems in a 
bipartisan manner.
    So my first question is, Chief Bass, and if you can answer 
this, I get it, but once again, you know, you are the first 
ones that came up here. I am concerned about DoD's decision to 
reduce BAH to 95 percent. When I talked to soldiers, sailors, 
and airmen, and marines, BAH is what is keeping their families 
afloat; and if you take 5 percent away, that will crush folks.
    So my question is: Improving access to affordable housing 
is a top priority. I am glad to hear it is a priority of yours. 
Amid record levels of inflation, I am concerned by reports that 
military families are being forced to choose between housing 
payments and food security. In your opinion, would increasing 
BAH, Basic Allowance For Housing, to fully cover housing costs 
adequately address this problem?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congressman, thank you for that 
question. I feel like it was a two-for or maybe a four-for. 
There were four questions in there.
    What I might add is absolutely. Does BAH help support our 
servicemembers, especially when it is able to increase at the 
speed of which housing prices are 100 percent? And I will tell 
you, OSD has been responsive to being able to help do that, and 
we have to continue to be more responsive and more agile in how 
we collect that data and assess it.
    The one concern that I have, and we have shared this, and 
there was discussions on this, is every time we increase BAH, 
so do the housing prices. And so somehow miraculously, right, 
everybody across the Nation realizes that, and we start to do 
that.
    And that is why I think fundamentally, we may sound like a 
broken record. We keep saying we have got to look at military 
pay and compensation holistically as a whole because if we 
continue to go back and forth with raising BAHs to take care of 
our servicemembers so that they are not disadvantaged and then, 
you know, property owners just increase their rent, we continue 
in this cycle.
    And we have had those discussions, again, with community 
members across the Nation, and they are all great Americans, 
but that is something that I might offer I am a little 
concerned about when we say increase the BAH.
    Mr. Gonzales. Chief, I am concerned that property owners 
are raising their rents, and we are not increasing BAH. Like, 
they are going to raise their rates regardless I think, but it 
is something of concern. Everywhere I go the soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines bring up the BAH levels, and I wanted to 
make sure that that was flagged for the Department.
    My next question is for MCPON. I am very concerned. 
Actually, this committee, we have taken several trips, 
bipartisan trips to the Pacific to view various different 
things. One of them is the Red Hill. There was a recent trip 
there.
    I won't get into the details of it, but there was a report 
that came up that kind of flagged for me some of the residents 
that were moved out of Red Hill are now getting taxes. They are 
getting charged for moving, essentially. It is out of their 
control.
    I will give you one example. There was a woman named Ms. 
Alma, a Navy veteran that normally gets a tax return. All of a 
sudden got a bill to pay $6,500 in taxes. I mean, that is 
something for many of these families that is a game changer. I 
mean, you know, they are trying to make ends meet.
    So I am curious your thoughts on addressing that issue?
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman Gonzales, I 
am familiar with the issue that you bring up. I understand it. 
It was affecting some of our civilian employees, but not 
affecting our servicemembers.
    Exactly how we are addressing that, the lawyers are looking 
into that in coming up with resolution. I don't have what that 
final answer is for you today, but I will continue to stay in 
communication with your office and provide that to you, sir.
    Mr. Gonzales. Well, let's stay on top of the lawyers 
because that can take all day to get some of these things done.
    But, yes, I look forward to working with you on that. I 
have got other questions, but I am out of time.
    I will yield back.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Chairman.
    I appreciate you all being here today. Fascinating 
conversation, particularly I am interested in the dialogue 
around the call to service. I have great concerns about that. 
We face the strongest adversaries, certainly in our lifetimes, 
and we can buy all of the shiny equipment and the things we 
need to field on the battlefield, but as you all know, 
particularly, it comes back to personnel.
    We have been here before in the post-Vietnam era. We 
allowed our services to atrophy. I came in early 1980s, and 
those were great times. We talked about Maverick. I came in 
just as Top Gun was coming out, but the difference then is we 
were fighting this on all fronts. We knew we had to improve pay 
for troops. We had to improve quality of life. We had to have 
the right resources to field on the battlefield.
    So I concur with all my colleagues here that we cannot 
allow ourselves to go to a posture of making cuts to the 
defense. Not on my watch. As long as I have anything that we 
can have to say about that, we are not going to see the defense 
side slip and go backwards.
    I guess to dial in on something that we could be a little 
more specific on, with the QRMC coming up, I guess I have not 
paid attention to those since I retired about a dozen years 
ago, but my perception, when I look at pay and what folks are 
making today, because I am always curious to see, you know, how 
that looks compared to when I served, I have kind of been 
stunned at how much it seems like officers make compared to the 
times when I was serving.
    But on the flip side, I am stunned to see, my perception at 
least, of how the troops haven't kept up. I would be interested 
to know from your positions do you think that is the case? Is 
there a disparity there?
    And as we go into the QRMC, do you have the horsepower that 
you need to ensure that our troops get their fair share? 
Because just across-the-board increases, if you are starting 
from a point of deficit, that is not going to do it. So I would 
love to know what your thoughts are there.
    And Sergeant Major, if you could start.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    And all of us have talked about this before, and what we 
said, it is really just a math problem. If you start at a lower 
rate and you have a higher pay and I have a lower pay and you 
do a blanket increase of 5 percent, you make more and you are 
going to increase more over time. I mean, and that is just 
basic math.
    I mean, all you have to do is go and say, Okay, every time 
you say everybody gets the same pay raise, and if I make more, 
I am going to make more. And over time you see the disparity 
grow larger because you started at a higher rate.
    So that is why it is really important when we all keep 
going back to the QRMC and how do we address this. Are we doing 
that the right way? If everybody gets the same raise, if you 
automatically get paid more, then you are going to get paid 
more. And if you do that year after year, we have seen the gap 
grow over time.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    MCPON.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman Franklin, I 
would agree with you that over the years, we continue to have 
compensation gap grow between the officer pay tables and 
enlisted pay tables. And similarly, the responsibility gap has 
closed between what we expect out of our commissioned officers 
and our non-commissioned officers, and that should be 
addressed.
    The QRMC certainly is a place to do that. As you have heard 
from many of my peers, we certainly championed a complete 
review of our pay and compensation tables.
    I would offer this: When we do, we look to link enlisted 
pay grades to officer pay grades, so that as we raise one, the 
other one gets drug along with it, and it keeps pace and one 
won't ever grow out so far at a balance as we have allowed them 
to do over the several years.
    Whatever it is, we need to put in a system that does grow 
naturally, keep a close eye on that, and something that is a 
lot more responsive that what we currently have, sir.
    Mr. Franklin. Sergeant Major.
    Sergeant Major Black. Congressman Franklin, sir, I think 
that has been one of the themes you have had throughout this 
entire testimony so far.
    Just as an opening statement, I am not comfortable having 
the conversation about officers versus enlisted. The roles and 
responsibilities that we place upon our officers, that is not 
the conversation.
    The MCPON, however, mentioned the resonant point and that 
is the roles and responsibilities of the enlisted have 
increased. As a result of that, especially as we look not 
today, but as we look at what we are expecting our force to do 
in the future, at the pure competitive level, because we all 
understand this is our strategic advantage over our 
adversaries, missiles, ships, everybody has kind of got those, 
right? Ours is really the best, but it is the people that 
actually have to employ those systems, carry out the concepts, 
lead in combat and conflict and in crisis and in deterrence. 
That is more and more responsibility placed on the larger 
portion of the force, which is enlisted.
    The question is: Is the current pay and compensation, the 
algorithms, the system that we use equate to that role and 
responsibility that is now being placed more and more on the 
enlisted force. That is the question we are looking forward to 
when we get to the QRMC that is coming up, sir.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    Sergeant Major of the Army really shared it, which is it is 
a math problem. I would also add, if I am not mistaken, I think 
2007 was the last time we had a targeted pay increase on the 
pay scale writ large. So since that last time we had that, that 
gap, that math problem continues to expand.
    And that is where, you know, as we all are looking toward 
how do we ensure that we have a force in the future, an all-
volunteer force, the decisions that we make today really do 
matter more than anything. And I can tell that you get it. So 
thank you for that, sir.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Sir, I will just add my 
thanks for caring about this.
    Not only is that responsibility, roles and responsibilities 
growing, but so is the talent and the skills that are brought 
in. So if we are looking into the future, and if the Space 
Force, in some way, represents that future, right now 20 
percent of our enlisted force in the Space Force have 4-year 
degrees and half of them have 2-year degrees. This is all 
ranks, from E1 to me.
    So if that is what we are looking at, are our formulas are 
the way that we figured this out in the past still the relevant 
comps across America, we have got to make sure that we are 
looking at the right comparisons, that we are paying them for 
the talent that they come in, that we are valuing our enlisted 
force by the advantage that they represent and by the talent 
that they bring to us.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I agree with Master Sergeant Black that inflation is 
particularly bad on enlisted ranks, but that is what happens 
when you have a war on fossil fuels. Last time I looked, I 
think the Navy is still the number one user of fuel. Since the 
Marines got rid of the tanks, I don't think you use as much. 
And the Air Force is probably now number two.
    And as far as excessive spending, I agree, Master Chief, 
that our civilian forces are a critical part of the family. 
800,000 civilians in DoD seems to be a lot. That is twice as 
large as the United States Navy.
    But to shift, I am particularly concerned about the 
frontline. As we do a shift to the Pacific, as we seem to be 
bogged down in Eastern European theater, you have been out 
there, I assume, to the Pacific. How would you rate the 
facilities? Because both on force protection and facilities 
quality of life on the frontline, how would you rate those 
facilities, as compared to Oconus?
    Master Chief.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman Zinke, I 
thank you for your question.
    I would offer that our overseas installations are generally 
well-maintained, but we have woefully invested in our shore 
infrastructure and support across the board for too many years. 
Just as much as you have heard from my peers a little bit 
earlier, I feel strongly in their ability to be able to fight 
from and take the fight to any enemy. We will prevail. No doubt 
about that. I have a lot of confidence in that.
    But as we continue to pivot and grow in Pacific places, in 
Guam, we need to do a lot more investment holistically to be 
able to get there, sir.
    Mr. Zinke. It is easy on our frontline because we have our 
territories: Tinian, Saipan, Guam, American Samoa. It seems 
like we have forgotten our territories a little, and as we 
shift to the Pacific, it seems that we have to build.
    And you mentioned our logistics arm as we need forward 
basing to a degree in the Philippines. How would you prioritize 
the forward logistics part of expansion in the Pacific as far 
as the quality of life of sailors and making sure that affects 
their quality of life?
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Sir, as we get further 
and further out there in that forward logistics arm, the 
quality of life and the investments that are going to be 
necessary are going to be huge. In a lot of those places it is 
not existence as you get into Tinian and some of the other 
places.
    But better naval leaders or military leaders, such as U.S. 
in the Pacific Command, will probably be more apt to be able to 
answer this question more holistically than I could, sir.
    Mr. Zinke. And congratulations on the space command. You 
are different, even in uniform.
    So talking about difference in recruiting, we all share the 
same horrifying numbers, 23 percent. There are a lot of reasons 
on that. But space command, you are a little different. I look 
at the Marines. Of course, the Marines are tough. And it is the 
number of push-ups that matter to the Marines. And a P-250 pump 
is the same as it is on all our ships. But space command is a 
little different.
    As far as physical attributes, as far as quality of 
physical characteristics, it seems to me that keyboards are 
probably as important as push-ups. Are you looking at changing 
the qualification standards to look at more of, I don't want to 
say intellectuals, but more of what the demand is at the 
moment?
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Sir, thanks for the 
question. And for the record, I can still do a few push-ups.
    Mr. Zinke. I bet you can.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. So, yes, sir.
    So really what we know is what the science tells us. If you 
don't take care of your body, your mind doesn't work very well 
either. And so, we are certainly not looking at lowering 
standards to some extent where I can survive on Monsters and 
Doritos and never go to the gym and somehow bring the mental 
warrior that I need on counsel to win in space. But we probably 
don't need to do as many pull-ups as the Marine Corps.
    So what we are moving toward is a continuous fitness 
assessment that will allow guardians to show us that they are 
investing in their health on a regular basis. And then if they 
are doing that, this sort of meeting the prescription of living 
a healthy life, then a test is something that, perhaps, they 
don't have to take.
    So this is really about day-to-day making sure that my 
blood pressure is low and my body composition is correct and I 
am getting enough sleep and that I am able to bring my mind to 
bear on the hard problems that exist, and that doing push-ups 
and going for runs and all of that stuff helps me do that 
better, but that the number that I need, you know, once a year 
in order to make it happen is probably not something that we 
care as much about.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Thank you. Gentlemen and lady, thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. I don't think we are going to be able to get to 
a second round for everybody, but I want to have Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz. She has a hard stop. So I will yield to you, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    If you don't mind, I do have one question that I want to 
make sure we cover.
    You mentioned, a number of you, the disturbing vexing 
problem of sexual assaults in the military. And the annual 
report on sexual assaults in the military estimated that 8.4 
percent of Active-Duty women and 1.5 percent of Active-Duty men 
experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in 
that year, and that is a marketed 13 percent increase from 
2020. And I know you all agree that those findings are 
unacceptable.
    Further, the 2021 workplace and gender relations survey of 
military members released in September of last year provided 
prevalent estimates for cases of sexual harassment, unwanted 
sexual contact, and gender discrimination, as well as a range 
of other statistics and insights into the problem.
    And let's be clear, this is not just unwanted touching. I 
mean, there are too many cases that are much more serious than 
that.
    The survey estimates that one-third of active component 
women, 33 percent, and 16 percent of men who experienced 
unwanted sexual contact in the year prior to the survey 
reported their experience to military authorities.
    So I want to start with Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. 
Officer Honea, how have those findings of those reports 
informed your actions? And what specifically have you changed 
to address these issues?
    We talk about prevalence of sexual assaults in the 
military, harassment, unwanted contact every year, and it 
doesn't seem like any substantive change has been made. In 
fact, things are only getting worse.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, I would like to say thank you for picking me first to 
answer your final question.
    I am the newest member of this team. I have been in the 
position, on March 8th, it will be six months, but I am not new 
to the Navy, and I am not new to this issue; and I am committed 
to making sure that we have a safe and secure place for our 
servicemembers to live and to work in the execution of their 
oath of enlistment.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But how do we change the culture? I 
appreciate that----
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Ma'am, I am appalled by 
it as much as you are, and I am going to continue to try to 
find ways to solve this problem.
    Currently, what we are doing is we are implementing the 
recommendations of the Secretary of Defense independent review 
counsel. We are making those changes. We are putting in the 
prevention specialists necessary. We are going to continue to 
try and find more and more of these solutions.
    I feel confident that as I learn more and I continue to 
have your support, we are going to find out more and more of 
these answers.
    I thank you for the question. I thank you for holding me 
accountable and in bringing us to bear to solve these problems.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No disrespect but that is just an 
unsatisfying answer. I mean, you are not giving me any 
specifics. What steps are being taken?
    And I will turn to you, Master Sergeant Bass, because you 
mentioned implementation. That is great, but the Air Force 
stated it had begun implementation of all the independent 
review commission recommendations in response to last year's 
questions, for the record.
    So Chief Master Sergeant Bass, can you share what progress 
has been made towards implementation of those recommendations? 
I would just appreciate that feedback.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes, Ranking Member. Thank you 
for the question.
    You know, and I remember talking about this last year, 
right. I would offer a couple things. You know, we continue, as 
all services do, outlining to our folks that it is not okay; 
sexual harassment, contact, assault, et cetera.
    I think when it comes to the things that we have done, it 
also gets back to culture and also making sure that the 
recruits that we bring in understand this thing called core 
values, and we indoctrinate them into the culture that is 
expected of the United States Air Force. And so we start that 
at basic training.
    You know, we have rolled out a lot of things from basic 
training and now into our operational Air Force, such as Teal 
Rope Programs where we have airmen that we have developed in a 
way to be able to help assist from a prevention side, but also 
a response side if needed.
    We have provided safe-to-report policies starting at the 
Air Force Academy and beyond so that our cadets and our airmen 
feel safe to be able to report and get after things.
    We have also established no-wrong-door policies, where we 
have co-located some of our helping agencies to do that. We 
have integrated more interpersonal lessons into our PME to make 
sure that, again, we are reinforcing the behaviors that we 
think are okay.
    What I would say, if I can add one thing, though, to the 
survey that you speak about, it is not okay for one person to 
ever feel harassed, touched, or assaulted. But that particular 
survey is a bit conflicting because the data on that survey is 
based off of the number of respondents, and we have not had 
enough people to actually take the survey to me to be able to 
provide a better account for that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is disturbing, in and of 
itself.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes. That does not take away 
that, you know, one is not okay.
    So we are working really hard, again, to really hold 
ourselves accountable as a service, hold our airmen 
accountable, hold our leaders accountable, and hold each other 
accountable, and that starts with indoctrination at basic 
training on what our core values are as a service.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would just close by saying, Mr. 
Chairman, that if we are wondering why they have a recruitment 
and retention problem, this would be one of the most glaring 
examples of that reason.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Well, on that same note, let me point out 
something. The reputation of our military is basically in your 
hands and our hands, okay? We are the money folks, but you are 
the day-to-day, taking-care-of-business folks.
    And when it comes to sexual harassment, you make the news, 
but the people at Georgetown University that are sexually being 
harassed don't make the news, or at the University of Texas or 
Texas Tech. Any gatherings of people 18 to 25, there is sexual 
harassment going on in our society. It is a societal thing. 
Unfortunately, you are going to make the news. And then you 
wonder why recruitment is down.
    Ten years ago, you would say healthcare is the reason to 
join the military. And then now we hear healthcare is the 
challenge to our military. To instill the pride it takes to get 
back to what should be normal for each of you, we should, the 
American people, should be proud of every one of the services 
that we have got. But the news is going to hit you first and 
hit us first, okay? That is the way it works in this world.
    And If you think you have got a popularity problem, you 
ought to see ours, okay? We are down around 9 to 5 percent of 
people who approve of us. And that is not a joke. It is 
serious, and it is because you are in the news all the time.
    We have got to come back to being proud. I am so proud of 
our military. I can't tell you. If you want to be proud, go 
talk--I tell people go talk to an ordinary sailor, soldier, 
marine, airmen, guardian. Talk to the guys in the trenches and 
see the kind of wonderful people we are producing and that are 
serving our country right now. They are smart. They are 
physically fit. They meet a category that most of our kids 
can't meet right now.
    No matter how spoiled you were, you can't be spoiled to get 
into the military. You have got to do the job, and people don't 
understand that. So you have got a real challenge, and I think 
somehow we have got to think outside the box and come up with 
ways to make people proud again.
    One little idea I had, I don't know whether it works or 
not, waiting to see. At graduation, when kids graduate in the 
big class, the announcer will say: Here is Bob Johnson, and he 
is going to Harvard. Here is Sally Smith, and she is going to 
Yale. Here is Bob Jones, and he is graduating, but he is also 
joining the United States Army or the United States Marine 
Corps, or the Guardians or the Navy, the Air Force.
    We need to recognize that as an important thing that they 
are doing at graduation. So in Killeen and Copperas Cove, I got 
them to get a separate tassel, red, white, and blue, an 
announcement that this person is meeting that 2 percent that 
are eligible to be in our military and is joining our military 
to build the pride right there and have the other kids look 
over there and say, Hey, that is cool.
    And the ones out there that are sophomores and freshmen 
will say, It is cool to be recognized that you are going to the 
military. It is not a negative. It is a positive. I don't know 
if it will work, but that is the kind of thing we have to think 
outside the box. Get this pride back.
    And we need to face those that challenge us with the idea 
that it is our fault that we are doing something wrong. It is 
society's fault it is wrong, not us. We have got the best bunch 
of kids going into the military that go in anywhere in the 
world, and including our academies. And we have to stand up and 
fight for ourselves.
    And you are the fighters. I know you are doing it, but 
think outside the box. Come up with ways to instill pride as 
you train these people, and let's instill pride in our 
families, in our extended families, and everything else by 
recognizing certain things that people do.
    Now, that is just my speech for the day.
    But one more thing I want to ask you. As far as the 
Guardians, you have 24-hour duty. Why?
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir. Well, I needed 
my GPS to find my way to the building today, because the world 
doesn't wait for us. So if you think not just position, 
navigation, and timing or satellite-enabled weather, satellite-
enabled communications, everything that we do as a military and 
really all of modernity is enabled, frankly, by a very small 
number of people that keep all of that stuff working and 
working correctly and not colliding with anything it is not 
supposed to. Our guardians are watching at all times, and they 
literally enable our current way of life.
    Mr. Carter. And I understand that. But my question to you 
is, I hope and pray that these guys that are watching the 
airplanes are not working 24 hours a day, because I fly on 
those airplanes twice a week. And so is that too much stress on 
the guardians to be watching what is going on? It is kind of 
like being an air controller; you are watching all these things 
go on. Is that too much stress on these people?
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir. So the crews are 
working 24 hours a day. We don't have individuals that are on 
the 24-hour shift.
    Mr. Carter. Oh, okay. And the question was, yeah, they got 
24-hour daycare?
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. We are working on it.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. We have got in-home 
providers that provide to those folks that are working 
overnight shifts. We have got to expand that capability to 
allow more of them to be able to do it.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford. I will let you go, and then we 
will wait. They are through on that side.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Very quickly to follow up on the quality of life issue and 
the stories that need to be told. At the direction of Congress, 
Secretary Austin rescinded the COVID-19 vaccine mandate back in 
January. And throughout the course of the mandate, we had over 
8,000 servicemembers who were discharged solely for refusing 
the vaccine, and other unvaccinated members weren't able to be 
deployed. Now, I understand the Navy and the Marine Corps, they 
are doing deployments now--normal deployments, I think, for 
their members and no negative career impacts.
    My question is, because I have talked to many of these 
individuals back home--you know, we have in Jacksonville, 
northeast Florida, we have got a very large military 
population. And one of the things I keep hearing is, you know, 
they want to come back.
    And so can each of the branches give me an idea of what--I 
mean, look, I understand that there has got to be--if they are 
trying to come back, there has got to be a process. Is anybody 
working on that right now?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, we just published our 
COVID-19 guidance, either in the last 24 hours also.
    Mr. Rutherford. Oh, is that right?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. I think it was either 
this morning or yesterday evening. So, again, the same guidance 
would be for any servicemembers that wants to join--to rejoin 
the military in the Army, we have got a process for that. If 
you had a break in service, you said, I want to rejoin, you 
just go down and see do you meet the qualifications to rejoin 
the service. It would be no different from anyone else that had 
been discharged from the military, it would be the same 
process. And if they wanted to go back and get their records 
amended, if it was something negative in their records, there 
is actually a process that the Army's review board that goes in 
and looks at how your records were done, and you can appeal to 
that board.
    So there is a way, path to service, but it has been no 
different than any other discharge than anyone else.
    Mr. Rutherford. Is that true for all the service branches?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. I would say absolutely. It is 
truly the--perhaps only difference for this particular 
incidence--or instance is just making sure that it is quicker 
and, you know, quick, fair, and that we are able to handle 
those on a case-by-case basis. But there is a board process 
that we are doing those things.
    Sergeant Major Black. Mr. Congressman, as I was leaving 
this morning to come here for testimony, the Marine Corps 
released its message on the same, and it is exactly the same as 
the Army had proposed as well.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Honea. Congressman, it is the 
same. There is a memo that was released by the Secretary of 
Defense directing all the services to take certain actions to 
assure this, and those actions, I believe, are due sometime in 
late March. Currently, personnel readiness is, you know, 
testifying to the HASC at this moment.
    Mr. Rutherford. Very good. Well, I look forward to finding 
that information.
    Sergeant Major, you mentioned--I don't know if it was in 
your written comments or in your comments here this morning--
but the plan to reduce from 25 percent poor and failing housing 
to 10 percent over a period of time. One of the things that I 
am very concerned about in northeast Florida is lead paint and 
lead service lines.
    When they talk about that 25 percent in all the services, 
whatever your percentage is, is it--do you know what percentage 
of those might be lead-based problems?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, I do not know the 
exact what percentage of lead-based paint in the Army housing 
inventory. But to the original part of that question, you know, 
the percentage of those, and that was in the written testimony 
that it is failing. And that is why we really do need that 
adequate predictable and timely predictable funding over time 
so that we can get after that, that failing infrastructure that 
we have. We have to address this.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. If we don't have it, and we try to 
budget that year to year, that is really hard to fix all the 
housing in the Army. But if we do that, if we can have that 
predictable funding over time, we can whittle away. And again--
--
    Mr. Rutherford. And get those things out.
    Sergeant Major Grinston [continuing]. Like I said, it is 
restoration, it is modernization, and it is sustainment of 
those facilities. If we just buy it brand new, and you buy a 
new house, and you don't maintain it----
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
    Sergeant Major Grinston [continuing]. We are just going to 
see it atrophy faster over time.
    Mr. Rutherford. Cost you more.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Gonzales, you close us out.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman, for offering a second 
round.
    You know, I have been retired from the Navy 3 years now. 
And I will tell you, it is getting harder and harder to 
recognize the military. I see it changing, and it is scares me. 
It scares me we are separating each other, and we are pointing 
out what makes us different, not what makes us the same.
    During my time, it didn't matter if you were Black, White, 
who you prayed to, who you went to bed with. You were a 
soldier, sailor, airman, or marine there to support our 
country. And I am worried about the division.
    So please take the--I am counting--we are counting on y'all 
as the SELs within each organization to please push back 
against some of the things that divide us. We need to be 
united.
    You know, my oldest daughter just graduated from college. 
She is much smarter than I am, and she is looking to commission 
in the Air Force, right. So I am worried what her service is 
going to look like. I don't want it to change.
    Now, I do have some specific questions. My first question 
is for Sergeant Major Grinston. This is--and look, I spent 5 
years in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe in supporting our 
allies. I am concerned--there was a report--last month, 
Department of Defense IG published a report revealing over a 
quarter billion dollars in damages occurred by eight U.S. 
military bases for housing Afghan evacuees as part of Operation 
Allies Welcome. One of those is Fort Bliss, which is--which I 
represent, and those damages were over $103 million.
    Can you provide a timeline of when repairs to these bases 
will be completed as an exception of how the cost of these 
repairs to these facilities?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Mr. Gonzales, thank you for the 
question. I will have to take the record, because I am tracking 
that Fort Bliss submitted about $576,000 in DACA funding 
requests, and that they have obligated about $477,000 of those 
thousands to do the damage, the repairs. So there is a process 
in the DOD to request the funds that you need to get those 
bases repaired. And I am tracking just a little bit different 
number than you have. And we have met all the requirements of 
their requests. But we will take that for the record because I 
was tracking just a different number.
    Mr. Gonzales. Please do. And I have got an upcoming visit 
to Fort Bliss with the General there.
    I just want to make sure that we are taking care of the 
bases. These things don't just happen. You know, you support an 
operation; there is a cost that comes with.
    You know, the chairman and a bipartisan group, we recently 
took a trip to--Chairman Carter, we took a trip to the Pacific. 
One of those areas was Guam. Not an easy place to get to. And 
one of the things that I saw--this question is for you, 
Sergeant Major Black--was the buildup. You know, we got Marines 
from Okinawa to Guam, and we saw all these barracks, which is 
great. We saw all these different things.
    But one thing as a father of six that concerns me is these 
Child Development Centers. I know I have worked with my good 
friend, Henry Cuellar. We got a Child Development Centers in 
Randolph which is in his district, Lackland which is in my 
district. And then we pretty much adopted another district 
because Fort Sam, we made sure we took care of that as well.
    But from that standpoint, are we looking--when we build out 
in some of these areas, specifically in the Pacific, what are 
your thoughts? Are we looking at Child Development Centers?
    Sergeant Major Black. Congressman Gonzales, thank you. 
First of all, about Guam and Camp Blaz, which the commandant 
and I visited now three--three almost, I believe four times 
during our tour here in the last couple of years. And we were 
present for actually the opening of Camp Blaz here several 
weeks ago.
    As you would have recognized, you see the base being built, 
sir, so you would recognize it as we began to build barracks. 
Mixed upon of that in that phasing is going to be the housing 
that we are going to build. Part of that phasing is going to be 
a Child Development Center is going to be able to contribute to 
managing that population as well as the resources and assets 
that are outside of the base and in the open community, sir. So 
the answer to your question is yes.
    Mr. Gonzales. I just don't want it to come last. 
Oftentimes, the CDC is the last thing that we build out. And as 
a parent, it is the first thing you worry about is your kids.
    My final question is for Chief Towberman. Can't leave here 
without a question. I am really concerned about Red Hill. I 
mean it has me concerned. And in regards to that, late January, 
Maui Space Surveillance Complex in Hawaii had a devastating 
storage tank failure that led to a massive leak of diesel fuels 
in the surrounding soil. Sounded a lot familiar.
    My question is, how is the Space Force measuring the 
potential health effects this spill may have had on the local 
population, and what steps has it taken to ensure the safety of 
local reservoirs and drinking water.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir, Congressman, and 
thanks for the question. Most importantly, we are taking it 
very, very seriously. The Secretary of the Air Force went out 
there personally, working with the State of Hawaii on the 
mitigation strategies. The analysis of the damage and impact of 
over 700 gallons of fuel spilling is still being conducted. So 
as soon as that is done, we will give you all the--any details 
that you want.
    The Air Force--the Department of the Air Force already put 
out new guidance to inspect things. This was a lightning strike 
that caused it, but updated guidance on, hey, look for these 
things, inspect these things. And the Hawaiian Electric Company 
also had some damage.
    So we are working with the State of Hawaii. We are getting 
it all. Nobody cares about this more than we do. It was a 
terrible accident. Chief Bass is a resident of Hawaii. I used 
to work for the Hawaiian Audubon Society. Like, that ecosystem 
is very, very precious. So we are taking it seriously. We just 
don't have a lot of details yet from the soil analysis, et 
cetera. It is still ongoing.
    Mr. Gonzales. Please keep us posted.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chief.
    Thank you, Chairman, for a second round. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    We will call this meeting to a close. We are now adjourned. 
Thank you for your patience and staying the full time. Thank 
you. You are important to us. God bless you.

                                          Thursday, March 23, 2023.

  FISCAL YEAR 2024 REQUEST FOR ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY 
                                HOUSING

                               WITNESSES

RACHEL JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ARMY, INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND 
    ENVIRONMENT
KEVIN VEREEN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF G9, INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
    Mr. Carter. Good afternoon. Welcome. Today's hearing is on 
the Army fiscal year 2024 Budget Request for Military 
Construction and Family Housing. It is a great pleasure to be 
here today with the Honorable Rachel Jacobson, Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Installation, Energy, Environment, 
and Lieutenant General Kevin Vereen, Deputy Chief of Staff G9, 
Installation Management Command. Welcome to both of you. We are 
glad you're here.
    Had an opportunity to visit with Ms. Jacobson last week. We 
discussed the challenges and opportunities for the Army and the 
INDOPACOM as well as the importance of the childcare facilities 
for our soldiers and their families, and I look forward to 
continuing our discussion today.
    Investing in facilities and infrastructure is critical to 
supporting our soldiers and their families. These investments 
directly impact the way our soldiers train, eat, sleep, and 
take care of their families. It is important to me that we 
continue investing in infrastructure. Now I would like to 
recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her opening remarks.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 
Jacobson, I guess we are all tongue-twisted today. Secretary 
Rachel Jacobson, it is good to see you, and sorry we only had a 
chance to talk briefly by phone. General, to you as well. I am 
also looking forward to hearing the fiscal year 2024 budget and 
how it would improve the readiness of the Department of the 
Army and the condition and resilience of its infrastructure. 
What I'm hoping to hear is how the projects the Army proposes 
to fund would improve the quality of life of our servicemembers 
and their families. The budget requests a billion-and-a-half 
dollars for Army military construction, $340 million for the 
Army National Guard, $107 million for the Army Reserve. 
Congress has sent repeated messages with our funding. And yet 
all of the Army's requests this year are once again less than 
the funding that this committee provided most recently in 
fiscal year 2023. It is a step in the right direction that the 
budget requests for the Army, the Army National Guard and the 
Army Reserve. All are at least larger than the fiscal year 2023 
budget requests. And I'm pleased to see the Army requested $305 
million for family housing construction this year. That funding 
is vital to ensuring the quality of housing for our 
servicemembers and their families, which has been a major focus 
of our whole subcommittee. From mitigating the threat from 
earthquakes, providing safer housing for servicemembers and 
their families, strengthening our deterrent capabilities in the 
Pacific to cleaning up harmful substances like PFAS, there is 
much work that needs to be done in the year ahead. Military 
construction funding for the Army continues to be an important 
priority.
    Our witnesses and other Army leaders have the unenviable 
task of weighing all of the readiness and quality-of-life 
considerations during the process of selecting projects that 
the budget will prioritize. I am pleased that through community 
project funding that we have been able to ameliorate some of 
these trade-offs in our districts.
    However, for those reasons and many more, it is essential 
that we keep progressing forward and that we don't revert back 
to lower funding levels. I am sure you agree with that. I also 
would like to hear from our witnesses today how the increased 
investments this committee has already made over the last 
several years in response to the privatized housing crisis, 
PFAS remediation, and efforts to make our installations more 
resilient to climate change are being utilized.
    Now, I believe that it is important to continue these 
important and lifesaving investments. But it is even more 
important to ensure that we don't go backwards and undo the 
progress that we have made. And we have made this progress as a 
committee together. I think you will find--and lots of 
committees say this--I think you'll find that this subcommittee 
is among the, if not the most bipartisan subcommittee perhaps 
in the Congress.
    Republican leadership, though, has made public promises to 
cut back spending to 2022 levels. If they go through with these 
reckless and draconian cuts, projects which protect and improve 
the lives of our servicemembers and their families are at risk. 
The Army would need to decide between mission-critical 
requirements--I'm just stating the facts. I'm not being 
partisan--and quality-of-life investments that are so crucial 
to support the readiness of our soldiers.
    Cutting back to 2022 levels would allow minimal funding to 
provide oversight and remediate mold and lead-infested housing, 
dilapidated barracks, bring down the backlog of desperately 
needed childcare facilities or invest in much-needed laboratory 
infrastructure critical for advancement and research and 
development. How can we even begin to solve our recruitment and 
retention issues if we do not support our soldiers and their 
families?
    How can we expect our soldiers to deploy if they are 
worried about how their children will be taken care of or that 
they are living in unsafe housing conditions. I am repeating 
things that we have been told by our nation's servicemembers. I 
can't stress enough the importance of the quality-of-life 
issues surrounding our servicemembers that we are responsible 
for on this committee. While I am proud of what we have been 
able to do these last four years, we have so much more to do.
    And I know all of us here agree with that. We cannot take 
our foot off the gas now. And that is what Republican 
leadership is proposing to do. I am thrilled that, in the last 
hearing, there were members on both sides of the aisle that 
spoke up and said that that was not something that they 
supported. I hope that that lack of support continues, but it 
is important in these hearings to sound the alarm bell and 
raise the specter of the impact of cuts like those that are 
proposed by some. And I look forward to your testimonies and 
hearing your perspectives on these pressing issues that we will 
discuss today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. I guess before I really start, I 
have got a question, Ms. Jacobson. I was going to ask you a 
question. When can we expect to receive the Army's fiscal year 
2024 unfunded requirements list? I can't hear you.
    Ms. Jacobson. Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on Army's installations in 
the context of our budget request for fiscal year 2024 and to 
answer any questions you may have. I am grateful to the 
committee for its continued support and for its commitment to 
Army soldiers, families, civilians and soldiers for life.
    To realize the Army's 2030 goals, the future of 
installations must be now. Installations are at the epicenter 
of everything we do in the Army. They are aware we train, work, 
learn, and live. To strengthen Army readiness and build the 
force of the future, we must be laser-focused on providing 
state-of-the-art installations. We must keep moving forward.
    And that is what is reflected in our budget request. The 
Army's fiscal year 2024 MILCON and family housing request for 
$2.8 billion will improve installation and industrial base 
readiness as well as the quality of life for soldiers and 
families. Significantly, our budget request plus future plan 
funding increases critical investments in the Indo-Pacific 
region.
    Quality barracks and housing are essential. I am pleased to 
report that, with the help of Congress, we are continuing our 
investments in barracks with over $1 billion a year planned 
over the next decade, as evidenced by our fiscal year 2024 
budget request of over $1.5 billion to fund barracks 
improvements. We are building on congressional directives to 
deliver high-quality family housing and strengthen our 
oversight of the privatized housing providers. We are 
conducting comprehensive inspections of 100 percent of private 
housing.
    And we are conducting financial audits of the entire 
program. Most important, we are making sure residents' concerns 
are heard and responded to promptly. As for Army-owned homes, 
our fiscal year 2024 budget request includes funding to 
construct new family homes in Germany and Kwajalein. A key 
component of creating installations of the future is improving 
our infrastructure and tackling our deferred maintenance 
backlog. These challenges require strategic spending to slow 
the progress of deteriorating facilities. We are grateful to 
Congress for funding facilities, sustainment, restoration and 
modernization in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA and appropriation 
legislation.
    The FSRM funding will enable the Army to increase 
sustainment to 92 percent of our requirement for fiscal year 
2023, thereby slowing the pace of degradation. Our fiscal year 
2024 budget request of $7.1 billion in FSRM seeks to continue 
this momentum. Resilient installations foster ready soldiers, 
beginning with reliable access to energy. We have all witnessed 
threats to the electric grid, whether from cyber attacks, 
physical attacks or severe weather events.
    Installations can't afford to lose power when the 
commercial grid goes down. That is why we are developing onsite 
carbon-free power generation, battery storage in a microgrid to 
support critical missions at all Army installations. Thanks to 
congressional authorities, we are collaborating with third 
parties to guarantee energy resilience without the need for up-
front investing--investments by the Army. The Army also bears 
the responsibility for cleaning up pollution at current and 
former Army sites. We share concerns about PFAS chemicals. We 
are taking our obligations to address PFAS seriously in a 
transparent manner.
    As we invest in installations to support the Army of the 
future, we must use cutting-edge technologies, innovative 
public-private partnerships and streamline processes to 
accelerate results. Each of these investments will help us 
recruit and retain soldiers and families. And importantly, 
these investments will provide quality of life, which will pay 
dividends in immeasurable ways. Although this work will not be 
completed overnight, the future of our installations is 
happening now. Thank you for continued support of our soldiers, 
families, civilians and soldiers for life. I look forward to 
your questions.
    General Vereen. Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I want to 
thank you for allowing us to speak with you today about the 
Army's military construction budget request for fiscal year 
2024. And I want to thank you for your support to our Army and 
their families. We do believe for our Army to be ready and to 
remain ready, we must continue to invest and take care of our 
soldiers and their families. Today, I would like to highlight 
four essential quality of life areas. We have made progress 
with the help of Congress. First, in barracks, with Congress's 
support, we've increased sustainment to 92 percent. We spent 
$2.7 billion in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.
    The Army plans to invest another $11 billion in MILCON and 
SFRM for barracks between fiscal year 2024 and 2032 and $1 
billion per year over the next 10 years. With regards to family 
housing, we have invested $928 million in government-owned Army 
family housing in fiscal years 2021 through 2023. We plan to 
invest $1.6 billion in future investments across the FYDP. 
Commitments from privatized housing companies to invest $3 
billion from fiscal years 2020 through 2026.
    We have implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights for all 44 of 
our installations. We have implemented 100 percent change of 
occupancy inspections and a hundred percent insurance checks on 
the life, healthy--health and safety of our families to include 
work orders. In the areas of childcare, we want to thank you 
for funding seven new CDCs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023, 
renovating 11 CDCs in fiscal year 2023 and another 12 that are 
planned for fiscal year 2024.
    Built eight--we are building eight new CDCs and two youth 
centers, and they are planned for fiscal year 2025. We are 
hiring, and we are retaining childcare staff, which is a 
national problem, and our Army is also affected. Staffing 
shortfalls have fallen to lower than 70 percent but now we are 
at 73 percent. It is still impacting the staffing of our CDCs.
    We have increased entry-level pay and implementing 
incentives to improve recruitment and retention of child--the 
childcare staff. We expanded the family childcare homes and 
other childcare opportunities. Lastly, in the area of spouse 
employment, we want to thank you for your efforts to improve 
spouse employment to expand the scope and licensure 
reimbursement. The Army continues to seek innovative ways to 
improve our spouse career and employment opportunities through 
Army DoD programs and partnering with other federal and 
nongovernmental entities.
    Quality-of-life efforts support the readiness and retention 
of our Army. When soldiers and spouses and family members are 
satisfied with their quality of life, they are more likely to 
continue to serve. We enlist soldiers, but we retain families. 
I do look forward to your questions today. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Have our usual procedures I have shared with 
you previous hearing, and we are going forward in the first--
I'm going to ask this question, Ms. Jacobson. When will we 
receive the Army's fiscal year 2024 unfunded requirements list?
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you, Chairman Carter, for the question. 
The Army will submit and disseminate to the committee the UFPL 
as soon as it is signed in accordance with the requirements and 
the timeline directed by Congress. The UFPL includes priorities 
that are consistent with the national defense strategy but that 
are not included in the fiscal year 2024 President's budget 
request due to changing conditions and balancing Army 
requirements. These priorities then are added to the Army's 
fiscal year 2024 President's budget request and are not 
intended to replace anything in our budget submission.
    We appreciate Congress's continued support of the 
President's budget request and will be ready to discuss the 
UFPL once it is released. And I'm sure I speak for General 
Vereen. We would be happy to come back and brief--brief you 
again or visit you in your office and brief you once the UFPL 
is released.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. And I'm going to have to yield to Mr. 
Gonzales before my--and let him go forward. He has got another 
hearing to go to.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today. I want to thank you for making Kwajalein a 
priority. Many of us, including the Chairman and I, have 
visited there. Not an easy place to get to and oftentimes 
forgotten. But if we are going to--if we are going to 
strengthen the Pacific, we got to--we got to go to places just 
like that and not just talk about defending against communist 
China but actually putting our money where our mouth is. So 
thank you for that. Now let me get to the unpleasantries. And I 
will start with the general because you got the most stars in 
the room, is--and I love Fort Hood. The Chairman clearly loves 
Fort Hood. Fort Hood is critical to Texas and the United 
States.
    I am worried to death what is happening in Fort Hood. You 
know, we had Ana Ruiz, who was found dead, you know, not too 
long--week ago, something like that. And it strikes the same 
tone as Vanessa Guillen, what happened a couple years ago. And 
I understand that that investigation, per our--the initial 
investigation proved that there was no foul play. But I'm 
telling you everybody that reaches out to me says, ``What the 
hell was going on with Fort Hood?'' And what I worry is you 
have people that--general public viewing the military, viewing 
the U.S. Army in a negative light. You are doing a lot of 
wonderful things across the globe, but they are going, ``Why 
are our children dying?'' And so what I worry about is this--
like details of the investigation, being--being at the 
forefront. I'm a retired master chief. I understand a lot of 
things you don't control. But part of it is the messaging and 
to be able to go, like, no, trust us with your daughters and 
your sons, and be able to get ahead. I'm not seeing that. And I 
know--look. I get it. You are the installations guy. But it all 
ties together. And--and when I--I worry this is going to hurt 
the U.S. Army. So what--you know, if I'm the father of Ana 
Ruiz, which, oh, by the way, my oldest daughter is 22 years 
old.
    When I see this girl--she was 20. I see my daughter. And 
when my daughter asked me, ``Hey, I want to join the service,'' 
I'm going, ``Well, you ain't joining the Navy. You ain't 
joining the Army. You ain't joining the Marines. You are going 
into the Air Force.'' And so if I'm the father of Ana Ruiz, 
what do you tell her? What do you tell them? More importantly. 
Let's say that. But what about the next person? What do you 
tell them? Why are our children safe with the U.S. Army?
    General Vereen. Representative Gonzales, that's a--that's a 
great question. And so, first of all, let me start by saying I 
am a father of children who serve in the Army, United States 
Army. So I--I fully understand what you are saying. I 
understand, you know, the anxiety, I think, that exists, you 
know, especially with regards to Fort Hood. If I didn't think 
the Army was a great place to serve, I would have never had my 
children serve in the Army.
    And I currently have two that are serving. One just 
recently--recently got out, but I do have one that's stationed 
in Fort Bragg. So to answer the details of the--you know, the 
incident at Fort Hood, it is unfortunate that we have soldiers 
who are unfortunately--and somehow, their lives are ended--
ended and we are not at combat. We are not in combat.
    And that's unfortunate. And we do not like to lose any 
soldier, whether it's garrison or in combat at all. It strikes 
at the heart of, you know, our Army values totally against 
everything that we are--you know, we are--we learn and--and we 
believe. And it's--and it doesn't bode well--not only for the 
Army but for the other services. I think with regards to the 
situation at Fort Hood, the corps commander has been pretty--
he's been pretty out front, I think, with communicating with 
not only the--the residents of Fort Hood but also the families 
that--of--of the--the victims.
    I--as you know, there is a CID, criminal investigation, 
that's happening right now by the independent, you know, 
organization that controls all, you know, crime and things that 
go on in the Army. And so I don't want to get in front of the 
outcome of the investigation.
    Mr. Gonzales. I am going to stop you there. I get it. 
That's--that's what we always get. We always get, you know, 
kind of the song-and-dance. And I'm telling you, like, there is 
no one more passionate about Fort Hood than the Chairman. And, 
you know, Texas is important to me. It's important to us. I 
don't want--I'm trying to give you an opportunity to defend 
what is happening because this is serious. And we're going to 
give you everything you need for the--for the child development 
centers and the roads and all these other things.
    But if we can't tackle the perception of any installation, 
we're doomed. And so please go back. And it has to be a--there 
has to be--you got to get on the front of this. And I'm out of 
time. But I just want to--I've got all these questions. And I 
got to spend my time talking about this because I felt it was 
the most important thing to talk about. So please take that 
back.
    Yes, we will get you the resources you need. And I would 
love to visit with you offline. But this is so critical to 
the--to the overall health of the Army. And thank you, 
Chairman. I appreciate, and I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. I thank you. That's a very important question, 
and I don't know, got to have somebody that does public 
relations and does it with a heart, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you Mr. Gonzalez for raising that. I agree, it is a tragic and 
really important topic. Ms. Jacobson, the fiscal year 2024 
budget reflects the vital need for family housing 
infrastructure.
    The President requested $305 million for Army family 
housing construction, and that's nearly $136 million increase, 
or 80 percent above fiscal year 2023, which is great to see. 
The first really significant investment we've had in a while, 
so that's really promising. But can you share, how would the 
Army benefit from these extra family housing construction 
funds?
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz. 
These extra Army funds are going to be building houses in 
Germany and Kwajalein, and our housing conditions overseas is 
mostly legacy housing. It's in dire need of improvement.
    And so these funds are intended to once and for all start 
the real progress of building new construction and new homes 
and making substantial improvements on homes starting with 
Germany and Kwajalein. We understand we have a large inventory 
of our Army-owned homes, but that's specifically for Army owned 
homes, family homes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, great. Good to hear. Now 
conversely, if family housing funding levels were reduced to 
the fiscal year 2022 level, and projects like those faced cuts, 
how would that affect the quality of life for our service 
members? And if the pace--if the pace of housing improvement 
slows, what would be the follow on repercussions to retention 
and recruitment, would you say?
    Ms. Jacobson. If the pace of funding for our housing 
improvement slows or stalls, it would really reverse our road 
to recovery. We appreciate that our housing situation is in 
need of dramatic improvement, and we're trying very hard with 
the help of Congress to get that right, but if we don't have 
reliable, sustained, and frankly increased funding in future 
years, that's going to have a dramatic effect on the quality of 
life, and when soldiers and families hear that we're not going 
to continue to invest, that we're going to stop investing, they 
won't have any faith in the progress we've already made, and 
what we're asking our soldiers to do is take a leap of faith.
    Those who are still living in housing conditions that are 
not ideal, we say to them, look across the street, we've 
renovated. That's what your house will look like in a year. 
Just have some patience, but if we can't demonstrate that, then 
of course it's going to affect our recruiting.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I would imagine it would also 
affect military veterans as well.
    Ms. Jacobson. Absolutely. There's a direct correlation 
between quality of life and military--of readiness. Soldiers 
need a comfortable, safe place to live, and obviously if they 
have to worry about that, then readiness is a dramatic effect 
on readiness.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What about projects--oh, I'm sorry. 
Please.
    General Vereen. Ranking Member, I'd like to add----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sorry.
    General Vereen [continuing]. You know, our Army is built on 
our people, and you know, everything that we have, all of our 
equipment has to be manned by somebody. If we don't--if we 
can't keep our people in, then we have what would resume, or 
what would seem to be a very hollowed army, and we can't afford 
to do that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We had a hearing last year where a, 
you know, first year enlisted soldier told us that he'd 
intended to spend his career in the military, and he was having 
such a dire situation that his family was living through trying 
to get his housing issues addressed that he was ready to throw 
in the towel, and you know, that's obviously not where the--
that kind of despair and losing a potential lifer is really 
troubling.
    And what about projects beyond family housing? This 
subcommittee often funds Army military construction at higher 
levels than the budget requests as I alluded to in my remarks. 
So compared to the budget requests, can you explain what sort 
of projects would be able to move forward if we were able to 
fund the Army once again above the request level in fiscal year 
2024?
    Ms. Jacobson. There are several----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Either one of you, sorry.
    Ms. Jacobson. Oh, any number of projects. There'd be 
increased childcare centers, dining facilities, facility--
maintenance facilities would be upgraded, because it's also 
very important that soldiers work in safe conditions. Fitness 
facilities, chapels, any number of important facilities that 
form the hub of the installation.
    General Vereen. Yes, I would just also add, you know, we 
have to make sure that one, that our design work is ready. 
That's very important to us. We don't--we can't go on with 
under 35 percent, so we kind of understand how we--the rules, 
but we would be able to absolutely increase, I think in some 
areas across--the areas that the Honorable Jacobson said that 
will be able to enhance our construction efforts.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you both. My time is about to 
expire. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I've got a couple of questions. You know, 
there's new advanced manufacturing going on, and we've got some 
of it going on with the Army, new technologies such as 3D 
printing and addictive manufacturing, or performance for 
reducing construction costs, increasing the efficiency and 
resiliency of facilities.
    These technologies are very exciting, and I've visited 
several of them, and it's pretty amazing. Please tell us about 
the Army's experience at Camp Swift and Fort Bliss with 3D 
printing, if you know.
    Ms. Jacobson. We are generally aware of projects involving 
3D printing. Retired General Daly, who was the commander 
general of Army Material Command, is a big fan of 3D printing, 
and we know that there's I think one of--I think there's a 
barracks project that's made of 3D printed concrete, and I 
think that's the one at Fort Bliss. I'm not aware of the one at 
Camp Swift, but the--what we understand of the advantages is it 
can--it can accelerate very quickly the time for construction, 
and obviously that's a big concern the time it takes for 
construction of projects. So, I think it's something we should 
explore more.
    General Vereen. And Chairman, I think, you know, any time 
we can accelerate construction is a good thing for us. I think 
we have to manage both, you know, speed, but also quality, and 
I think we are looking at options to be able to accommodate 
both.
    We are somewhat aware of the 3D printing of the barracks 
facility. I think one of the National Guard units has it at 
Camp Swift, if I'm not mistaken, but we are exploring all 
options to figure out how we manage both, you know, speed and--
--
    Mr. Carter. And I may have thrown you a curve. You may not 
have had a chance to do it, but quite honestly it's amazing how 
quickly they can put up a really first class building in just--
and just do little things to dress it up, and it's really nice, 
and in no time you have a house. It's hard to believe, but you 
can actually print a house from a set of plans with concrete, 
and I really think you should look into it, because you can 
just about get concrete anywhere, and it's something to go 
about.
    You know, I heard you mention something that caught my ear. 
You were talking about putting in emergency electrical at these 
bases, non-carbon emitting, which means you're going to use 
batteries, I assume, because I don't know what else you'd use.
    Ms. Jacobson. Well, batteries would be a component of the 
many options we are looking at for basically islanding energy 
on our installations, trying to generate energy on 
installation, maybe through solar or other means, and then 
having battery storage capacity to make sure we have reliable 
energy if the grid goes down. So, yes, batteries are a 
component of those micro-grids.
    Mr. Carter. Once again, we went to Kwajalein together, and 
that's a huge array of radar out there, covers half the atoll 
almost, and now the buildings are in really bad shape, but they 
have alternative power using diesel, and they--when they had a 
storm, they kept--they kept able to operate because of the 
alternative power.
    Unless we've done something with batteries that I'm not 
sure about, if you try to go carbon free, that's going to be 
hard to figure out how to do it on some of these islands where 
you have major installations that have to move, and you don't--
because these batteries are not reliable yet, just to--it's 
just a pure question, because one thing they said was we all 
lost power except on our job, so we had to keep going to the 
job. So, I just wanted to bring that up because we can't be 
going to the point where we put ourselves at risk, especially 
if there's a war going on. That's all I have. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
welcome our witnesses. Let me get right to the point. 
Republican calls for spending cuts and capping discretionary 
spending at the fiscal year 2022 levels would appear to under-
invest in our army military construction, impacting the 
installations that our men and women in uniform rely on, and 
the quality of life for our service members and their families.
    In the fiscal year 2023 appropriations bill, this committee 
strengthened our infrastructure with strong funding to 
construct critical facilities on military installations, 
including family housing and our child development centers. To 
continue the trend, the President in his 2024 budget request 
asked for over 2.6 billion for army military construction, 
including funding for active and reserve components in family 
housing.
    He requests as what Ms. Wasserman Schultz indicated, an 80 
percent increase for army family housing construction that will 
improve housing for the troops and their families at home and 
overseas, and we've got to do more to protect and improve the 
wellness of our soldiers and their families, including 
improving our CDCs, and working through the backlog of new 
projects, providing adequate housing, preventing sexual 
assault, protecting victims, strengthening suicide prevention 
efforts, improving installation resiliency, and addressing the 
ongoing crisis of PFAS contamination at existing and closed 
facilities.
    So, I'd like to ask both of you, Secretary Jacobson and 
General Vereen, how would the proposed cap on discretionary 
spending for fiscal year 2024 impact the Army's modernization 
efforts, specifically in terms of updating aging infrastructure 
and new construction, and in terms of quality of life for the 
service members, what repercussions could arise from not 
modernizing and maintaining adequate infrastructure and 
military installations, and how might these repercussions 
affect the families of our service members.
    And how could the proposed cap on the fiscal year 2024 
discretionary spending impact the Army's ability to recruit and 
retain top talent, particularly in light of potential 
challenges to quality of life and military readiness, and given 
the growing challenges posed by adversaries, describe the 
potential consequences of not addressing the modernization of 
the infrastructure in a timely manner?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman Bishop, first of all, thank you 
for that nice visit a little while ago today. I'm going to take 
the--some part of the question, and I'm sure General Vereen 
will have more to say. This is in general terms, and obviously 
there's always nuances to budgets and how they would be applied 
and so forth, but in just broad, basic, top line terms, our 
fiscal year 2022 budget requests for military construction was 
about roughly $1.25 billion. Our fiscal year 2024 request is 
$2.2 billion.
    That would be a billion dollar reduction, and would really 
cripple the progress we've made with the help of Congress to 
address quality of life, modernization, and readiness, 
including barracks, family housing, child development centers, 
maintenance facilities, and oh so many other projects that are 
essential for the Army's readiness, and would also not address 
current conditions, such as inflation, material shortages, 
supply chain demand, increased labor costs, just simply 
changing conditions. So, we are--we're very worried if this 
kind of budget freeze came about.
    General Vereen. Congressman, I think, you know, the other 
piece to this is the impact on our Army. If we don't get this 
right, and we don't show due diligence with a budget that can 
get after construction, it gets after, you know, modernization 
and renovations, we will see our Army--our families vote with 
their feet, to include our soldiers. We can't afford that with 
the things that are going on across the world.
    We've got to have a strong Army, and we can't put our 
nation at risk, nor our allies at risk if our Army is not 
manned appropriately. These do have a direct impact on the 
readiness of our Army, and they have a direct impact on the 
retention and recruitment of our Army.
    Mr. Bishop. I think my time is about up. So, I'll yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here this afternoon. Let me log into my 
computer here for a second. I want to take a step back for just 
a minute and ask the assistant secretary. You mentioned that 
the decrease in funding from 2022 levels to 2024, a billion 
dollars, is that correct?
    Ms. Jacobson. The difference--again, a very top line 
difference between what we're asking for now in 2024 and what 
we asked for in 2022 is roughly a billion dollars for military 
construction.
    Mrs. Bice. Okay. The housing issue is incredibly important, 
and General, you mentioned the tenant's bill of rights in a 
project that, you know, you've been focused on and working on 
for quite some time that's incredibly important to our service 
members, including those in Oklahoma, as we've heard some 
challenging issues occurring. I had the chance to review the 
Army's future years defense program on Tuesday and was pleased 
to see that the project in my district that I'm familiar with 
from my time in the Oklahoma State Senate was listed in there.
    The Army National Guard Armory in Shawnee, Oklahoma, dates 
back to the early 1950s, and is in desperate need of 
replacement, and I'm glad that it is--the Army is recognizing 
the need for this new guard armory in my community, and I look 
forward to working to support this project, which is incredibly 
important to readiness and troop morale.
    The Envision facility would provide needed additional room 
for things like enhanced classroom space, equipment storage, 
and space for the Guard's motor pool, and I--while I was 
pleased to see this mil con priority on the list, my state 
adjunct general shared with me that the dollar figure on the 
2024 list matches the same dollar amount that was originally 
submitted to the state of Oklahoma, or by the state of Oklahoma 
in fiscal year 2018, and hasn't been updated to reflect the 
significant inflation in intervening years, and I suspect that 
many of our members on this committee would face similar issues 
given inflation. Is that correct?
    General Vereen. Representative, that is absolutely correct. 
We are--we do understand the cost of inflation, and the cost to 
complete. I think as we are looking at our budget, we are 
factoring in the difference between what was submitted early on 
in the PALM based on construction, and where we are today, and 
we're doing everything we can to make sure that we actually 
compensate for the cost to complete and cost of inflation.
    So, we factor in our budget, we have to. We understand that 
inflation has kind of gone up between five years ago--four or 
five years ago. And so, we'll do everything we can to make sure 
that we account for that.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. You, Under Secretary--Assistant 
Secretary, excuse me, mentioned earlier the unfunded priority 
list is sort of pending. Why was that not delivered along with 
the original numbers for the budget?
    Ms. Jacobson. I am sorry. I don't have an answer for you. I 
understand that it is going to be delivered any moment now, and 
it is going--it will reflect, as I said, those items which are 
not exactly included in the budget but reflect additional 
funding, including cost to complete on some projects, because 
those are important.
    But neither General Vereen or I have the control over its 
ultimate release, but we are told it is imminent.
    Mrs. Bice. Okay. I think that is all of the questioning I 
have for now. The other question I had I think actually Mr. 
Gonzales referenced earlier. So, Mr. Chairman, at this time I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Mrs. Lee.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Thank you, Chairman Carter. Thanks to 
our witnesses for being here. Ms. Jacobson, in Nevada and 
across the country, ensuring access to reliable childcare for 
military members has become a major challenge. And on top of 
excessive wait list times, the need for childcare during 
irregular hours, lengthy commutes to remote workplaces--Creech 
Air Force Base in southern Nevada is such an example--have 
delivered home the importance of having at-home childcare 
options.
    And as they do on Air Force bases in southern Nevada, which 
is what I have primary experience with, I know that these 
issues exist across the Army as well. And so could you please 
outline steps that the Army is taking to support military 
families and expand off-post care options and flexibilities for 
childcare fee assistance programs? I will let you go Lieutenant 
General.
    General Vereen. I will take this one. So, because childcare 
and I think CDCs are in my portfolio primarily. So, first of 
all, thank you for the question. I do--first, you know, the 
most important thing is we know that our soldiers and families, 
they have children.
    And so we are doing everything we can, one, to create 
capacity within our CDCs. We are thankful for, you know, what 
Congress has given us to be able to do some major milcon 
construction, but also do some renovations. And so we are 
looking at what we have. We are increasing our footprint. But, 
of course, it is not going to turn overnight.
    What we are doing now to mitigate the difference or the 
delta between the facilities and our ability to be able to 
accommodate the children is--we are expanding the FCC homes. 
That has been one of the things that we are doing, family 
childcare in the homes of primarily military spouses, to be 
honest with you.
    That is a win-win for us, because it not only gives 
flexible hours for childcare for--you know, for our soldiers 
who have some very odd hours that, you know, they have to work, 
and we all know that. But, also, it is a win because our 
spouses are gaining employment, and so that is good for us.
    I think the thing that we are also looking at is, how do 
we--how do we increase the employment? We are dealing with the 
same employment challenges I think that exist across the 
country. There are a shortage of folks who want--who are 
working. And what we want to do is we want to create incentives 
that are very appealing for a young spouse to want to be in the 
childcare enterprise.
    We have been able to do some significant work. I think 
anytime you go two or three percentages in a matter of months 
it is pretty significant. And so in a matter of 5 months we 
increased our percentages in our childcare by 5 percent, which 
is--which is pretty significant.
    But it is all on incentives. It is also the opportunity to 
be able to offer access to those who are not affiliated to 
military installations, just civilians, to be able to also work 
on our installations, but also afford the opportunity to be 
able to frequent our commissaries. And we are doing that in 17 
of our installations where they have access to our commissaries 
to be able to now reap some of the financial benefits of, you 
know, food and things of that nature.
    So we feel very good. We are not where we want to be, but 
we have made tremendous strides. And it is all about thinking 
outside the box and looking at new initiatives that in some 
cases may not cost a lot. But it is effective, and we are just 
trying to move the needle.
    Hopefully I answered your question.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Yeah. It is sort of--you know, you are 
solving two problems--spousal employment, which I know is such 
a challenge for many people who move around. And if there is 
things on licensing with respect to that, love to hear offline 
on that as well.
    As you are aware, there is a proposal circulating in the 
House to cut fiscal year 2024 funding levels back to 2022. And 
like many colleagues, I am deeply, deeply concerned on the 
implications of these cuts for military families and our 
readiness. Could you share how this level of cuts would affect 
childcare and CDC construction moving forward, and how would 
this affect your ability to explore new initiatives like you 
are speaking about?
    General Vereen. So I think if we--if we don't have the 
funding, then we can't hire folks. I will just be honest with 
you. We can't hire the staff that we need to operate, and we 
can't necessarily do some of the work that needs to happen with 
regards to our, you know, construction efforts as well as our 
renovation efforts.
    So it would truly impact our ability to be able to do--you 
know, to do what we need to do, I think. And, of course, when 
this--it is almost like when you have teenage kids, when--you 
know, when you are having to consider about what you do and 
what high schools you have to go to, and how do you ensure they 
are getting a quality education, it is the same with young 
kids.
    You know, our soldiers and our families want to have 
quality childcare, and they want to be able to have a safe 
environment where they can come.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Absolutely. And they deserve it, and it 
is the least we can provide for them. So thank you, and I 
yield.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk about 
construction and climate change. So I was reading that the 
Secretary of the Navy said his priority was climate change. Do 
you also hold that priority?
    Ms. Jacobson. It is among our priorities. You know, we have 
so many priorities. But readiness is our top priority, so 
nothing we do----
    Mr. Zinke. And construction. So----
    Ms. Jacobson. Sorry?
    Mr. Zinke. And construction. So my understanding, the 
average construction cost when you use sustainable and when you 
focus on those type of--whether it is solar cells, increases 
about 30 percent. Have you looked at your bill, your 
construction cost, and look what the increase is for 
sustainable in the baseline?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman Zinke, we are just now in a pilot 
project using sustainable materials with the Army Corps of 
Engineers. It will be a barracks project at Fort--Joint Base 
Lewis-McChord in Washington State. And we are literally talking 
with the Corps of Engineers right now----
    Mr. Zinke. Does your current request----
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. To understand----
    Mr. Zinke. Does your current request include those, or it 
does not include those?
    Ms. Jacobson. The barracks project for the----
    Mr. Zinke. Yes.
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. Joint Base Lewis-McChord? It 
would be subsumed in the current request. It is in the design 
phase now.
    Mr. Zinke. So it is an additional on to it?
    Ms. Jacobson. No. No. It is in the design phase right now. 
It is not--it is not ready for construction yet, but it is in 
the design phase.
    Mr. Zinke. Do you know how much those additional costs 
would be?
    Ms. Jacobson. That is one of the things we are looking at 
in this pilot program, is there additional cost, but also--but 
also----
    Mr. Zinke. I think we are looking at it, too.
    Ms. Jacobson. But there is a life cycle issue also at issue 
here, because our working assumption is that these sustainable 
building materials reduce energy costs, reduce maintenance 
costs, prolong the life of the building.
    Mr. Zinke. In some cases airflow, but we are--I am very 
interested to know what the additional cost is.
    Ms. Jacobson. Right.
    Mr. Zinke. Because you are asking for additional cost, and 
I am wondering if that cost is a result of additional design. I 
assume you have--this is not the first barracks you have 
designed.
    Ms. Jacobson. It is not the first barracks, and it is still 
under design, so I don't have specific----
    Mr. Zinke. Okay.
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. Costs at this time. But as I 
said, we look at the cost holistically----
    Mr. Zinke. Okay. Let's shift--
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. In terms of life cycle.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. To unfunded. You don't know when 
the unfunded will be presented to the committee. Did you not 
work on the budget together with the Administration before they 
submitted it?
    Ms. Jacobson. We do, and we submit our wish list for the 
unfunded list. It does belong to the Chief of Staff of the 
Army, and so our----
    Mr. Zinke. So the Administration, are they yet to approve 
it?
    Ms. Jacobson. It is not the Administration. It is Army. It 
is Army senior leadership, but all of the various Army 
components feed into that, what we all consider to be an 
unfunded priority that we would like to see on the Chairman's 
list, and it is the Chairman's prerogative.
    Mr. Zinke. I am sure this----
    Ms. Jacobson. The Chief. I should say the Chief.
    Mr. Zinke. I am sure this committee would like to see it, 
too, because we are----
    Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. The budget was already late, as you 
know----
    Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. By statute.
    Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. And then being late on the unfunded is further 
late.
    Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. Let's switch to something that really matters, 
the frontline, the Pacific. So what assets do you hold in the 
Pacific, and what are you short of? Because I understand troops 
at home, but I really understand the frontline, as we are 
edging towards a possible nuclear conflict and all that means, 
and our territories sometimes have forgotten.
    I would imagine members of the Congress and probably 
members in this room, if I were to ask what are the territories 
of the United States, many people would not realize Saipan, 
American Samoa, Palau, the Confederate States. So what is your 
footprint, and what are you doing specifically to shore up our 
logistics arm in the frontline?
    Ms. Jacobson. Want to take it?
    General Vereen. Okay. I can--I can talk some of this from--
and I can purely talk from infrastructure, because, I mean, 
that is sort of what I deal in. I know that the INDOPACOM 
region is a very challenging region for us because of just the 
distances to be able to get there. It is quite a--it is quite a 
journey.
    I think when you look at what we are trying to do from the 
Army standpoint is to ensure that the infrastructure that we 
will acquire, or we will build, in most cases gets there before 
we have to make any other decisions on--you know, on troop 
placements, you know, because of certain reasons that we 
haven't necessarily validated everything that is going to the 
INDOPACOM region, and that is--you know, I think at some point 
in time, that will be--that will be forthcoming, but there is 
no major stationing decisions that have been solidified to this 
point, other than what is currently there.
    But I do know that from an infrastructure we are working 
purely on housing. That has got to get there. That has got to 
get in place. There are some readiness requirements, for 
instance motor pools, to be able to accommodate certain 
equipment. And, of course, all of the other--the headquarters 
and things of that nature that will have to be built out.
    Our biggest mission is to get the infrastructure in place 
before we have major troop decisions and placement.
    Mr. Zinke. My understanding is that the Philippines are 
part of that infrastructure?
    General Vereen. At this point in time, the Philippines is, 
as I understand it, is not. But we are looking at the island 
chain itself, so----
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Jacobson, you spent almost a page in your 
testimony--written testimony discussing the Army's development 
of the hybrid electric tactical vehicles. Now we talked a 
little bit just now about the facilities, but I want to talk 
about specifically these tactical vehicles. And, you know, my 
concern with this green shift to electric vehicles is the large 
amount of rare earth minerals that are in short supply, and 
most of which are owned by or predominantly owned by the 
Chinese, the Chinese Communist Party.
    And so my question is, how are you leveraging the private 
sector, particularly for this battery development, which is--
looks to be quite a large capital investment? And, number two, 
how are you mitigating the challenge that this lack of rare 
earth minerals is creating for our supply chain?
    And then, third and finally, is this--in this tough budget 
environment where we are looking at high inflation, is this 
really the best time to be making this kind of investment? And 
do you believe that investing in hybrid electric vehicles at 
this time is the best investment for Army readiness and our 
ability to maintain dominance over our adversaries?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman Rutherford, thank you. That is a 
very important question. First of all, we always have to 
continue research and prototype development to look to the 
future. What we do know about fuel usage in the field is that 
it poses a lot of vulnerabilities. We saw that in Iraq, 
particularly with transporting fuel. There were a lot of 
casualties associated with that.
    We also appreciate that hybrid electric vehicles have a 
silent overwatch. They don't have a heat marker. They can 
spring faster. So what we are looking at is soldier readiness. 
It is predominantly the more advanced vehicle for soldier 
readiness.
    We are still in research stages for this. But to your point 
about critical minerals and the availability of those, so that 
we can power these vehicles and other electric equipment, 
absolutely, we agree with you. We are part of a DoD consortium 
that is looking for how we can invest in domestic supply, 
domestic production.
    And then we are partnering with industry every step of the 
way here on production of batteries and on making sure we have 
secure domestic supply and production of batteries.
    Mr. Rutherford. How are we leveraging them? Is there a 
plan? How is that happening?
    Ms. Jacobson. It is our colleagues in the acquisition, 
logistics, and technology part of the Army have numerous plans, 
numerous projects. We can get back to you with a whole list of 
ways. We are working with industry very closely.
    I mean, I will give you one example. We visited GM Defense 
in Detroit some months ago, and GM Defense and GM is building a 
$3 billion battery factory right now to make exclusively 
batteries. I might have the number a little bit wrong, but they 
are devoting a considerable amount of money, and others as 
well. So industry is on this.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Let me ask this question. I want to 
shift over to privatized military housing, because with the 
economic situation that we find ourself in, the basic allowance 
for housing, the BAH, for that privatized military housing, is 
there enough money for these private companies to meet their 
demands to repair and modify facilities as they go into 
disrepair, and that sort of thing?
    Ms. Jacobson. Well, the basic allowance for housing we 
recognized--Army recognized, and we worked with OSD, Office of 
Secretary of Defense, to increase it. So this year it has been 
increased, but we are going to continue to look at whether that 
basic allowance of housing is--the BAH is adequate as well as 
the market analysis that goes along with that. We are going 
to----
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Because here is what concerns me. You 
mentioned that there is--that you are on target to hit 89 
percent good or adequate in our Army-owned housing. So my 
question is, what is it rated right now? And how is--how is the 
economy going forward? Have you built that into the budget?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army-owned----
    Mr. Rutherford. What are they rated at now?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army-owned housing of course is mostly 
overseas, and it is Army owned. So it is a different----
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And you are on track for 89 percent 
of that to be rated good or adequate.
    Ms. Jacobson. With this new infusion of capital----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. In our budget request for 2024.
    Mr. Rutherford. So what is it rated at now?
    General Vereen. So, Congressman, it is roughly in the 80s 
currently for Army-owned housing overseas. And, again, as 
Honorable Jacobson said, we do believe that we will be able to 
reach our targets. That is housing that we own, and there is a 
significant amount of investments. I think that as we look at 
new construction, but also renovations, I think we will 
definitely be on target.
    If I could just add to your previous question about the 
road to get to where we need to be? First of all, we have Army 
Futures Command, too. I think that when it comes to research 
and development and working with companies and business, they 
have been very active on research with regards to hybrid 
vehicles.
    The thing that our Army is pretty good at I think is, you 
know, there is a very deliberate plan of how we acquire and how 
we field new equipment. So we won't go off any of the formal 
processes to be able to field new equipment to our formations. 
We acquire new equipment, we continue to operate what we have, 
but we also train our folks to ensure that they can operate the 
new vehicles.
    And the end state for fully electric vehicles, tactically, 
for the Army, the goal is to have them full fleeted by 2050. 
That is our goal.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right. With that, I see my time is out. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Guest.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To both our witnesses, thank you for being here today. Two 
questions, one district-specific, one more general in nature. 
The district-specific question is last year this very 
committee, through the House military construction and veterans 
affairs bill, it included language expressing concerns that the 
Army National Guard support facility was not keeping pace with 
the Army's effort to protect critical aircraft.
    The language urged the Army and the Army National Guard to 
prioritize these aviation support facilities to ensure 
readiness. In my home State of Mississippi, the district that I 
serve, the 185th Aviation Brigade of the Mississippi National 
Guard, is in critical need of expanding its aircraft 
maintenance hangars.
    Mr. Guest. They currently have six CH-47s there on that 
facility. And these hanger facilities would protect those 
aircraft, help with maintenance, and care for these aircraft to 
ensure mission readiness.
    For the last three years, the Adjunct General for the 
Mississippi National Guard has included the expansion of the 
aviation support services in his list or priorities, however, 
this project has not yet been included in the Army's unfunded 
priority list to Congress.
    And I know that there previously has been testimony that 
that list is currently being developed at this time. It will 
soon be turned over to Congress.
    So my question, as it relates specifically to this facility 
and really to these aviation support facilities in general, is 
what is the outlook and the strategy to ensure these support 
facilities are continuing to be prioritized?
    And the second part is what ways should Congress, what 
roles should Congress have in projects like this that are 
critically important to not only the people of my district, but 
particularly to this military facility there?
    And I'll let either one of you or both of you take the 
opportunity to answer that question.
    General Vereen. Congressman, thank you for the question. So 
I will attempt to answer and then I'll pass it to the Honorable 
Jacobson, but I think, as we look at our Army, we fully 
understand that, you know, we are a total Army.
    And so we take pride in ensuring that there is parity when 
it comes to infrastructure, especially when it concerns the 
readiness. And I say readiness outside the family and quality 
of life portfolio. Now, I am looking at the readiness to be 
able to do our operational mission.
    And so with regards to that specific facility, I will have 
to take that one for the record because I don't know where it 
is in the facility investment plan, but I do know that every 
component, the active, the Reserve, and National Guard submits 
their priorities and those are submitted for the investment 
plan.
    And so I owe that back to you. I think in this day and age, 
based on the environment that our Army is dealing in and I 
think our military, especially with things that are going 
across the world, we can't afford to lose sight of both of 
either none of our COMPOS, COMPO 1, 2, or 3, because in the 
Army, all of them are extremely important to ensuring the 
readiness and our ability to be able to fight and win our 
nation's wars.
    So I owe you for the record your facility in Mississippi.
    Mr. Guest. Well, thank you. And let me ask one of my more 
general questions to kind of follow up on what Sheriff 
Rutherford just asked a few moments ago about the importance of 
these rare earth minerals that are becoming more and more and 
increasingly in everything that we purchase, everything that we 
are doing, both for military consumption and then also for just 
general consumption.
    Had a hearing earlier today with the Secretary of Energy 
was there where she presented her budget request and though the 
overall increase in the budget was up 13 and a half percent, 
there was actually a decrease in funding that supports the 
domestic production of these crucial rare earth minerals.
    We know that we are very reliant upon the rest of the 
world, many of these produced in China and that, in many cases, 
have the ability to mine those here domestically, but we don't 
seem to have the willpower to produce those domestically.
    And so I guess my question to you very briefly, as I am 
running out of time, is how important is it that we produce 
those domestically versus being forced to rely on people, many 
of times our adversaries and nations such as China?
    So I will allow you to answer and then, Mr. Chairman, I 
will yield back.
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman, it is vitally important that we 
produce those minerals domestically, that we mine them 
domestically, that we process them domestically, that we 
manufacture them domestically for so many reasons. We can't be 
dependent on foreign sources and especially as we--the demand 
for those minerals has increased so much in every sector.
    So Army stands ready to support our efforts across DoD and 
across the government, as well as with our partners in industry 
to help make that happen.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you Secretary Jacobson and General Vereen for 
testifying today. I really appreciate your time.
    The average Army Guard and Reserve Readiness Center is 
about 46 years old and many of the facilities are in desperate 
need of upgrades or replacement to meet today's training 
requirements.
    Several facilities in my home city of California lack the 
power supply, proper power supply, network connectivity, 
infrastructure to support modern technology and equipment, and 
sometimes even things as basic as air conditioning, from what I 
have seen.
    And I am pleased to see that Army's fiscal year 2024 MILCON 
Budget Request includes $197,000,000 for eight readiness 
centers, seven for the National Guard, and one for the Army 
Reserves.
    Can you give me a quick update on the outstanding 
construction backlog to modernize the remaining updated 
readiness centers?
    Ms. Jacobson. If I may, Congressman Valadao, take that for 
the record, unless General Vereen has that number handy, but we 
would be happy to get back to you with that number.
    General Vereen. Yeah. Can we take that for the record? We 
will.
    Mr. Valadao. Yeah, that's fine. I appreciate that.
    General Vereen. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Many Guard and Reserve facilities 
are past the point of simple maintenance to bring them up to 
operational readiness standards. What authorities does the Army 
have, outside of MILCON, that could help meet Guard and Reserve 
training and readiness needs?
    General Vereen. So I, to answer that question, Congressman, 
the thing that we really focus on is sustainment dollars. I 
mean, that is how we get after, you know, increasing longevity 
of our infrastructure.
    I think as we, you know, as we look at budgeting, the one 
thing that we want to make sure is that we have enough 
sustainment dollars each year to be able to do the necessary 
work in order to keep facilities a little longer than life 
expectancy.
    We are, I think, when you look across all of our 
components, both the active, the Reserve, and National Guard, 
we do have aging infrastructure and we are all just trying to 
ensure that we increase enough sustainment to be able to extend 
the life expectancy of a infrastructure.
    For instance, the active component and it is the same 
situation, 50 years old. Most of our facilities are over 50 
years old. So we are leveraging sustainment dollars to ensure 
that we can do that.
    And I think the Reserve and the National Guard, we want 
them to do the same and that is what we are trying to work 
through.
    Mr. Valadao. All right.
    General Vereen. Yes.
    Mr. Valadao. Last year's NDAA included an increase for 
unspecified minor military construction projects. Has the Army 
capitalized on this policy change?
    General Vereen. Yes, we have. We understand the increase 
for UMMCA projects and we are capitalizing on them as well. 
Yes.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And then, yeah, a little quicker 
than I expected.
    So Guard and Reserve facilities are obviously the face of 
the Army in many of our communities. It is incredibly important 
to me that these facilities are properly funded and equipped so 
that our Guard and Reserve units can continue to support our 
nation's needs.
    And as at least some of the facilities I have toured 
myself, I know that there was some pretty desperate situations 
there and I now imagine it is probably a little bit more 
difficult to recruit when facilities are in that type of 
condition?
    General Vereen. Absolutely. It is important to us. It goes 
back to this recruiting piece. In order for us to be the Army 
that people want to be a part of, we want to make sure that not 
only our individuals are taken care of, but our facilities look 
first class.
    And it costs do that, but we are committed to trying to do 
that in order to ensure that our Army is the Army that people 
want to be a part of.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And I look forward to getting that 
answer from you for the record and that I yield back a little 
quicker than I thought. So thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. We will have a short second round and I will 
start off.
    Okay. First question, Fort Hood is just about to change its 
name to Fort Cavazos, which is fine with me I don't care. Well, 
I do, but there is nothing I can do about it. But how much will 
it cost to change the names throughout the installations?
    Have you got an estimate for the cost of changing names 
throughout the installations?
    General Vereen. Chairman Carter, we do. We understand so as 
you well know, we have nine installations that we are changing 
the names. And yes, it comes at a cost.
    OSD gave us, initially, $1,000,000 across for the Army to 
be able to do this. Of course that is not anywhere close to 
what we need. We estimate that it is going to take another 
$38,000,000 to do this.
    That not only encompasses the access control points that 
have the signs that show the new name or the old name as we 
change them out, but it is all the other things you don't think 
about.
    It is street names. It is any of the other facilities that 
are on the installations that we are going to rename, but it is 
also it is the technology. It is the facing paging, it is the 
things that tie us to the global apps for across the country.
    So there is a lot of cost. There is smaller signs, there is 
all the things that we have to consider. So when you look at 
the holistic cost of what it is going to take, it is about 
another $38,000,000.
    I do, fortunately, the Army is, we are trying to solve the 
funding piece and we are trying to solve it internally. And so 
we are committed to doing that and we understand that that is 
what we are going to do, but it comes at a cost and that is 
about $38,000,000 more dollars.
    Mr. Carter. Yeah. Are you going to make garrison 
responsible for the cost and then pay them back or what are you 
going to do? Because they don't have that kind of money.
    General Vereen. They don't. So this will be a department 
cost. We are not asking for the installations to cash flow a 
significant amounts of money, but we are going to take it as 
far as the department.
    Mr. Carter. How is the Army working with its sister 
services on Guam? I was in Guam and there is just more stuff 
going on in Guam then you can imagine. $650,000,000 in projects 
is planned for Guam in 2026 or by 2026, and it is strongly 
believe that the Army's role in the Pacific and in the region 
is very important.
    What are the challenges that need to be addressed and how 
is the Army working with its sister services INDO PACOM to 
ensure the right projects are in the right places at the right 
time?
    How is the Army engaging the commander of Joint Region 
Marianas and would advanced manufacturing or some other things 
like that be useful in Guam in that region? Lots of questions 
there.
    Ms. Jacobson. And if it is okay with you, Chairman Carter, 
General Vereen and I will split up the answers as best we can.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    Ms. Jacobson. Pulling back a bit, the INDO Pacific is 
obviously top priority for the Army and across the departments 
and it is very much a joint force approach. For Army we are--
our fiscal year 2024 to 2028 future years defense plan, the 
FYDP contains about $2,000,000,000 in military construction 
across the region.
    And that figure will probably change and increase as future 
stationing decisions are made. Right now they are still being 
discussed. So those are in planning stages. What we stand ready 
to support is when those decisions are made.
    And the planning is in coordination with Joint Regions 
Marianas staff and will determine what will be the facility 
requirements to support that growth, especially if it includes 
dependents.
    We are also looking at the Visas issues. The H2B Visa 
construction materials, environmental issues, so many 
extraordinarily complex issues to address these MILCON 
challenges in these places, but we are working closely with 
Joint Force and we stand ready to support.
    General Vereen. Yes, Chairman, as you all know, you have 
been there. It is very, you know, the distance factor is always 
consideration and we are definitely concerned about capacity.
    When I say the capacity to be able to do the construction, 
do the things that we need to do as an Army, that is going to 
be a consideration. And I think the last thing I just want to 
just add is, we have got to be very cognizant of how much work 
we are able to get done, you know, at a quick, very short 
period of time and not to overwhelm the island.
    I mean, you can't hold but so much. We are very concerned 
about that. There is some power issues that I think we are also 
concerned about. Any time you add additional capability and 
technology, you have got to be very careful about the power 
grid.
    And so we are just having a deliberate process. We are 
working through the other services. This is a joint effort and 
I think we will be able to have some very good solutions going 
forward.
    We understand that this is not going to be an easy task, 
but we have to ensure that we know that this strategic location 
is going to be something that is good for our military.
    Mr. Carter. Well, one of the things that I--you know, we 
started talking about the Marines making a move quite a while 
back and they still have not been able to make the complete 
move with lots of issues, you have name some of them, you have 
name some of them.
    I am not going to get into that. We could go all day, but 
the people that live there also realize that as you build up 
the military, they have to also build up their island. And so 
it is a real challenge.
    They are all in. I mean, the civilian people there are all 
in, from what they said to me, the question is can we get it 
all done with the labor issues and the other issues that they 
have?
    Right now they have 100 percent of people working that can 
work. And so they have got real issues there. I will bring that 
up, I am not going to go into the detail, but if I can help, I 
used to be chairman of Homeland and maybe I can get something 
done on those Visas, but maybe not.
    Ms. Lee?
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. All right. Thank you. I wanted to 
follow up on the line of questioning from Congressman Zinke. 
The Army's fiscal year 2020 to 2024 future defense plan 
contains over $2,000,000,000 in military construction 
investments in the Pacific under INDO PACOM at installations 
across Guam, Japan, Hawaii, Kwajalein, and Alaska.
    Our readiness, I think we can all agree, in the Pacific is 
a top concern for everyone. And I would be interested to learn 
how you believe the reduction in the spending level to 2022 
levels would impact the Army's readiness and ability to meet 
the mission demands in the Pacific?
    Ms. Jacobson. I will start and then, of course, turn it 
over to General Vereen.
    We will just take Hawaii, just as an example. Stateside, 
essentially. Although in the Pacific and remote and we are 
right now undergoing a thorough review of our infrastructure 
needs in Hawaii and they are massive, and they are expensive, 
and they are essentially important.
    We are talking about water, we are talking about 
electricity, and they are very intertwined, by the way, with 
the community. So even though, you know, they might be Army 
water facilities or Navy facilities, they are very intertwined 
with the community and many of their marina failing condition.
    So just looking basic at Hawaii infrastructure for 
utilities, if we don't have the investments we need for that 
infrastructure and that would compromise our readiness in 
Hawaii, that would have devastating effects.
    General Vereen. I don't think I can add much more. I think 
Honorable Jacobson said it all. I mean, it is--it will have 
devastating effects, especially when we look at the strategic 
locations of and the positioning of those islands and what it 
does for our military.
    I mean, it would have strategic implications.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Yeah. Absolutely. I think it is safe to 
say, going back to 2022 spending levels would have a 
devastating impact on our readiness in that region.
    I am just going to go back to quality of life concerns, 
again, taking mental health is an issue that is continually 
raised to me when it comes to readiness of our troops. And I 
have heard regularly at our installations in Southern Nevada 
Creech and Nellis, that the military has really struggled with 
providing mental health care in a timely manner.
    Can you speak to what the Army is doing to take care of 
mental health needs, take care of our soldiers and their mental 
health needs?
    General Vereen. Well, I can speak to one major effort that 
we are trying to do. And I think we are making full strides to 
do this, but there is a move afoot for the Army to have 100 
percent of mental health screenings for all of our soldiers.
    And I think that is a good thing and I think great thinking 
from our Sergeant Major of the Army, this is something that the 
Army is going to be committed to. I think this is going to be 
great for our Army and it really--it is really what we want to 
do is to ensure that we--how do we destigmatize, you know, when 
our soldiers, to include at every rank. It doesn't necessarily 
have to be our younger soldiers, need to seek mental health?
    And I think the thing that we want to make sure across the 
Army is that it is acceptable to do that. It is just making us 
better performers at our job. And so there is a move to do 100 
percent wellness, we call it wellness, wellness checks for all 
of our soldiers.
    And that includes both the physical, but also the mental 
health and so we are excited about that program.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Yeah, I am excited about that. I had 
the opportunity to visit Creech Air Force Base and, as you 
know, many of those men and women are dealing with remote 
warfare and they have a great model where they embed a 
counselor into the team. It is part of the daily schedule.
    And so I like where you are moving. Can you just expand on 
the 2024 budget and how that translates to what you are trying 
to accomplish? Is it--is there enough to be able to do that?
    General Vereen. I can--we can safely do it with the budget 
that we currently have. I can't say for sure; I think this is 
one that we will have to consult back with our Surgeon General 
of the Army, but that may be one we take for the record and 
just ensure that we answer your question and answer it fairly.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Yeah, and I think it is safe to say 
that going back to 2022 levels would have a negative impact on 
your ability to do that.
    With that, I am over my time and I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Well, we are out of questions and we thank you 
for being here. What some people want to do is not what we 
necessarily are going to do. We are going to make decisions as 
to how we spend our money and the rest of that is politics.
    So I personally think we will be this plus--this bill will 
probably be plussed up a little bit in quite a few areas, I 
certainly hope so, anyway.
    And thank you for your information you have given us, it 
helps us to do our job and we hope to be first out of the--
first one out of the box and we always have been so far and we 
plan to do it again.
    So thank you very much.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    General Vereen. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. The hearing stands adjourned.

                                         Wednesday, March 29, 2023.

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                                WITNESS

HON. DENIS McDONOUGH, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    Mr. Carter. All right. We will get started. Good morning.
    Today is National Vietnam Veterans Day. Fifty years ago 
today, the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, disbanded 
and combat troops departed. The last of the acknowledged 
prisoners of war in Hanoi also were released.
    It is fitting that we are holding a hearing on the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' budget request for the fiscal 
year 2024. More than any other Federal department, the VA 
recognizes, supports, cares for, and lays to rest our Nation's 
veterans.
    We appreciate our Vietnam veterans. We are--at least, I 
personally am very sorry for the way they were treated when 
they came home, and the VA's efforts to honor their service is 
very important to me.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. 
We appreciate your leadership and the Department's effort to 
support veterans.
    I have three comments about the budget request.
    The first comment is, Congress has always prioritized 
veterans and will continue to do so. I anticipate we will fully 
fund veterans' healthcare and other programs for fiscal year 
2024.
    Second, VA's $20.3 billion request for the Toxic Exposures 
Fund is not credible. It is contrary to VA's promises during 
the consideration of the PACT Act. It shifts more than $14 
billion from discretionary to mandatory spending, and this is 
not okay. The administration is using veterans to increase 
spending not related to defense or veterans' programs despite 
all of our serious problems with spending, inflation, and 
national debt. So we all want to care for veterans exposed to 
environmental toxins, but let's be honest about it and its cost 
and its approach--and be transparent in that approach.
    Third, this committee continues to support interoperable 
VA-DOD electronic health records. To achieve this, the VA must 
make the new system work for providers and veterans. This 
includes holding Oracle Cerner to its commitments.
    Before I close, I want to thank the VA Congressional 
Fellowship Program. I am honored to host fellows from the VA, 
and I want to highlight the great work of Jasmine Negron this 
year. Like all the fellows who preceded her, she has a 
tremendous work ethic and a ``can do'' spirit and provides 
valuable insight into veterans and the unique needs of 
veterans. In the few months she has been here, she has become a 
critical member of my team.
    Secretary McDonough. We need her back.
    Mr. Carter. No, you can't have her. Not until your time is 
up, anyway.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
    I recognize my ranking member, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who 
is a good partner in this job.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. I am glad to have her.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Secretary McDonough. Good to see you again. We 
appreciate you hosting us the other day.
    I am sorry you couldn't make it, but, you know, I stood in 
for you and told them everything that needs to happen and that 
you were right there with me.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Okay. Wait, are you talking about the 
breakfast?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. Well, let me apologize about that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, no.
    Mr. Carter. I had surgery 2 days ago on my head. And I 
thought it was a minor surgery, but I was under somewhere for 4 
hours.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oy.
    Mr. Carter. And so I just couldn't--I needed to rest.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah.
    Secretary McDonough. I don't blame you one bit.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. I was not raising that--
I was just teasing you and not raising that for any other 
reason.
    Mr. Carter. Oh, I know that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I am also pleased to welcome you 
back, Mr. Secretary, to the MILCON-VA Subcommittee. And we are 
looking forward to hearing from you about VA's budget request, 
which totals for fiscal year 2024 $318 billion.
    Within this amount, the budget requests almost $138 billion 
for the discretionary programs of VA and $180 billion in 
mandatory funding for veterans' benefits and for the Cost of 
War Toxic Exposures Fund.
    I am pleased to see the administration using the full 
authority of the Toxic Exposures Fund in its budget request, 
and that is exactly how we intended the VA to use it.
    Very specifically, in contrast to what the chairman just 
described, $20.3 billion in mandatory funding through the Toxic 
Exposures Fund ensures our commitment to the PACT Act and to 
our veterans. The funding specifically will support claims 
processors, appeals, IT investments, critical research, and, of 
course, the healthcare costs for veterans exposed to burn pits, 
Agent Orange, and other toxic substances--the reason we created 
that fund.
    And we did agree, as did the administration, that we would 
limit what would be spent from the Toxic Exposures Fund to 
expenses related to implementing the PACT Act. So there is no 
bait-and-switch here. It is very clear and very straightforward 
and very specific and very narrow.
    Once again, your budget breaks out VA medical care as the 
third budget category. The intensity and reliance on the VA 
healthcare system, coupled with medical inflation, is 
consistently driving the ever-growing funding requirements of 
VA medical care.
    The unique nature of these programs requires VA medical 
care to be considered separately from other nondefense 
discretionary funding. That third budget category will ensure 
that funding for veterans' healthcare will always be taken care 
of so veteran healthcare is not pitted against other nondefense 
discretionary programs.
    I fully support the administration's request for a third 
budget category, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to thoughtfully consider this concept as well, 
because it is the best way to take care of our veterans.
    One of the challenges that I know you are aware that we 
have is that, you know, it is not just medical care that 
veterans access. I mean, there are all kinds of other programs 
across, you know, even elements--programs at the VA that are 
not directly related to healthcare that veterans need to be 
able to access. And we can't have the increased costs in 
discretionary chew up all of the ability for us to provide 
funding for those vital programs that veterans need.
    So, diving into the details a bit, this budget request 
continues to invest in veterans and will support high-quality 
care and high-quality facilities.
    Women veterans are the fastest-growing population, 
accounting for 30 percent of the increase in veterans served at 
the VA over the past 5 years. 627,000 women are using VA's 
services, and that number has tripled since 2001. This budget 
continues to support healthcare and programs unique to women 
and expand their access to care, and we thank you for that.
    Additionally, VA continues to prioritize access to mental 
health, including suicide prevention initiatives, as well as 
strong investments in homelessness prevention, opioid abuse 
prevention, and focusing on taking care of the whole veteran 
through the Whole Health model of care.
    I am proud of the targeted investments we have made over 
the last 4 years together to increase access to VA for all 
veterans, and this budget request continues to build on that 
progress.
    But what does concern me is Republican leadership's public 
promises to limit discretionary spending levels to fiscal year 
2022 levels. If those go through with these reckless and 
draconian cuts, the impact on our veterans will be devastating.
    VA would only be able to support 126 million outpatient 
visits at those levels, which is 13 million visits, or 9 
percent, less than VA's projections for 2024. Wait times will 
increase, and veterans won't be able to access all the care 
that they need. Telehealth services will be restricted, which 
will particularly negatively impact our rural veterans. The 
claims backlog will continue to grow, and veterans would have 
to wait even longer to receive the benefits they have earned. 
Critical research will be curtailed.
    Even if the cuts are limited and do not touch VA 
healthcare, all of the items that I just mentioned would be 
impacted. And I could go on, but suffice it to say that there 
are real-world impacts on veterans' lives when we are looking 
at underfunding VA by almost $30 billion.
    Even if there is a world where funding for veterans 
healthcare is held harmless, that would only further devastate 
the rest of the nondefense discretionary programs that veterans 
rely on outside of VA, like homelessness programs, job 
training, employment resources, transportation resources.
    This is not a game where we go through a cuts exercise, 
trying to get to some arbitrary number. This proposal to cut VA 
programs back to fiscal year 2022 levels plays politics with 
veterans' lives.
    I am glad, the other day, at our previous hearing, that 
some of my colleges on the other side of the aisle did speak up 
and say they were not supportive of those proposals. I hope 
that holds true as we move forward. And I urge my Republican 
colleges to take a step back and look at the real-world human 
impact of cutting back to fiscal year 2022 levels.
    We have a lot of ground to cover today, and I look forward 
to your testimony, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. All right.
    Listen, you submitted your written testimony. We thank you 
for that. And around 5 minutes is what we would like you to use 
or maybe closer to 4.
    Secretary McDonough. All right. Well, I will hit the target 
here.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Very good.
    Secretary McDonough. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, distinguished members of the subcommittee, including 
the new members of the committee, thank you all very much. It 
is nice to see you all.
    VA will be strengthened by this committee's work, as it 
always is. So, I attach great importance to our relationship, 
and I pledge to you, each of you, my candor and my transparency 
on these matters.
    Fifty years ago today, a Minnesotan named Master Sergeant 
Max Beilke climbed aboard a C-130 and left Vietnam, the last 
American combat trooper to leave the country.
    And his service didn't end then. After retiring from the 
Army and after having served in both Korea and Vietnam, Master 
Sergeant Beilke spent the rest of his life serving, advocating 
for fellow vets and their families. And he died serving vets, 
serving this country; he died when the plane hit the Pentagon 
on September 11.
    The last one to leave war, he was the first one to die in a 
new war, the longest in American history, which many of you had 
a personal role in.
    So, today and every day, we honor the immense service and 
sacrifice of all Vietnam vets, like Master Sergeant Beilke. And 
the privilege of caring for the brave men and women who have 
fought our Nation's wars over the past five decades, those 
standing guard today, and their families, survivors, and 
caregivers will continue for decades to come. America made them 
a promise, and it is our job to keep it.
    So we will collaborate with you as effectively as we can to 
build on what is working for vets and to fix what is not.
    Today, VA is delivering more care and more benefits to more 
veterans than at any time in our Nation's history. Vets had 
over 115 million clinical encounters in the past year, nearly 
40 million in-person VA appointments, 31 million telehealth 
appointments, and 38 million community care appointments.
    On benefits, we set a record, with over 1.7 million claims 
completed last year, and we are on pace to break that record 
this year. Since the PACT Act was signed last August, veterans 
and survivors have filed more than 1.25 million claims. That is 
a 27-percent increase on the same period last year.
    Vets deserve our very best, and with this budget we can 
count on serving them as well as they have served us.
    The budget request is at $325.1 billion, the largest 
investment in U.S. history for vets, their families, 
caregivers, and survivors.
    This year alone, it will mean 411,000 vets attending their 
first VA healthcare appointment, joining the approximately 9 
million other vets already enrolled; 308,000 vets and 56,000 
family members receiving their first earned benefits payments, 
in addition to the 7 million we currently serve; and over 
140,000 veterans and family members being interred in a 
dignified, lasting resting place.
    This budget is about more than numbers. It is about 
preventing veteran suicide, our top clinical priority, which 
gets $16.6 billion in this budget. It is about ending veteran 
homelessness, which gets $3.1 billion. It is about supporting 
healthcare for women veterans, which gets over $1.2 billion in 
this budget.
    And it is about restoring VA's severely aging 
infrastructure. At nearly $10 billion in investment, this 
budget recognizes that the traditional approach to 
infrastructure funding has fallen far short of providing 
veterans with modern environments of care.
    No investment is more critical to our success than the 
investments in the people we hire and retain at VA, so we are 
increasing hiring, quickly onboarding staff, and incentivizing 
retention.
    We hired more staff at VHA in the first quarter of this 
year than in any previous year. I am proud to report that we 
hired 2,465 registered nurses, 465 licensed practical nurses, 
and 788 nursing assistants. We have hired more people in these 
three critical occupations than at any time in the past 20 
years. Overall, we have onboarded nearly 23,000 new hires this 
year, on our way to our goal of 52,000 new VHA hires.
    VBA has been holding regional hiring fares to interview 
thousands of applicants, and we extended same-day job offers to 
nearly 1,100 attendees, putting us on track to fill all of the 
1,871 authorized PACT Act positions.
    These positions will translate into more benefits. This 
past week has set new records in delivering benefits for 
veterans. Our VBA team has completed over 8,000 claims every 
single day since March 20, far above last year's record daily 
output.
    That is a testament to our incredible VA team, the best 
workforce in the Federal Government. And we are reminded today 
that VA is among the best places to work in the Federal 
Government for the second year in a row, a fact of which I am 
quite proud.
    That workforce of which I am talking includes people like 
Navy veteran Chrisean Floyd, a corpsman who medically retired 
last year. We hired Chrisean earlier this month at the Chicago 
Regional Office hiring fare to serve vets as a veteran service 
representative, a VSR.
    Chrisean said he remembers how thorough, responsive, and 
caring his VSR was as he transitioned from the Navy and that 
he, quote, couldn't imagine a more rewarding career, serving 
his brothers and sisters in arms in a mission that is so deeply 
personal.
    That is the kind of deep devotion that characterizes VA's 
people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look very much forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    We will go by the time people arrived. And we have a lot of 
questions we need to ask.
    I will start off with asking, the fiscal year 2024 budget 
of $325.1 billion is $16.6 billion above the prior year and 
follows several years of large increases.
    This committee will provide every dollar that is needed to 
support our veterans and their families, but we also need to 
ensure that funding for veterans is not siphoned off by the 
bureaucracy and wasted by inefficiency.
    Can you discuss steps you have taken to reduce waste, 
fraud, and abuse and keep the VA accountable to veterans and 
the taxpayers?
    Secretary McDonough. That is----
    Mr. Carter. What is--let me finish.
    Secretary McDonough. Okay.
    Mr. Carter. What is the status of the Veterans Benefits 
Administration's years-long effort to automate parts of the 
claims process system?
    And, finally, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has 
stated that VA spends about $3 billion per year on management 
contracts. Are these contracts necessary? And why is the cost 
so high?
    Secretary McDonough. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. So 
let's take those in order.
    One, as you said in your opening remarks and just 
reiterated today, I can't thank you enough for the generosity 
of this committee for VA. The appropriation that we got in 
December was a very generous appropriation, and, as you said, 
it continues a long streak of you all working together to get 
us what we need to provide the care for veterans. Incidentally, 
it puts us in a good position, too, as we head into next year 
and into 2025.
    That is the first point.
    Second, we have been aggressive about making sure that we 
can account for and reduce unnecessary payments at VA. We have 
saved in the course of the last 4 years about $12 billion as a 
result of identifying and reducing unnecessary payments.
    Third, I know there is a lot of attention on not only the 
size of the budget but the size of the TEF, the Toxic Exposures 
Fund. What I would say is this: We not only invite but actively 
welcome your active oversight of our expenditure of those 
dollars.
    I have had an extended conversation with the inspector 
general, Mike Missal, about his active role in everything, but 
in particular the Toxic Exposures Fund. So we will continue to 
hold ourselves to account on your oversight.
    So we take very seriously the fact that we need to be 
careful stewards of each of those $325.1 billion, and my 
commitment to you is to be fully candid and fully transparent 
in that effort.
    On the issue of automation, we continue to proceed--one of 
the ways that we have been able since March 20 to process more 
than 8,200 claims a day--it used to be that, when I arrived, we 
got excited about 6,000 claims a day. We are now, for the last 
10 days, basically at 8,300 or more a day. The reason we are 
able to do that is we have been able to hire more as a result 
of this committee's generosity and we are using the automated 
decision support tools.
    The automated process does not make any ultimate 
determinations. That is humans' job. But our ability to draw on 
millions of searchable, digitized documents that we now have, 
including at the National Personnel Records Center in St. 
Louis, allows us to reduce the time necessary to build packages 
to make decisions for veterans. That is why we are now 
providing answers on claims faster than at any time in the VA's 
history.
    We are continuing our investment in automation, but we are 
not overpromising or over-relying on those. It has been a long 
time since a government technology investment proved itself 
early, let alone even on time. So we are very eyes-wide-open 
about this, conservative in our estimations about what we can 
count on it for. But we continue to sharpen it, continue to use 
it, and it is contributing to ultimate outcomes.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for that testimony.
    I want to tell a story, and then I am going to yield----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No worries.
    Mr. Carter [continuing]. To my colleague here.
    When I first went to work for the Texas Legislative 
Council, I was down in the basement. I had no office. I had a 
bunch of file cabinets around me. And, you know, I type like 
this. I never learned to type.
    Secretary McDonough. That is how I type too.
    Mr. Carter. And so I went to work in--I guess it was May, 
and in September they came and told me that I was getting a new 
typewriter. And I said, ``Well, wait a minute. I haven't even 
hit all the keys on this typewriter yet. It is brand-spanking-
new out of the box, you know, in May.'' ``Well, that doesn't 
matter. You are getting a new typewriter.''
    So I had a great boss, and he ended up being my mentor for 
life. And I went up like a young, dumb new lawyer and said, 
``Why do I need a new typewriter? I have a great, fine, IBM 
Selectric typewriter, and it is going to last for years, and I 
don't need a new typewriter.'' He said, ``We haven't finished 
our budget, and we have to account for all of our spending. 
And, therefore, get used to it, son. You are in the government 
now. You are getting a new typewriter.''
    I said, ``Well, what are you going to do with my old one?'' 
He said, ``We are going to put it in an auction and sale.'' I 
said, ``I want to buy it, because I am not going to stay here 
forever. I am going to go in private practice.'' He said, 
``Fine. Put a mark on it, and you can buy it.''
    And I bought that typewriter for, like, $40 in the auction, 
and it lasted until I went off to be a judge, which was 20 
years later.
    But the point of it, I never got over the fact that we were 
wasting things in the government. And that is why--I guess that 
has just been my nature, to worry about waste. But everybody 
does it, including me, okay?
    Mr. Zinke. Mr. Chairman, if I could, the truth be known, 
even a new typewriter couldn't make you a better typist.
    Mr. Carter. No, it couldn't. It couldn't.
    Well, I thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I begin, I want to thank my ninth-grade typing 
teacher for teaching me how to type.
    Mr. Carter. I wish she had taught me.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I can do that. I learned on one of 
those manual-type, you know, pre-IBM Selectric typewriters, 
which helped a great deal, made the IBM Selectric a breeze.
    And also note that, when I was elected to Congress, my 
district secretary at the time had worked for my two previous 
predecessors, and she was still typing letters on the IBM 
Selectric, when everyone else was typing on computers. So that 
thing was a workhorse. Kudos to IBM.
    Mr. Secretary, I think you know that women's healthcare at 
the VA has been a top priority of mine, both when I was chair 
and continuing. And I have seen the funding for women-specific 
programs and initiatives grow substantially over the past few 
years.
    And, clearly, the targeted funding is working. It was so 
important that we do that. It was blended in, prior to my 
becoming a chair of this sub, and not prioritized in the same 
way. So, with more women receiving healthcare at the VA than 
ever before, it is really important.
    So I noted in my opening statement that women are 
accounting for over 30 percent of the increase in veterans 
served over the past 5 years. Can you discuss what the impact 
would be on women's healthcare if VA funding levels were rolled 
back to the 2022 funding levels, as has been proposed by 
members of the Republican leadership?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Thank you very much.
    As you noted in your opening testimony, women veterans are 
our fastest-growing cohort. Today, we serve over 625,000 women 
veterans at all sites of care, including about 300,000 women 
vets of child-bearing age.
    The 2024 budget request includes $257 million for women's 
health and child care programs, for example. Funding cuts to 
the 2022 enacted level would mean that we could not continue to 
hire women's health personnel. That would include primary care 
providers, gynecologists, mental health providers, and care 
coordinators.
    What we know is that women come to VA and then stay with VA 
at a much higher rate, the extent to which we have specialized 
care and specialized care providers. So, not only would we not 
be able to do as much of that care, but we would then likely, 
if past is prologue, given earlier data, lose more women vets, 
meaning keep fewer women vets in our care.
    And then, if we go back to the 2022 levels, new legislation 
enacted since 2022, including what is called the SERVICE Act--
--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Secretary McDonough [continuing]. Which covers breast 
cancer risk assessments for eligible veterans, would be 
negatively impacted.
    At the moment, we only have 80 sites in VA that provide 
mammography onsite. That means we are referring a lot of 
mammography into the community, which is a good and decent 
thing. But, over time, we know that women veterans stay with us 
the more access they have to gender-specific care. 2022-level 
funding would put that at risk.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    The next part of my question was related to the SERVICE 
Act. My understanding is you are projecting that an additional 
52,000 breast cancer risk assessments across all sites in 2023 
would take place. What kind of increase is that compared to 
what VA had previously been doing?
    Secretary McDonough. Well, because----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, also, what kind of outreach is 
VA doing to let women know of these expanded mammography 
screening services?
    I know when I visit VA facilities that don't have those 
kinds of services, the women veterans, you know, always mention 
to me, we really need, you know, broader services, mammography 
here. And so----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Well, as we have increased, over 
the course of the last 6 or 8 years, gender-specific care, we 
are able then to provide the full range of services for women 
vets.
    A good example is right here in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 
where on the same site we offer primary care, mental health 
care, gynecology, and on many days access to child care, which 
is meaningful, obviously, for both male and female veterans, 
and then mammography. So, rather than traveling throughout 
suburban Maryland, a woman veteran can get all of her 
integrated care in one stop.
    As a result of that, we have seen substantial increase in 
mammography screenings over the course of the last year. I 
don't have the specific number, but I will get that to you. 
And, obviously, the connection between early detection and 
prevention is well-established.
    So, we think that things like the SERVICE Act--and, look, 
that is why we have seen--legislation, new laws, like the 
SERVICE Act, like the PACT Act, like the MISSION Act, were 
anticipated to increase costs, have commensurately increased 
costs, and that is why we have seen the increase over the 
course of the last 6 or 8 years that we have seen at VHA.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I know you know that this is an issue 
that is very personal to me as a breast cancer survivor. You 
know, I am here today because I was able to detect my breast 
cancer early. You know, had my first mammogram; it came back 
clean. A few months later, I found a lump myself, because my 
antennae had been raised to focus on my breast health.
    And, you know, the ability for women at the VA to get one-
stop shopping and increased mammography care, specifically, 
instead of having to go around and make it much more difficult 
to get different kinds of healthcare in different places--make 
it less likely, if that is the way they have to get their 
healthcare, that when they do have an illness, like breast 
cancer, that it is going to be caught early. And then they have 
more complicated healthcare challenges, you know, and are more 
likely not to survive.
    So I commend you and all of the folks at the VA for moving 
in the direction you are.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for your service. I know you have a difficult 
task.
    So, if I could, I am going to go through some issues that 
have been brought up to me as I travel around the State.
    Thank you. I have visited the VA facilities, both clinics 
in Butte, Missoula, and Billings. They are magnificent, and 
they are quality facilities, and I commend you on that.
    But, as I go around, what I am hearing is, is it your 
policy at the VA that a servicemember who is not fully 
vaccinated, can he go to surgery? Because what I am hearing is, 
in some cases, if a veteran is not fully vaccinated, he can't 
get an organ transplant, can't go to surgery.
    Is there a VA policy that puts up a barrier for someone who 
chooses not to be fully vaccinated?
    Secretary McDonough. There is not. And if there is a 
specific concern, let me go to work on it. But we do have a 
vaccination requirement on our workforce.
    Mr. Zinke. On the workforce.
    Secretary McDonough. We do not on our patients.
    Mr. Zinke. Okay.
    And what I am also hearing is, in Montana and in a lot of 
rural States, life flight. Because, in some cases, the nearest 
hospital is 100 miles away, could be more, and by the time you 
run up on an accident, you are already behind the power curve.
    And are you aware that there is a change in policy on 
reimbursement, the historical?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, we just went final with a rule. 
The rule was first proposed in 2019. There were several years 
of comment taken.
    The rule was proposed in the first instance because VA had 
been found wanting by the inspector general in our policy 
because there are several VA facilities and systems that--
unique among any healthcare system in the country--pay delivery 
by delivery rather than pursuant to a contract that is 
negotiated in the local market.
    Mr. Zinke. But my understanding is you were going to exempt 
the contract from CMS. Is that right?
    Secretary McDonough. No. So what the rule proposes----
    Mr. Zinke. From their schedule, from the CMS schedule. You 
were going to exempt him through a contract.
    Secretary McDonough. What we say is--the rule says the 
following: If you are a provider that provides this service, we 
will pay you either what we have negotiated with you in the 
contract or, if we have not been able to negotiate a contract 
with you, we will pay you the CMS reimbursement rate.
    Mr. Zinke. And I think the crux of the claim is we need 
help on delivering the contracts.
    Secretary McDonough. Exactly.
    Mr. Zinke. They do not have--whatever we need to do to 
expedite the contracts. Because it seems like the bureaucracy 
is behind it. And, unfortunately, in rural America, life flight 
is the only option for veterans.
    Secretary McDonough. I hear you. I hear you.
    Mr. Zinke. So do I have your commitment to work on that?
    Secretary McDonough. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    And the rule envisions--the final rule envisions a year 
during which the existing system continues, and then we have 
that year to negotiate contracts with providers.
    And, again, at the moment, I am told we are the only 
hospital system in the country that pays incident by incident. 
And, as you can imagine, that is not a great deal for the 
taxpayers. So we want to get to a contract which will be fair 
and negotiate it per each local market's needs by the local 
market and the local provider.
    This is not something for us to do. This is something for 
the hospitals to do.
    Mr. Zinke. So, shifting gears, on elective surgery----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. Do you pay for sex change 
operations, either gender therapy, sex change operations, and 
that category?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, so we provide a full range of 
gender----
    Mr. Zinke. Lifetime care?
    Secretary McDonough. Well, yeah. If somebody----
    Mr. Zinke. I mean, I am not an expert. My understanding----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Zinke  [contining]. Is, if you choose, you have a 
lifetime of care with gender therapy and all of that process.
    Secretary McDonough. Sure. Hormone treatment, for example, 
or--you know, so--and we have made clear as of 2021 that we are 
in the process of establishing rules to provide gender 
confirming care, itself, at VA.
    Mr. Zinke. And I haven't looked through your budget. Did 
you ask for additional----
    Secretary McDonough. No.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. On that?
    Secretary McDonough. No, we did not.
    Mr. Zinke. And what do you spend on that?
    Secretary McDonough. I can get you a number in terms of 
what we care--any care that we provide now for gender 
confirming surgery would be----
    Mr. Zinke. Would you consider that a priority?
    Secretary McDonough [continuing]. Referred to the 
community----
    Mr. Zinke. I am on the VA task--would you consider that a 
priority?
    Secretary McDonough. The reason that we started the 
rulemaking process to offer it directly in VA is that there is 
a direct correlation--and this was a uniform, consensus 
recommendation to me from our care providers.
    The reason they recommend we do it, the reason why I think 
we should do it, is the connection between mental health 
disorder, including suicide, and what clinicians call gender 
dysphoria is a very tight connection, meaning, the extent to 
which we treat a veteran experiencing gender dysphoria reduces 
risk of suicide among transgender veterans.
    Inasmuch as suicide prevention is our number-one clinical 
priority, yes, I consider it a priority.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz.
    And, Secretary, it is great to see you.
    Secretary McDonough. And you.
    Ms. Lee. You touched on in your testimony about the 
staffing shortages and the progress you are making. We know in 
southern Nevada it is still continuing to be a problem and long 
wait times. And, in fact, in February of this year, they just 
did a job fair, trying to fill 200 positions.
    Our VA team in southern Nevada says that part of the 
problem is just simply the HR process within the Federal 
Government----
    Secretary McDonough. Definitely.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Specifically in the onboarding. It 
can take up to 2 months just to post an opening from the time 
that an employee leaves and then another 6 to 9 months to 
onboard. That means it can take almost a year to bring a 
physician on line.
    It seems like you are aware of that. But what do you see as 
the main barriers to accelerating this process?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So it is crazy and 100 percent 
indefensible, where we find ourselves in terms of onboarding. 
We're getting better at hiring.
    So the first question is the one you raise, which is, why 
can't we--we sometimes know when a person is leaving. Why can't 
we post then? So we are working through that.
    Ms. Lee. Okay.
    Secretary McDonough. The posting is going to be resolved.
    The hiring we are getting better at, using things like 
hiring fairs and using the authorities that you have given us, 
including in the PACT Act, and the very generous appropriations 
that this committee routinely gives us.
    We are very competitive. And what we are seeing, including 
I heard this first in Nevada, we are now seeing nurses who had 
left us to go to the community, specifically the traveling 
nurse teams, coming back to us because of our practices and 
because of our competitive salaries now.
    So we are getting better at hiring.
    The thing that we are spending this year prioritizing is 
reducing that onboarding time. So the main issue there is, 
there are about 12 steps in onboarding. We need to contract 
some of those steps out--for example, drug testing. We need to, 
most importantly, get better at not making every individual 
nurse or doctor responsible for their 12 steps. There should be 
a technology solution that allows us to click through those 12 
steps very quickly.
    We have, you know, just used brute force in various hiring 
fairs to get that done in 1 day in places. But in too many 
places it is like southern Nevada, where somebody gets an 
email, it goes to spam, they actually didn't know somebody was 
contacting them to get the next step in that multistep process 
done.
    There is a technology fix here; there is a people fix here. 
And I pray to God the next time I appear before you that we 
have reduced this number, because if we don't, we won't meet 
our hiring targets.
    Ms. Lee. Is there anything that we can do in Congress to 
help expedite?
    Secretary McDonough. I think you have given--the most 
important thing you have done to date helps, which is making us 
competitive.
    We are working with the authorizers to address a particular 
problem we have with certain specialists who are topped at 
$400,000 a year in their pay. We think that--that requires an 
authorization fix. I hope we will get that.
    It creates a major problem, which is--for example, 
gastroenterologists right now, a very tight market. We can't 
hire them unless we pay them $400,000 a year. Very few are 
going to take that kind of level pay. So, what we are doing now 
is we are paying contracts for up to $1.2 million a year to get 
access to some bit of that person's time, rather than being 
able to hire them to get them full-time.
    Ms. Lee. Uh-huh.
    Secretary McDonough. This change at the authorization 
committee will help us to address that.
    Ms. Lee. I want to turn to the HRM.
    Secretary McDonough. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Lee. You all requested $1.9 billion.
    As we are all aware, there have been many issues with the 
rollout, driving, you know, great dissatisfaction, some staff 
shortages as a result. I know you all have been tracking this 
closely.
    Can you just offer us an update in how this request will 
help get it back on track?
    Secretary McDonough. Sure.
    Let me just say first on where we are in a very important 
thing, which is--and it is a 10-year contract. We are at the 5-
year mark. It envisions at the 5-year mark a relook at the 
contract.
    We are in negotiations with Oracle Cerner right now to 
successfully deploy a fully functioning system within 10 years. 
The way forward is heavily dependent on the result of these 
negotiations. VA requires something we have not yet had, which 
is an efficient and properly functioning system all the time 
across the system.
    And, at the end of the day, the vets don't really care 
which----
    Ms. Lee. Right.
    Secretary McDonough [continuing]. Technology we use. They 
just want to make sure that we can deliver what we promise.
    So the first and most important thing is, these contract 
negotiations are very critical to that.
    And, second, the budget that we have submitted importantly 
positions us, provided we get the contract that we need and the 
performance standards that we are going to require of the 
contractor, allows us to invest in the out-years, including on 
upgrading facilities.
    Nevada is relatively early in the process. So one of the 
things that we have to do is make sure that the next deployed 
sites are ready to receive the new technology and that we have 
the training manuals and everything in place to do it.
    So, the budget will allow us to do that, even as we take 
the results of this process that we have now just completed, 
which is an assess and address period to assess what has 
happened in the five facilities where we have deployed it and 
then address the shortcomings that we have before we deploy to 
the next onward sites.
    So, again, depending on what happens in the contract, we 
will be in a position to deploy to next sites based on the 
generous appropriation from last year. Again, if we get the 
contract we need here, this budget will get us in a position to 
continue the investments to make the next deployed sites ready 
to receive the new technology.
    Ms. Lee. Okay.
    I think my time is up. Is that right?
    Mr. Carter. Yield to me for just a minute.
    Ms. Lee. Sure.
    Mr. Carter. Where is the next deployed site?
    Secretary McDonough. The next question is going to be 
around Saginaw, in VISN 10, Michigan.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Thank you.
    Secretary McDonough. But that is a decision we have not yet 
made. We will make that based on where the technology is.
    But, to be honest with you, increasingly my question is, I 
need to see what happens in these contracts before we make a 
decision about where we go next anyway, because the contract 
may be not what we need.
    Mr. Carter. Did you have one more question?
    Ms. Lee. Just, if you are not in the contract negotiations, 
is there a potential you change contractors? If you do not get 
what you want?
    Secretary McDonough. I think obviously inherent in the idea 
that there is a 5-year review is that, you know, you are not 
just reviewing it to continue it.
    So, you know, we would have to--we would be in a position 
to sustain what we have and then see if there is another 
technology.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you again.
    Secretary McDonough. Nice to see you.
    Mrs. Bice. I want to start by saying that it is an honor 
for me to represent Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District, 
with close to 50,000 veterans who reside in my community.
    Secretary McDonough. And fast growing, at that.
    Mrs. Bice. And very fast growing. We support veterans in 
Oklahoma.
    I want to also thank you for visiting Oklahoma City, the 
medical facility and service facilities that you were able to 
see there. Our local VA director, Wade Vlosich, is really doing 
a tremendous job. And I am glad you were able to see the people 
and the facilities firsthand, as well as some of the challenges 
that we face.
    Ms. Lee brought up the medical professionals, and I think 
that is a really important point. You mentioned in your 
comments that you have had great success in hiring nurses. What 
is the physician shortage that you currently have across the 
VA? Do you have a perspective on that?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. You know, we--I can get you the 
specific data about where we are across the system. But, you 
know, we have particular shortages in specialties, which is 
true in many healthcare systems. We have particular 
requirements for psychologists and psychiatrists.
    Mrs. Bice. I would assume they are hitting that $400,000 
cap as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. And, but there, we are able to 
pay them. It is a certain segment of specialists that are stuck 
under the $400,000 cap----
    Mrs. Bice. Okay.
    Secretary McDonough [continuing]. And certain of our 
leaders, like Wade, who would be also stuck at that $400,000 
cap. So, in a very tight, very competitive market, I don't want 
to lose great leaders like Wade because we are capped. So 
network directors, hospital directors, and certain physician 
expert specialties, we are at a strategic disadvantage.
    I will say one other thing real quick just about Oklahoma 
City, because I called Wade yesterday to check in on how he is 
doing.
    Oklahoma is a particular challenge because of the very 
tight nursing market. I am really proud of Wade for the work 
that he is doing, including significantly expanding our nurse 
residency programs. Our goal, eventually, is to expand our 
nurse residency programs 5X across the system.
    He hasn't given me a specific quantum for Oklahoma City, 
but unless we are involved in the process of training new 
nurses, we are going to just keep moving them, the limited 
number we have, through the system and basically paying Paul 
and Peter here throughout.
    So we are, including in Oklahoma, using the tools that you 
have given us to expand the training pods that we have.
    Mrs. Bice. That is really good to hear, because you are 
exactly right; the nursing shortage across the State is 
significant.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mrs. Bice. And I will say that, in a meeting I had last 
week, one of the universities that happens to be very close to 
the VA is increasing its nursing program numbers----
    Secretary McDonough. Perfect.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. To be able to try to push----
    Secretary McDonough. Perfect.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. More students through the program 
in a faster fashion. So it is great to hear that.
    I want to just pivot slightly to the facility itself.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mrs. Bice. You saw the VA facility. It was built in the 
1950s. It is aging. It is starting to show its limitations. I 
know there are some renovations that we have been doing, but I 
feel like this is a Band-Aid sort of fix for that.
    Can you talk a little bit about the process that VA uses to 
prioritize construction projects, or what factors would you 
look at in considering replacing an older VA medical facility?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Well, thanks so much. Wade also 
told me yesterday that they are working with our region--it is 
called the VISN, VISN 19--on submitting a package in the near 
term here for a replacement facility.
    VA facilities, hospitals, on average, are 62 years old. And 
I mentioned in my opening comments that the way we funded 
infrastructure projects traditionally hasn't worked the way we 
need it to, because in the last 10 years we have only built 
four hospitals. So we have 173 hospitals. We have only built 
four of them in the last 10 years, even though the average age 
is 62 years.
    Mrs. Bice. Can you speak to why that is?
    Secretary McDonough. The why that is is because hospitals 
are expensive.
    We have a three-prong strategy, and you see it in this 
budget.
    Prong one is major construction. That is hospitals. We are 
asking for enough money to invest in and build a new hospital 
in St. Louis this year. That is about between $1.75 billion and 
$2 billion to build one hospital.
    We also have minor construction and leases. Minor 
construction and leases increases access and allows us, in a 
lot of places in Oklahoma and each of your districts, to build 
new clinics to increase access there.
    And then we have nonrecurring maintenance. This year, we 
are asking for $5.2 billion in nonrecurring maintenance. That 
is not to add any new square footage or any new facilities. 
That is to make what we have workable.
    And so we are asking for $10 billion. That is the largest 
by an order of magnitude in any budget ever submitted by the 
President, recognizing the enormous challenge.
    The question then is, how do we decide among these needs 
what we do? We have a process called the Strategic Capital 
Investment Project. That has, you know, a specific list every 
year. The list is prioritized by a range of requirements, 
including age of the facility it is replacing, number of vets 
needing care, patient safety issues resulting as a result of 
aging facilities.
    And, increasingly, we have built in to the SCIP process a 
premium, for example, for gender-specific care and those places 
where we have a particular need given the growing number of 
women vets. Oklahoma is one of those. If you are building a 
gender-specific component, that is going to get a quantum to 
bust you up higher on the SCIP list.
    So this is a process we keep in very close touch with your 
staff on. We would be more than happy to talk anybody through 
it. Mr. Guest has a question about a retirement facility in 
Jackson, so I was able to get that data for him.
    So we do this across all of our facilities--hospitals, 
clinics, what we call Community Living Centers, our retirement 
homes, community living centers.
    Mrs. Bice. Uh-huh.
    Secretary McDonough. And the process is transparent. The 
bottom line, though, is, we need more money to get farther down 
the list.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Chairman, I can't see the time. I have one 
quick followup if my time allows.
    Mr. Carter. One more. Go ahead.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
    You mentioned electronic health records with Mrs. Lee 
earlier. That project is delayed and over budget.
    What are the chances we can get something, you know, 
resolved in a quick time fashion? Because this just continues 
to drag on, and it is really a disservice to our vets.
    Secretary McDonough. No question, a disservice. And it is a 
20-year process. We decided in, you know, the early 2000s that 
we need this, and we still need it.
    So, you know, I want it bad, but sometimes when you want it 
bad, you get it bad. So we are working through this, including, 
as I said, with this contract. We will talk you through the--
provided we get the contract we need, the schedule that will 
allow us to do this.
    We will stay close to you guys on this. We feel deeply 
accountable to you for it, because you have already invested 
several billion dollars in it. And as the chairman said in his 
opening comments, we, too, remain committed to the idea. We 
have to get the contract right; we have to get the execution 
right.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. We have been joined by Ms. DeLauro, the ranking 
member of the full committee.
    Welcome.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. And we will yield to you now.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much. Thank you, chair, and to 
the ranking member for letting me dash in and dash out here. So 
there are about four on the schedule today.
    I will just say, the first time I was in this room was 
yesterday. In all the years I have been in the Congress, the 
first time I was in the room was yesterday, and now it is 2 
days in a row. So there is something about the room.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. DeLauro. It is a delight to be with you. And thank you 
for your partnership over the years and working together.
    One of the things I want to ask about is, there is a 
proposal from some members of the other side of the aisle to 
cut the fiscal year 2024 discretionary spending back to the 
2022 level. And you know that I asked all of the agencies to 
let me know what the consequences of those cuts would be, and 
you graciously replied. And you said, as I understand it, that 
such proposed cuts could lead to an underfunding of VA by about 
$30 billion.
    And what I want to do is to say, you know, what is the 
effect of these kinds of cuts as they relate to the speed in 
which veterans receive their benefits? Wait times for looking 
for benefits? How would the cuts deal with the Veterans 
Benefits Administration, the backlog? Are you able to estimate 
how many veterans would be affected by the cuts related to 
their benefits and their pensions as well?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Thank you very much.
    So, last year, fiscal year 2022, we provided care to more 
than 6 million vets, and that was about 125 million visits. I 
detailed, kind of, the breakdown. That is in direct care 
system, that is in telehealth, and then that is in referrals to 
the community.
    There are about 38 million referrals to the community. That 
is a big number, which means important outcomes, but I think 
one of the things that we risk missing is, those are real 
dollars invested in healthcare providers in the private sector 
in your districts.
    So, what we think is that this year's budget, the Fiscal 
year 2024, would support approximately 139 million outpatient 
visits, and if we went back to a 2022 funding level, we might 
only be able to support about 126 million healthcare outpatient 
visits, which would be a reduction of 13 million visits, okay?
    Ms. DeLauro. Uh-huh.
    Secretary McDonough. So that obviously has, we fear, a very 
real impact on veterans.
    That will also, then, risk wait times for the care. But 
also, importantly, we would not be able to continue the hiring 
that we are undergoing at the VBA, the Benefits Administration, 
which would face at least a $409 million shortfall, which would 
be a reduction in about 1,178 staff who are processing claims.
    I said that, in the last 10 days, we have processed more 
than 8,300 claims a day. That is a substantial increase from 
when I started. We used to get excited when we would get over 
6,000 claims a day. Because of the hiring, because of the 
increased efficiency, we are operating now at a more productive 
rate than even in 2019, so pre-pandemic levels. And we are 
deploying new technology, as the chairman asked about, on 
automation.
    Notwithstanding that, a reduction of that number of 
personnel, which is almost the same number of people that are 
authorized by the PACT Act for us to hire this year, we would 
have to then reduce that quantum next year. That will have an 
impact on time to process those claims.
    Ms. DeLauro. So you are going to hurt the benefits and the 
ability to be able to get care to people?
    Secretary McDonough. We think there would be a real impact 
on both.
    Ms. DeLauro. On the construction side, if you apply the 
same level of cut, how does the dealing with the construction 
side of this, future construction, affect the ability of 
veterans to receive care? What happens with the holdup of the 
construction?
    And I will add just one more piece to this. Look, there are 
some folks who say they want to shield veterans funding from 
any potential cuts, but sometimes that exacerbates the issue 
here for us, because if VA would be held harmless from these 
cuts, then other programs across the Federal Government would 
have to be cut.
    But what would be the impact of that on veterans? So impact 
on construction and what that would mean.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Ms. DeLauro. And then if you hold it harmless--look, we 
made promises to veterans. We want to keep those promises to 
veterans, you know. So what happens?
    Secretary McDonough. Well, so I was just speaking with 
Congresswoman Bice about this question of our three-pronged 
strategy on infrastructure. So the lion's share--well, the 
major construction request this year is about $185 billion. 
That is for an entirely new hospital in St. Louis.
    If we go back to fiscal year 2022, that would be about a 
$565 million cut on the major construction account in fiscal 
year 2024, which means we couldn't complete the facility in St. 
Louis, which means it would go on longer and cost more.
    We have only built four new hospitals in the last 10 years. 
There is a lot of reasons for that. Some of those are our bad 
execution. Denver was terrible execution by VA, and I would 
never defend it.
    But what we also know about Denver is, when it drags on, it 
gets more expensive, because then we have to renegotiate, and 
we saw that, obviously, over the course of the last several 
years with the impact on supply chain and the impact on, you 
know, certain price increases of inputs to construction.
    So that is a very real impact in St. Louis. And remember, 
St. Louis--you know, we have talked a lot about El Paso. I saw 
Mr. Gonzales just came in. He has been focused on this quite a 
bit as well. We are trying to prove facility by facility that 
we can be trusted with these kinds of levels that the President 
has asked for in $10 billion here.
    So the major construction, which is just one impact, would 
see, as I said, about a $565 million reduction. We just 
couldn't complete the plans that we have there. And when we 
don't complete them, it is not that we don't need them, it just 
means they get more expensive and they get dragged out.
    On the question of, you know, the impact on the broader, 
you know, if this is held harmless, this is really somebody 
else's concern, and as a member of the President's Cabinet and 
as somebody who oversees veterans accessing all the other 
supports in the Federal Government, Department of Education, 
you know, as one example, you know, I would be worried about 
the broader impact.
    Housing. We are very proud of the fact that we permanently 
housed 40,000 veterans, previously homeless, in this last 
calendar year. If we don't have that collaboration with our HUD 
counterparts, we are not going to be able to do that.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
allowing me to interlope in and out.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your service. 
Great to work with you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
    Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Secretary, for your time today. Nice to see you 
as well.
    And I know we have talked about this many times, but I have 
to bring it back up again, the Community Based Outpatient 
Clinic in Bakersfield, California, still remains unbuilt. It 
has been 12 years since Congress authorized its construction, 
but my veteran constituents in Central Valley still don't have 
an updated facility.
    This case has been riddled with bureaucracy, endless 
lawsuits. Meanwhile, thousands of veterans have passed away 
without ever seeing that facility they were promised. And I 
know the VA has been really responsive on this, your team, 
yourself, in trying to get this facility built. It has been--
seems like it is making some progress but very little.
    What do we need to do to fix this so we never see this type 
of situation again? I mean, the cost, especially with the 
lawsuits, the way these are playing out, this gentleman is now 
being paid an astronomical lease payment, and he is essentially 
funding the attorneys to sue the Federal Government to continue 
this fight longer.
    What do we need to do in Congress to fix this so we never 
see this situation again?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So, right now, as I understand 
the case, and I just brushed up on it in the last couple days, 
is now it is in the State court, and I think it is at its 
penultimate or last step. And unfortunately, you know, we have 
so limited ability to influence that, other than to make our 
arguments in court.
    So, I will make sure that we scrub this down and see if we 
can come back to you with policy recommendations that you could 
take. But I think this is a very unique case, very frustrating 
case. I know one that you, and I know the Speaker too, have 
taken a personal interest in it, and we are staying on top of 
this as much as we can. But, you know, in this case, you know, 
people are exercising all their options.
    Mr. Valadao. No, and I know you have worked with us on 
this, and I thank you for all your efforts on this and your 
team. They have been very responsive on this front. It just is 
frustrating to see.
    And I know Mrs. Lee brought up some of the VA hiring 
process. We kind of had the same type of situation in 
California. We had a hospital that closed their doors, a 
private hospital, and what we were hearing from some of our 
locals is the process was really slow, and it affected our 
ability to hire people at our Fresno VA. And so that is an 
issue that I am glad it was brought up----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Valadao [continuing]. But I just wanted to make sure 
you knew that it was----
    Secretary McDonough. We will stay on top of it.
    Mr. Valadao [continuing]. Also an issue for us as well in 
California.
    Rural healthcare. Rural veterans often face difficulties 
getting to their doctors' appointments. What is VA doing to 
expand telehealth services and mobile health clinics to provide 
healthcare to rural communities? Do you think any of these 
alternatives to healthcare delivery methods could also play a 
role in helping alleviate ongoing staff shortages?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. We are very proud of the progress 
we made on telehealth. We have seen a 3,000 percent increase in 
the access to telehealth since the start of the pandemic. It is 
increasingly the first choice for veterans, not least because 
it saves them the hassle of travel. And we are fixing our--we 
are ensuring that our infrastructure supports that.
    I am particularly proud of our regional support hubs that 
allow us to access excess capacity in other parts of a VISN, 
for example, and through telehealth, shorten wait times for 
veterans elsewhere in that VISN using telehealth. These 
regional hubs have proven themselves to be super successful.
    We are hoping that Congress can give us some relief on one 
of the big challenges we will face post-May 11, which is our 
ability to prescribe, across State lines, certain 
pharmaceuticals, will be directly impacted putting at risk the 
prescribing authorities for as many as 40,000 vets in the 
country. So we are going to need legislative relief on that.
    Each of these things, telehealth, you know, that includes 
video health, and then obviously even in some cases, telephone-
based care, is here to stay, and we are increasing our capacity 
to do that, and it is helping us ease the unevenness in access 
to care as a result of staffing shortages.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you. I am going to change a 
little bit on topic here.
    Last year, I became aware of a crematorium having the 
remains of several unclaimed veterans in storage. It wasn't 
until a local nonprofit group got involved that these veterans 
were finally given a dignified burial service. A 2021 VA 
Inspector General report provided several recommendations for 
the VA to ensure proper burial of the unclaimed veterans' 
remains.
    Specifically, the report recommended the VA designate a 
senior accountable official or program office for the full 
scope of benefits and services provided on behalf of the 
deceased veterans whose remains are unclaimed. Was this 
official or program office ever designated?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So thank you for your personal 
attention to this. This is a really heartbreaking case. But the 
VBA will lead the enterprise-wide program, and they have named 
Kevin Friel, who is the deputy director of the Pension and 
Fiduciary Service, as the senior accountable official.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, thank you.
    And I yield back the rest of my time.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Secretary McDonough. Nice to see you.
    Ms. Pingree. Nice to have you in front of our committee. 
And I really appreciate the answers that you have been giving 
this morning. It is certainly all issues that are critical to 
the veterans in our State and many of the issues that we are 
facing.
    But I do want to say on a very positive note, the CBOC in 
Portland, the facility that we were finally able to see 
completed, is really such a high-quality facility. It is so 
well designed.
    Secretary McDonough. People are really proud of it, it 
sounds like.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah. I invite you to visit anytime, get a 
lobster roll while you are up there. You know, it is not a bad 
visit. But really it is sort of, when I hear people talking 
about the delays and waiting, you know, everyone waits a long 
time for their facility, but it just is so well designed.
    And I am glad to hear you talking about the hiring issues. 
Certainly, these cuts that we have heard talked about would, as 
you really articulated very well, would have a huge impact on 
that. But that was, of course, the biggest thing that we heard 
about. You know, look at all these wonderful dental stations, 
but how do we fill it with hygienists, you know, where are the 
nurses, where are the doctors.
    So the work that you are doing to fill those positions is 
critically important, and we want to----
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree [continuing]. Support you in any way that we 
can there.
    I am going to ask you a very--you know, somewhat of a 
isolated kind of question, but it hasn't come up today, and it 
is an issue I have been working on for a while, and that is 
this whole issue related to food is medicine.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Pingree. You know, we know that so many of the diseases 
that impact our veterans in particular are diet-related 
diseases. We know that the hunger level in the veterans 
community is still way too unacceptably high.
    Secretary McDonough. Heartbreaking.
    Ms. Pingree. And we had $2 million over the last fiscal 
years to support some of this work. It has been a priority of 
the White House since the White House Conference on Hunger, 
Nutrition, and Health.
    And I am interested to know how the VA is doing with the 
Produce Prescription Program. There is a new Office of Food 
Security. Just thinking about food pantries and produce 
prescriptions, so things that we can do to help veterans, 
frankly, stay out of healthcare, not need the expense of 
medication or hospitalization. What are we doing and how is it 
going?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Ms. Pingree. It is new money, some of it, and----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, well, we are really excited 
about it. And, you know, the President is pushing us, you are 
pushing us. We feel very good about the Office of Nutrition 
Security. And so I think we have invested well the first 
tranche of money here. But you see its impact in a lot of 
different ways.
    In the first instance, obviously, we are seeing a 
significant increase in the use of prescriptions for food. At 
every VA facility now there is also a food pantry. Over and 
above that, though, VA clinicians are innovating. So it is 
dieticians mostly leading the charge, and I now make it a habit 
to sit with the dieticians at almost every stop.
    But they are leading not only the other care providers, but 
they are also working with the recreational therapists. So in a 
lot of our Community Living Centers, for example, we are using 
gardens, elevated gardens, other kinds of gardens, to increase, 
you know, movement and recreational and occupational therapy 
options for veterans.
    So it is actually providing I think what you anticipated in 
the first instance, which is a focus on nutrition as a good 
preventative implement, intervention, but also then being used 
by other specialties in the hospitals to increase veteran 
mobility, to increase veteran mental health. We are pretty 
excited about it.
    Ms. Pingree. That is great. Well, I know, you know, it is 
not an area that we give a lot of consideration to, but 
certainly we are looking at pilot projects at the Bureau of 
Indian Health. I know Representative McGovern has one related 
to Medicare in general.
    But the statistics are very good. When people go home from 
the hospital with diet-related diseases, and that can be, you 
know, diabetes, that can be high blood pressure, heart-related 
issues, if they have those produce prescriptions, which 
basically make sure that people get healthy food in their diet 
once they get home, they are much less likely to have 
recurrence of the problem or come back to the hospital. So it 
has really got long-term benefits. It is something we often 
leave out of healthcare.
    So I appreciate the work that you are doing, and I will 
continue to follow up on it and continue to support it.
    So, with that----
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Pingree [continuing]. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Gonzales.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. And thank you, sir, for your service to our country.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Gonzales. Appreciate working with you. You have done a 
lot of great work.
    I want to start by thanking you. With the El Paso VA 
clinic, we have worked hard on that. We have gotten $700 
million appropriated for that. It is exciting to see----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. That development. So I am going 
to ask, what is the status? Are we still on track for 2026 
groundbreaking, or what is the current status of it?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, we are, and we will go to--we 
will, I think, award the contract by December of this year.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great.
    Secretary McDonough. So, we are still on target on that. So 
that is the next milestone, but everything looks in place for 
that. And we will stay in touch with you on it.
    Mr. Gonzales. Appreciate that. And you know how important 
these areas that we really have--that have been put at the 
wayside for a long time, appreciate your energy towards that. I 
know it is not easy getting the money, and then I know it is 
not easy appropriating it and getting it built, and then 
ultimately when you get that first patient through.
    My next question is on the PACT Act. Once again, another 
just amazing piece of legislation that I think is starting to 
change a lot of people's lives. I am an Iraq and Afghanistan 
veteran. My wife is an Iraq veteran. My brother is an 
Afghanistan veteran. So this hits home in more ways than one.
    I know you have spoken about it earlier, but the number--
the proof is in the pudding.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Mr. Gonzales. To me, numbers don't lie.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Mr. Gonzales. Do you, by chance, know how many veterans 
have successfully completed a claim that is associated with the 
PACT Act?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. As of last Saturday morning, 
claims associated with the PACT Act are about 425,000. The 
grant number on that, the overall completed claims, I don't 
have that at the tip of my tongue here, but I can tell you that 
we are granting at a rate of about little over 80 percent, 80.2 
percent, which is the strength of the presumption that you all 
put into the PACT Act. It just makes the process much cleaner, 
much shorter, much more transparent, and so we feel pretty good 
about that.
    Overall claims, year on year, are up about 27 percent. And 
then, right now, you know, claim completion is at as fast as we 
have ever seen.
    That said, the backlog is starting to creep up. The backlog 
of overall inventory of claims is--not just PACT Act but 
everything--is about 208,000. It is a little less than we would 
have anticipated by now in terms of our assessment, but still 
high. But the more people we train, the more automation we 
deploy, the quicker we are going to get that number back down.
    Mr. Gonzales. I mean, I will say it is always fun to go to 
the VA and spend time at the VA, but it has been, I think, more 
fun or less painful, however you want to look at it, recently. 
I mean, I get that from my constituents.
    Secretary McDonough. Good.
    Mr. Gonzales. They are saying something is working, so 
grateful for that.
    I can't let you leave without a cybersecurity question. So 
just last month, the GAO report came out with supporting 
findings for the agencywide cybersecurity program that met the 
requirements of the 2014 Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Your budget request amounts to nearly a 
billion dollars for cybersecurity. Can you assure the committee 
that by this time next year, the VA will be in compliance with 
this act?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So FISMA, as we call it, is a 
major requirement for us. So we are working aggressively to 
make sure that we are in compliance with that act.
    I want to just amplify this, and, you know, you know this 
better than anybody, but sometimes I worry that FISMA is a box-
checking requirement. We just have to be much more agile, to 
think that, hey, once I have checked the block, I don't need to 
worry about it.
    So, we are very invested in the zero-trust architecture. We 
are working very closely with the interagency here. We feel 
like we are leading the way on making sure that we don't trust 
any exterior perimeter. We have to just be solid at every 
workstation.
    So, we are leading the Federal Government in terms of use 
of multifactor authentication. We take this really seriously. 
So we will keep working that FISMA--those FISMA requirements.
    But that is a 2014 statute, right? And I think we have 
gotten smarter since then, so we will do our job on FISMA, but 
our job means FISMA-plus, and FISMA-plus means getting serious 
about the zero-trust architecture. We take that very seriously. 
That is why it is the--you know, cyber is the biggest component 
of our OI&T request here. And if we get that funding, we will 
keep hitting these targets.
    Mr. Gonzales. Appreciate you making it a priority. Please 
work with us, anything I can do to help on this front, thank 
you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning, Secretary.
    Secretary McDonough. Nice to see you, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you so much for being here. And let me 
hasten to thank you for all your help and support in opening 
the CBOC in Columbus, Georgia, and coming down to help us cut 
the ribbon. It was a long time coming.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you for letting me be there on 
celebrating everything you did, and somehow I got the credit 
for everything you did, so----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You did it, that is for sure.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much on that. But let me just 
emphasize and lift up the comments that you made with respect 
to the impact that the proposed cuts, either reverting back to 
the fiscal year 2022 funding levels or reducing the budget to 
22 percent of the current budget, the impact that it would have 
on the services and the benefits that veterans are getting 
access to.
    And I think that Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Ranking Member 
DeLauro really hit that pretty hard. So I am going to be a 
little bit more provincial and go to some of the issues that 
have been raised by my caseworkers, particularly with respect 
to access to medications.
    Apparently, the timely processing of prescriptions and 
availability of essential medications for our veterans has been 
a problem, and it appears to be recurring, as I hear from my 
caseworkers. We have issues with the pharmacy network and 
reimbursement.
    Can you tell me if the VA has a plan to expand the track at 
pharmacy network to better provide access to in-network 
pharmacies for veterans? And what is VA doing to simplify the 
reimbursement process and to reduce delays on reimbursements 
for out-of-network pharmacies?
    And, of course, with mail-order pharmacy services, what is 
it that you can do, or what are you doing, to ensure that the 
mail-order pharmacy issues don't negatively impact medication 
adherence and health outcomes of particularly our rural 
veterans?
    And the final question that I have, which has come up with 
respect to my caseworkers, is, can you kind of discuss the 
current process for handling claims after a veteran's death and 
the difficulties that the widows are facing in filing 
substitution claims? What changes is the VA considering to make 
the substitution claim process more accessible and less 
emotionally challenging for surviving spouses?
    Secretary McDonough. These are excellent questions. On the 
access to pharmaceuticals, both in terms of simplifying--making 
more transparent how in-network pharmacists can get more 
quickly reimbursed and then making it--the same process more 
transparent for out-of-network pharmacists, I confess that this 
is the first time I have heard issues on that.
    So what I would like to do is just make sure that out of 
this hearing, we get--I get our team connected with the right 
person on your team, your caseworkers, so we can find out 
precisely what is happening, because I haven't heard that as a 
systemwide issue. So there might be something specific in 
Georgia that we can address. So that is point one.
    Point two, on the by-mail, one of the reasons why we like 
the by-mail process, it is pretty efficient, very cost 
efficient, but it also doesn't require travel or other 
challenges for many of our rural vets, which we have seen 
impacts adherence to pharmaceuticals. So, again----
    Mr. Bishop. This is just the post office, I guess, the 
Postal Service?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Well, it can be, but as a 
general matter, we feel pretty good about what we have 
experienced. But, again, so this is why the second thing I 
would like to do here is to make sure that we get with the same 
caseworkers to identify particularly what is going on. Is it a 
delivery issue? Is it an application issue? Is it, you know, a 
prescription renewal issue? And we will get to the bottom of 
it.
    Third, on claims for survivors. You see--I think you will 
notice that we talk all the time now, not only about veterans, 
but we talk about veterans, their families, their caregivers, 
thanks to your generosity in the Caregiver Program, and their 
survivors.
    It is simply a fact that we have to do better--and we have 
identified this fact--we have to do better with our survivors. 
The claims process is sometimes overbearing.
    I think too often we, as VA, are focused on our inputs, 
meaning, what do we do for the veteran, rather than--or the 
survivor, rather than what is the experience that that survivor 
is having and whether that survivor is getting what he or she 
needs. I have seen this personally myself, including with a 
Gold Star mom and a Gold Star wife.
    We have a whole team that is working this across each of 
the administrations, so that it is a simple crosswalk between 
VHA, where somebody may--a veteran may die in our facility at 
end of life, connecting that survivor to VBA, where that 
survivor may not know they have access to benefits, and to NCA, 
where many times survivors don't even know that there is a 
burial benefit.
    We just have to be a much better integrated agency that 
answers all those questions.
    So we feel like we are making progress here. We would be 
happy to talk your team through this integrated team now and 
how those claims should get worked, and we will see if the 
advancements that we think we are making are actually being 
felt by the survivors.
    Mr. Bishop. Yeah. I get that a lot from widows. When I am 
at an event, they will come up and say, you know, your office 
was working well, and we were getting good support from VA with 
my husband's claim, but he passed and--but now, you know, we 
are at a dead end----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Bishop [continuing]. I am trying to get my benefits 
and, et cetera, and we are just not getting the kind of help 
that we need.
    So what can you do, what can you put in place to really 
facilitate that transition?
    Secretary McDonough. Right. Well, so what we have in place 
now--so one thing just earlier this week, or maybe it was last 
week, we published new rule--a new application for pension and 
for survivor benefits, which we call DIC, for the PACT Act. So 
that process is now out there. That should be more simple--
simplified. We will get that to your team so that they see 
that.
    But on that scenario, let's say a survivor--surviving 
spouse comes in and sees you and says, hey, we were getting 
this benefit, and now we don't know what is happening. We take 
great pride in the fact that we send a package to that family 
within 10 days of the death announcement.
    Mr. Bishop. Within what?
    Secretary McDonough. Within 10 days of the death 
announcement. But my question to my team is, well, that is 
great that we send it, but what do we do to connect directly 
with the family? Because I looked at the package, it is 15 
pages, 8 pages of instructions, and that means 7 pages of 
filling out.
    If I got that in the mail and I was grieving the loss of my 
spouse, I know what I would do with it, right? Generously, I 
would recycle it, but I would probably do something else with 
it.
    So we have to get better at not just sending things to 
people but actually engaging them as our customers. So----
    Mr. Bishop. So engaging them actually will require 
interaction with personnel?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, we just have to call them.
    Mr. Bishop. And if you have got these budget cuts looming, 
you will have to reduce your personnel and not have sufficient 
personnel to address it?
    Secretary McDonough. That would be one of the impacts, yes.
    Mr. Bishop. So that would be another impact of the budget 
cuts?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Definitely.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time that I may not have.
    Secretary McDonough. Let me just say--I am sorry to 
interrupt, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that I know you are a 
Vietnam-era vet. Today is National Vietnam War Veterans Day, so 
I thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. Yes, it is. Thank you for your service.
    My turn again. The fiscal year 2023 MILCON VA 
Appropriations Act clearly expressed that the intent of the 
Toxic Exposures Fund is to pay for new costs associated with 
implementing the PACT Act and to supplement, rather than 
replace, prior funding for toxic exposure-related healthcare 
benefits--healthcare and benefits.
    Despite this, fiscal year 2024 budget proposes to realign 
$14.7 billion in healthcare costs from the discretionary to 
mandatory side, and requests several billion in nonmedical 
mandatory funding.
    Can you please outline the incremental costs that will be 
incurred by VA for implementation of the PACT Act? And why did 
the administration choose to shift funds and not stay true to 
the intent of the law?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Chairman, thank you very much 
for the question. You know, the statute, the PACT Act, created 
the TEF, the Toxic Exposures Fund, and expressed very clearly 
that the TEF can be used for any incremental dollar above the 
fiscal year 2021 baseline for toxic exposure care or for 
benefits. And so that is precisely what we do in our request, 
only what the statute allows us to do.
    Now, it is conceivable to me that you all will have 
questions about our methodology, meaning, as you have just 
asked, how do we parcel out exactly what is toxic exposure-
related care, what is toxic exposure-related benefits above the 
fiscal year 2021 baseline, and we have already begun those 
conversations with your staff to explain those. These are the 
conversations I am also having with the inspector general, for 
example, to make sure that he holds us to account on this. But 
we are not asking anything that is inconsistent with the 
statute. And in the event that as we work out our methodology 
you guys see a better way to do it, we will be all ears on 
that.
    But we believe strongly this is a revolutionary piece of 
law that you have passed. It does really important things for 
our veterans. It requires us to use this fund, and we are using 
it fully consistent with what the statute envisions, I believe, 
and will continue to hold ourselves to account and deal 
transparently with you guys on that.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am just going to continue that same line of questioning 
because I was going to ask you to share the methodology that 
you used in determining the number 20.3. The distinguished 
chairman mentioned, you chose to shift costs into the 
mandatory, fund, inconsistent with the law. That is not my 
understanding of what you have done. So can you specifically, 
you know, knock down or dispel the concern? Because my 
understanding is that your application of the use of the TEF is 
directly consistent with the law.
    Secretary McDonough. So one example that we have heard some 
concern with, I heard about last week, is, the second bite for 
2024, which appropriated discretionary dollars. We rescind 
those in our budget request for next year, and we take that and 
apply it to mandatory.
    So, I get why that appears to be us rescinding 
discretionary dollars and turning them into mandatory dollars. 
But what, in fact, we did there is what I call TEF for TEF, 
meaning, the statute, the PACT Act, envisions the use of TEF to 
care for toxic exposure benefits or care for veterans.
    And so when we rescind that medical account funding, we 
rescinded it because we assess that--and we have established 
that that will be care for veterans who are exposed to toxic 
exposure, who have suffered toxic exposure--so it would be 
inconsistent with the law for us to maintain that money as 
discretionary. So, in fact, to follow the law, we need to 
rescind it and then put it, as I say, TEF for TEF, into the 
mandatory TEF account.
    This has nothing to do with, you know, easing pressure on 
the discretionary account. I am worried about that, but that is 
why we proposed a third budget category that you and I have 
talked about, not that all of us have talked about.
    What we are doing with that rescission of the second bite--
by the way, you guys don't love second bites anyway--but by 
rescinding the second bite, we are just trying to do TEF for 
TEF, which is, again, what the statute envisions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, I mean, I think the second-bite 
emphasis is an important point. I mean, we are really the only 
bill where we have the so-called second bite, and that was to 
address, you know, outlaying expenses----
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. So that you could make 
sure you--I mean, they decided--this occurred years before we 
all got here. It was designed to be anticipatory in terms of 
the expenses and items that would come up that would be 
difficult to fund, you know, newly in each fiscal year.
    And, you know, as I said in my remarks, I mean, the TEF 
funding that you are asking for includes claims processors 
current, necessary. You have to hire those in order to be able 
to implement the PACT Act appeals. We are going to have appeals 
directly associated with the PACT Act currently. Not, you know, 
appeals that are old that were previous but new ones. Critical 
research. There is research that is going to have to be done 
because, obviously, we have question marks over the kinds of 
things that are going to be covered. IT investments that will 
have to be paid for, that are newly related to the PACT Act 
implementation. And then, of course, the healthcare costs.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So is there anything in your 
proposal for the $20.3 billion that you are asking for in the 
TEF this year that is shifted from somewhere else? I mean, 
other than that you are repealing the second bite, which 
actually is a benefit and a more straightforward way of 
appropriating.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. And, you know, I think the 
budget justification and then the subsequent briefings that we 
have had with your teams are meant to get at this. The only 
dollars we put in the TEF are dollars that, for all of the 
purposes that you have just laid out, are directly accountable 
to the PACT Act expenditures. It is a revolutionary----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Newly.
    Secretary McDonough. New--yeah, over the fiscal year 2021 
base.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Secretary McDonough. Right? And so we are doing only what 
the statute envisions, only what the statute involves.
    And, look, I think the reason that the TEF is in there is 
because I think it is a recognition that is a revolutionary new 
piece of law, and implementing it will require us to use this 
new tool. And so we use the tool, we use it transparently, but 
there is not a dollar that doesn't meet that requirement in the 
statute.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And just, Mr. Chairman, if you can 
indulge me with my last 11 seconds.
    I am very supportive, as you know, and I have--did it last 
year as well for the third budget category for the VA for 
medical care. I mean, I have been saying since the passage of 
the MISSION Act that we had healthcare costs growing too 
quickly to account for them with nondefense discretionary top 
lines.
    So, I am glad to see that in the budget, but can you 
explain--because I think we need the TEF and we need to break 
out VA medical care as a third category. So can you explain how 
the third budget category protects veterans compared to 
maintaining the funding within the nondefense discretionary 
category?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So thanks so much. As long as we 
retain the medical care account where it is, it is going to 
come under additional pressure from the rest of the 
discretionary account. And I guess that is understandable 
because the healthcare demands that we have, which is, as you 
said in your opening comments, increased reliance on VA.
    When, you know, 50 percent of our patients are 60 years old 
or older, which is the period in life associated with the 
highest cost of medical care, and while reliance among that 
cohort is increasing, overall, we are going to see healthcare 
inflation. So it is really important for us to protect our 
ability to provide that care, to establish this in a third 
budget category.
    Relatedly, our veterans rely on other facets of the Federal 
Government and the Federal discretionary account. One example I 
gave earlier is HUD. Jointly working with HUD, we were able to 
permanently house 40,401 veterans, who had been previously 
homeless, just in the last calendar year, in--in calendar year 
2022.
    If we continue to see the growth of the healthcare account 
the way we are and have it continue to crowd-out investments 
like the importance of housing for veterans, that is going to 
put at even greater risk the health situation of a significant 
quantum of veterans.
    You know, so we still have about 36,000 homeless veterans 
in the country, you know, with significant changes in the 
economy, you know, we are obviously focused very much on 
prevention. We think we have prevented about a million veterans 
and family members from being homeless in the last 13 years. If 
that continues to be the case, we are going to continue to need 
HUD dollars in the discretionary account. So that is an example 
of precisely what I am talking about.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary McDonough. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make 
sure, I missed an opportunity to raise two issues with you 
earlier on waste, fraud, and abuse.
    One is that we are working with CMS right now on an 
agreement to detect and recover payment of duplicate claims. So 
we think that we are going to be able to have a potential 
savings of at least $30 million a year over the next several 
years on those duplicate claims.
    Second, on vacant and underutilized property, about 4 
percent of our own buildings are designated as vacant, with an 
annual operating expense of about $1.6 million. So we are 
working aggressively to get rid of that. In fiscal year 2020, 
2021, and 2022, we disposed of 167 buildings. That totaled 
about 1.17 million square feet.
    So we are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs, 
reduce outlays. And those are just two more examples that I 
should have raised when you asked this earlier.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, great to see you.
    Secretary McDonough. Nice to see you, yeah.
    Mr. Rutherford. And, listen, I am going to ask like three 
operational questions so it may be informative. I don't know if 
you will have an answer or not but I would bring it to your 
attention anyway.
    Secretary McDonough. Great.
    Mr. Rutherford. One is on the Veteran Transitional 
Assistance Grant Program. We finally got that law passed, 
Veterans Armed for Success, in 2021. And I am told that the 
rule-writing is about over, and we are actually going to be 
ready by October of this year.
    Secretary McDonough. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Rutherford. Do you know if that is on target to 
actually happen?
    Secretary McDonough. Let me--yeah, it is, but I want to get 
the exact answer for your question here because I have it, 
because I was just studying it last night.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Because this, Mr. Secretary, is going 
to help with your homelessness.
    Secretary McDonough. No question about it.
    Mr. Rutherford. Because we will keep people employed.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So, we are currently on target 
for full implementation first quarter fiscal year 2024. We 
requested an additional $5 million this year in this budget for 
the program. That includes a request--that includes the ability 
to hire three new employees and then to administer the $4.5 
million in the first quantum of grants.
    So, we are hiring the staff. We have established the grant 
management office. We are working on a technology solution to 
run this. And this means that we should be in a position to 
make sure that the first grants are made first quarter fiscal 
year 2024.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay, thank you. That is a little later 
than I was hoping, but that is okay.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, you and me both.
    Mr. Rutherford. It really is going to help keep a lot of 
these fellows employed, and ladies, as they transition.
    Secretary McDonough. I agree with you.
    The second one, we are still experiencing a very large 
backlog on our appeals decisions. And I don't know that that is 
unique to our VISN or not, but the caseworkers in my district 
are really concerned. It is back to years again.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. Can you tell me a little bit about what we 
might be doing to try and reduce that backlog?
    Secretary McDonough. This is--what we are doing here is two 
things. One is we are----
    Mr. Rutherford. Excuse me.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Mr. Rutherford. And is it wider than our----
    Secretary McDonough. It is.
    Mr. Rutherford. Oh, okay.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. This is a systemwide issue.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Secretary McDonough. There is two issues. One is the legacy 
claims, and we are working those down, but we are still too 
high on the legacy claims.
    But then the next is just, you know, claims under the new 
system, that as we get more decisions--but as I said earlier 
today, we are awarding PACT Act claims at about 80 percent 
grant rate. So, you know, that is obviously going to reduce the 
number of appeals, I hope.
    So it is a systemwide challenge. There is two answers to 
this. One is more judges, more lawyers. We have been hiring, 
aggressively, judges since I arrived. We just, I guess it was 
about 6 months ago, onboarded the next quantum of them. I will 
get you the exact numbers. I don't have those in front of me.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Secretary McDonough. The second thing is, we just have to 
make sure that when we schedule a hearing, we do it, you know. 
Our ability now to use technology for what we call tele-appeals 
helps. Our ability to be more clear with our VSO partners about 
who is scheduled when and how, means that too often in the 
past, we would end up, you know, either a judge, you know, has 
to change something, a veteran has to change something, nobody 
gets communicated to, so we end up not using a slot.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Secretary McDonough. We have got to make sure that we make 
absolute use of every slot.
    Mr. Rutherford. Use all of them. Right. Okay. And I am 
really concerned, looking at the PACT Act application, you 
know, we are going to have all those new folks trying to come 
through that appeal process as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. Exactly. We just got to get this 
right. I totally agree with you.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And then the second thing--this is 
really concerning to me--our St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional 
Office, for whatever reason, I am told they dissolved their 
congressional liaison department. So now our caseworkers are 
having to go through the normal process that all veterans go 
through to try and get answers to questions. Those liaisons are 
critical.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So obviously we have some kind 
of communication issue here, so I am not saying everything is 
right, but we did reach out to them last night after we heard 
that you were concerned about this. They reassure me that they 
have congressional liaison staff, but they also use the public 
contact staff to assist with workload, as needed. So they 
haven't replaced them, but we do supplement.
    But let me make sure that we----
    Mr. Rutherford. Is their congressional liaison staff down 
or not?
    Secretary McDonough. No. It is still there and still 
working. But so why don't we get the name of your person when 
we leave here, and let's just connect everybody and make sure 
that there is not any confusion.
    Mr. Rutherford. Perfect.
    Secretary McDonough. Because I don't know if I have gotten 
bad gouge or what, so--but we checked last night and again this 
morning; and we were assured that the liaison staff is still 
there.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Excellent, excellent.
    And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I see my time is up. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop, do you have any further questions?
    Mr. Bishop. No. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I just wanted to follow up on the electronic health record.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. The House majority has made some proposals of 
cutting VA funding to fiscal year 2022 levels. How would that 
impact the EHRM?
    Secretary McDonough. Well, it would be--let me just see if 
I have a specific number on the EHRM, but it would--you know, 
it would obviously end up being--I guess it--let me get that 
specific number from him for you, but, you know, it is our 
third biggest outlay in our Office of Infrastructure and 
Technology. [sic] So, you know, the cut would be indiscriminate 
across that account. So it would have an impact, but I would 
have to get you a specific number.
    Remember that the other--the biggest request in that 
account is for cybersecurity. And when we are increasing our 
reliance on telehealth, we--you know, I would be really worried 
about the impact on cybersecurity too.
    Ms. Lee. What would these cuts do to the broader IT and 
other infrastructure upgrades across the VA, and what would 
that mean to care for veterans?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So I am told here that the 
Office of Infrastructure and Technology [sic] would have a $345 
million shortfall between proposed 2024 and actual 2022. So 
that means significant impact, as we say, on network 
reliability, which is increasingly what we use for what I 
mentioned earlier is a 3,000 percent increase in the use of 
telehealth. So, it would have an impact there.
    Ms. Lee. Let me turn now to student veteran benefit 
processing. We are hearing from student veterans in 
universities in Southern Nevada about the transition to the 
enrollment manager for school-certifying officials who are 
responsible for ensuring these veterans receive their benefits.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. I appreciate your team's responsiveness to my 
letter in December----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Asking to delay that transition 
obviously in January based on the schedule. But, unfortunately, 
since the transition went through this month, officials at the 
University of Nevada have reported big complications from dual-
certification requirements, a VA policy that if a student has 
another claim in the queue, their basic housing allowance can 
be seriously delayed. Delaying these benefits for even a few 
days can be devastating for student veterans.
    Do you have any updates on this rollout and VA's efforts to 
ensure that these benefits are delivered in a timely manner?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. So, I have been tracking the 
enrollment manager deployment because you and a couple of other 
Members had brought this to our attention. We did make the 
decision, as you said, to postpone in light of the change of 
semester. I have not heard other examples of this, so I think 
the most important thing we could do is, why don't I get a name 
of somebody at the University of Nevada, and let's get our team 
in direct touch with them, and let's figure out exactly what is 
going on.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. We will follow up on that.
    Secretary McDonough. Good.
    Ms. Lee. Just on mental health----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. This has been an issue, obviously, 
that we are all focused on.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. I just introduced the VA Zero Suicide 
Demonstration Project. This is a bipartisan bill that will 
deliver to the VA proven systemwide processes for preventing 
suicide. So I am working to commit--being committed to moving 
that forward.
    Are you aware of this initiative?
    Secretary McDonough. The specific initiative that you are 
referring to, I don't think I am aware of it.
    Ms. Lee. This is built on this belief--and it is a model 
that was adopted in the private sector--that all suicides are 
preventable with proper care, patient safety, systemwide 
efforts. And so----
    Secretary McDonough. Well, that is surely our view. So I 
just didn't know if there is a specific initiative, but surely 
that is our view, and that is what all of our programming is 
designed to.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Well, we will follow up on that.
    I just want to talk now more specifically to Vegas. The 
North Las Vegas mental health appointments, wait times are 25 
days for new patients and 9 days for established patients. You 
know, we can all agree far too long for anyone----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Who is experiencing a crisis.
    Given the reality of what these wait times are now, how 
would you expect the proposed funding cuts to impact mental 
health services for veterans?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, thanks very much. I just want to 
point out one thing really quick, especially for any veterans 
or any of you who are talking to veterans in your districts, 
that--so the wait times you talk about, if any veteran is in 
crisis, all they need to do is call 988 and then press 1, and 
we can get them into care that day. So those numbers that you 
are talking about do not account for emergent care. So any 
veteran in crisis, please dial 988--or a family member--988 and 
press 1.
    Secondly, the wait times in mental health care are a direct 
outshoot of two things. One is our ability to have MSAs, in 
effect, the schedulers, kind of the real pistons that make VA 
healthcare work, and then mental health professionals: 
psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors.
    And we are working really hard. Those are two of our 
priority hiring streams. We are making good progress on both, 
but they require money. And if we see a cut of the type that we 
are talking about, that is going to undercut our ability to 
keep hiring at the rate we are hiring. And it will undercut our 
competitiveness, because we are bidding for these limited 
resources with other hospital systems. And so I would be really 
concerned about that impact.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chair, could I ask one more question?
    Just, you know, one idea that was floated by some of the 
professionals in Vegas is this barrier of the civil servant 
classification that we use in the Federal Government being 
applied sort of uniformly to the VA.
    You mentioned trying to work around that to try to get 
above the $400,000 for a doctor's salary by----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Doing some contract. Have you looked 
at or made proposals on a potential adaptation to that schedule 
that we could apply specifically to the VA? Because this seems 
to be a different type of workforce than----
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Maybe traditionally seen across the 
Federal--I mean, this goes outside of our jurisdiction, but 
something we could work with Oversight on.
    Secretary McDonough. Well, first, I am not surprised to 
hear that, you know, Bill McCaron [sic] And his team in Las 
Vegas are coming up with creative ideas because they are a 
great team and very creative team, one.
    Two, one of the complications we have in hiring is that we 
can hire across three different systems: title 38, title 5, or 
title 38 Hybrids. So we have different flexibilities associated 
with each of those, and so it really--I hate to say this, but 
it really depends on what we are talking about. The challenge, 
though, with having three different hiring systems is that it 
is an administrative burden on top of administrative burden.
    So, you know, we have talked about whether we come talk to 
you guys about, you know, trying to harmonize that into one 
hiring system, which might be more akin to what McCaron [sic] 
and the team are talking about.
    I have not proposed that because, to be honest with you, it 
feels like such an overhaul. Like, I got like so much daily 
work to do, I feel like it is going to be a distraction. And 
that could be the wrong decision, but when I think about, you 
know, if I make it 4 years and I don't get fired, right, then 
maybe you could get a start on something like that.
    We just need to get better at hiring than we are. Period.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If I could just ask you a quick question, and it really 
kind of flows right into----
    Secretary McDonough. Sure.
    Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. The conversation you were just 
having. VA authorizing a few years back changed, or allowed for 
the change, on how we do residency and loan forgiveness.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. And the whole idea was, number one, we 
wanted to improve the quality of the doctors that we were 
getting but also the quantity.
    Secretary McDonough. Right. And retain them longer.
    Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. And so instead of offering the 
loan forgiveness after the selection of their residency, 
because then they would either come up--you know, we were kind 
of getting the folks that couldn't get anywhere else, which was 
bad. And so we tried to offer that money up front to get them 
to come to us on their own with that commitment for, I think, 4 
to 6 years, something like that.
    Secretary McDonough. Six, I think.
    Mr. Rutherford. Have we seen any benefit to that program?
    Secretary McDonough. It is a really exciting program. We 
are just on the verge of graduating the first participants.
    Mr. Rutherford. Oh, is that right?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. So I will get you a summary of 
it. I just talked to our workforce development lead on this 
question.
    So that, plus a series of workforce enhancements that you 
gave us in the PACT Act. Plus, we are asking for a couple 
others that we talked about a little bit earlier to get out 
from----
    Mr. Rutherford. I missed that, I am sorry.
    Secretary McDonough. That is okay--to get out from under a 
$400,000 salary cap.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Secretary McDonough. Those are giving us all sorts of new 
competitive opportunities, and we are making good use of them, 
and that is why we have had the success that we have had. We 
have had the best hiring quarter in VHA that we have had in 20 
to 25 years. We have got to keep that up if we want to meet our 
target for this year. But I will get you the specific summary 
on those new docs.
    Mr. Rutherford. I would appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
    And can you give me some idea about rural versus urban too 
on how that is working?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. In terms of the docs in that 
program?
    Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, I will. I will make sure that we 
desegregate that, absolutely.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
    Secretary McDonough. You bet. Thank you.
    Mr. Rutherford. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop, do you have anything else?
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Mr. Carter. All right. Well, thank you. I will tell you 
that you have great talent. You have remained calm, and you are 
a good witness.
    Secretary McDonough. I am just trying to reflect my 
chairman's guidance here.
    Mr. Carter. You are a good witness. And I have watched lots 
of witnesses in my day, and you are a good one.
    Well, if there is nothing more, we will stand adjourned.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2197A.024
    

                                           Tuesday, April 18, 2023.

     NAVY AND MARINE CORPS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING

                               WITNESSES

HON. MEREDITH BERGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, 
    AND ENVIRONMENT
UNITED STATES NAVY VICE ADMIRAL RICKY WILLIAMSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL 
    OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS
UNITED STATES NAVY LIEUTENANT GENERAL EDWARD BANTA, DEPUTY COMMANDANT 
    FOR INSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
    Mr. Carter. The committee will come to order.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz is delayed or tied up. So she will 
give her speech or her opening statement after she gets here. 
We will go ahead, and she understands that.
    Good afternoon. I appreciate you both--all of you being 
here. Today's hearing is on the Navy and the Marine Corps' 
fiscal year 2024 budget request for military construction and 
family housing. It is a great pleasure to be here today with 
the Honorable Meredith Berger, Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Vice Admiral Ricky 
Williamson, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness 
and Logistics, and Lieutenant General Edward Banta, Deputy 
Commandant for Installations, Logistics for the United States 
Marine Corps.
    Military construction and family housing makes up only 
about 2 percent of the defense budget. Yet it has a tremendous 
impact on our Sailors and our Marines and their families who 
feel the infrastructure investment daily.
    Infrastructure is a form of deterrence. By that, we mean we 
must increase our investment in infrastructure to strengthen 
our ability to deter aggression elsewhere when it occurs. And 
with this in mind, I look forward to discussing with you with 
the challenges and opportunities of the Navy and Marine Corps.
    Investing in facilities and infrastructure is critical to 
supporting our Sailors and Marines. Their readiness is of 
utmost importance, and we owe it to them to invest in their 
ability to fight and support their families.
    I will recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz when she gets here. 
So thank you for the time. The time being, we will start here 
and try to limit your review to 5 minutes each, please.
    Ms. Berger.
    Ms. Berger. Thank you, Chairman Carter and look forward to 
seeing Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz when she gets here.
    Distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor 
to be before you today. First, I would like to thank you for 
your support of the Fallon Range Training Complex modernization 
in the 2023 NDAA. Together we guarantee the readiness of the 
fleet, making sure that they can train like they fight, while 
protecting culture, the environment, and the economy. I will 
return to Fallon this weekend to celebrate Earth Day with our 
Tribal partners as we approach our first milestone under the 
NDAA, memorializing access agreements to shared lands.
    I also thank you for your support and careful attention to 
our response at Red Hill in Hawaii. Once the Joint Task Force 
certifies that they have removed all fuel from the facility, 
the Navy is prepared to execute the permanent closure of Red 
Hill. In the meantime, we are continuing our long-term 
monitoring program to validate drinking water continues to be 
safe. And I will return next week to Hawaii to ensure that, 
with every action we take, we are working together and focused 
on the health and safety of the people, the environment, and 
the communities in Oahu.
    In my portfolio, my work falls across three crosscutting 
areas: Critical infrastructure, communities, and climate 
action. Critical infrastructure is the means to our ends. 
Worldwide, Navy and Marine Corps installations are power 
projection platforms from which Naval forces train, deploy, and 
maintain forward presence.
    And I love your point on deterrence as well, Mr. Chairman.
    They are also where our people recover, resupply, and rest. 
They are home to many servicemembers and their families. 
Historically, the Department has accepted significant level of 
risk in the resourcing of Naval installations. This year's 
budget represents a first step in fundamentally changing that 
approach. We are developing a 30-year infrastructure plan that 
will design and deliver the requirements and resources to 
support the mission set of our Naval facilities.
    Warfighting readiness and quality of life. The Department 
of the Navy's budget request also includes $6 billion for 
military construction projects that enable new platforms and 
weapons systems, modernized utilities, recapitalize obsolete 
infrastructure, and enhance the quality of life for our Sailors 
and Marines. We are also requesting nearly $6 billion to 
maintain existing infrastructure and more than $300 million to 
demolish obsolete facilities.
    This budget includes our commitment to the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program and prioritizes investments 
in the Indo-Pacific region and the commitments that we have 
made there. The Department of Defense will continue to 
highlight the importance of a stable workforce in Guam through 
long-term relief from the H-2B visa requirement through at 
least 2029.
    Next, communities, where our people come together, your 
districts, our installations, and the environment, economy, and 
people that connect us. As we continue to make investments in 
critical infrastructure, we ensure that we have the policy and 
practice to match, keeping oversight of our privatized housing 
programs and advocacy for our servicemembers' families at the 
forefront.
    This budget continues our proactive environmental 
stewardship of installations and ranges, while implementing the 
Department of Defense's comprehensive approach to address PFAS 
and other emerging chemicals of concern.
    The Department of the Navy protects our communities and 
critical infrastructure through a third ``C,'' climate action. 
No matter what you call it, extreme weather, temperatures, a 
rising sea, and depleting water sources threaten our 
installations and the infrastructure that support our critical 
missions.
    This budget request makes the Navy and Marine Corps 
installations, our power projection platforms more survivable 
by hardening power grids, fuel distribution systems, and water 
lines and giving our forward deployed forces the operational 
advantage by being untethered from long and contested logistics 
tails.
    I would like to thank this committee for your steadfast 
commitment to our Sailors, Marines, civilians, and their 
families. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the 
Navy and Marine Corps remain the world's greatest maritime 
fighting force.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Admiral.
    Admiral Williamson. Chairman Carter and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before 
you today on behalf of our Sailors and their families. Thank 
you for your continued support to the Navy, its military 
construction program, and our 70 installations worldwide which 
enables us to strengthen readiness, support delivery of new 
platforms, and ensure quality of service for our Sailors.
    The Chief of Naval Operations issued a call to action last 
year for Navy leaders to apply a set of Navy-proven leadership 
problem-solving best practices that empower our people to 
achieve exceptional performance. My organization has fully 
embraced this call, continually self-assessing and benchmarking 
to get real and see ourselves, followed by self-correction and 
staying left of the problems.
    To meet the challenges of strategic competition and an 
evolving threat environment, we must enable global logistics 
with 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.
    To achieve this, my organization continues to implement the 
Naval Global Strategy Ashore, our strategic direction for the 
Navy Shore enterprise in alignment with the National Defense 
Strategy, the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, and the CNO's 
Navigation Plan.
    As a Surface Warfare Officer, I can confirm that all 
readiness starts from the shore. Navy installations are 
essential shore platforms from which Naval forces train, 
deploy, and maintain forward presence. To get real, over the 
past two decades the Navy has taken risk in shore investments 
to focus on afloat readiness and strengthen future platform and 
weapons system capabilities. Our investments in fiscal year 
2023 and proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 begins reversing 
the impact of those risks over the past decade.
    Our 6 single-most strategic asset is our Sailors who 
deserve world-class quality of service, a combination of both 
quality of life and quality of work.
    PB24 improves quality of life for our Sailors through 
investments in unaccompanied housing, PPV, and child 
development centers. In fiscal year 2023, we invested $140 
million for unaccompanied housing, and our fiscal year 2024 
budget invests $165 million. And we need to do more.
    Investments in childcare are directed at decreasing 
waitlist and being competitive with the private sector. The 
waitlist is currently at 5,500, down from 8,000 in fiscal year 
2022. Our goal is to decrease it to 2,000 by the end of 2024.
    To address quality of work, PB24 funds sustainment at 100 
percent for nuclear deterrence requirements and 87 percent for 
remaining DOD-modeled requirements. PB24 also invests in 
demolition funds to reduce the Navy's footprint and support 
better base design.
    Our Navy Military Construction Program. We thank you for 
the additional $671 million to our fiscal year 2023 budget 
which funded six additional projects. The Navy's $4.7 billion 
PB24 MILCON request funds planning and design, unspecified 
minor construction, and 19 projects including four Pacific-
deterrent initiative efforts in Guam.
    The Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program is 
critical to preparing the Nation's four public shipyards to 
meet further needs of the Navy's nuclear-powered submarine and 
aircraft carrier force in support of the National Defense 
Strategy. We are making great progress in fiscal year 2023 with 
the awarding of contracts for area development plans for 
Norfolk and Portsmouth shipyards and additional project 
planning.
    For fiscal year 2024, SIOP budget provides $2.4 billion to 
continue advancing the program. With Congress' continued 
support, SIOP investments will be--will halt the degradation of 
our aging shipyard infrastructure, deliver required dry-dock 
repairs and upgrades, and recapitalize industrial equipment 
with modern technology, substantially increasing productivity 
and safety.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 
It has been a distinct honor and pleasure to work with you over 
the past 4 years to meet shared goals for our Navy and our 
country. We look forward to future collaboration in the pursuit 
of warfighting capability and support for our Sailors and their 
families.
    I look forward to the conversation.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Admiral. I mean General.
    General Banta. Chairman Carter, distinguish members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 
Marine Corps's fiscal year 2024 military construction budget 
request.
    As my counterparts here said, first I would like to thank 
you for funding last year's budget request and our unfunded 
priority list. Your support will accelerate improvements to 
quality of life, enable Marine Corps Force design initiatives, 
and raptly grow our INDOPACOM posture.
    In fiscal year 2024, we are requesting $1.3 billion for 16 
military construction projects and planning and design funds. 
Then request aims to modernize our station. And it reflects a 
balanced investment approach to support required warfighting 
capabilities, improve quality of life for our Marines and their 
families, and increase the resiliency of our installations. 
Viewed through an operational lens, these investments 
ultimately improve the readiness and the lethality of our 
force.
    Eight of our 16 projects will help bolster our presence in 
the Indo-Pacific region. Seven of them in are in Guam, 
including four projects that will posture combat and logistics 
capabilities on the island, and one project that will enable 
our marine rotational force in Darwin, Australia. The remaining 
eight projects in our request are in the continental United 
States, yet complement our Pacific investments, recognizing 
that our ability to campaign forward begins here at home.
    For example, our budget includes four projects that support 
aviation and ground combat capabilities to include aviation 
command and maintenance facilities in North Carolina and a 
radar support facility in Dam Neck, Virginia.
    Constructing new communications towers on our ranges in 
Twentynine Palms, California, improves safety and supports our 
advanced live virtual constructive training, while the 
cybersecurity operations facility in Maryland supports critical 
operations in the cyber domain.
    We also appreciate this committee's continued support to 
improving the quality of life for our Marines and their 
families. To that end, we plan to invest $318 million, or about 
23 percent of our military construction budget, against four 
quality-of-life projects to include a child development center, 
a recreation center, and a religious ministry services center 
on Guam. Most of our family housing construction request is 
also focused on Guam to build 57 additional units there.
    Recognizing the importance of housing our single Marines, 
we are requesting one new barracks at Marine Barracks 
Washington, and we intend to renovate 13 more across the force. 
Importantly, we are also prepared to renovate 12 more barracks 
if additional restoration and modernization funds are 
available. We will continue to work with you to deliver the 
best that we can for our most valuable weapons system, the 
individual marine.
    We are focused on improving the resiliency of our bases and 
stations so they can prepare for, respond to, and recover from 
all types of hazards and threats. Our investments in strong 
community partnerships, water treatment infrastructure like the 
project on Marine Corps Base Quantico, and electric utility 
upgrades will improve our resiliency, enable force generation, 
and support warfighting requirements, again, with an eye 
towards increased readiness and lethality.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
and for your continued oversight, input, and support.
    Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, it is good to see you 
also, ma'am.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, General.
    I am now going to recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz for an 
opening statement.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    And, Secretary Berger, it is great to see you again. And I 
apologize for us not being able to get together prior to the 
hearing.
    Welcome back to all three of you. I look forward to your 
testimonies and to hearing how the fiscal year 2024 budget 
would improve the condition of Navy and Marine Corps 
infrastructure and improve our military readiness. I also am 
interested in hearing from you how robust funding for housing 
and quality-of-life projects could build on the progress of our 
past years so we can benefit the Sailors and Marines and their 
families. That is something that we have been incredibly 
focused on as a subcommittee, as you know, and want to make 
sure we can take good care of them and their quality of life.
    The progress the Navy and Marine Corps makes towards 
improving the quality of life for our Sailors, Marines, and 
their families will undoubtedly help recruitment and retention 
efforts. And that is why continued strong investments in these 
programs is essential and while I am pleased--why I am pleased 
to see an improved budget request from the Navy and Marine 
Corps this year.
    The fiscal year 2024 budget request for the Navy and Marine 
Corps military construction is $6 billion, and that represents 
a $1.7 billion increase over 2023 enacted and, even larger, 
$2.2 billion over the 2023 request. So I am generally pleased 
with the overall direction of this funding request, but there 
are certain specific areas that I do wish to cover.
    For example, the Navy and Marine Corps Family Housing 
Construction request is $277 million, and that would equal a 
$60 million cut from the enacted level.
    From the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program to 
the buildup in the Pacific, there are a number of crucial 
initiatives in this year's budget which show why continued 
investment in military construction is crucial to our national 
security.
    Unfortunately, as my friends' on the other side of the 
aisle, or rather their leadership, proposals to dramatically 
cut government spending continue to circulate in the news, it 
is imperative that we examine what these cuts would mean for 
our servicemembers and their families, the condition of our 
military infrastructure, and ultimately our military readiness. 
Cuts back to the fiscal year 2022 spending level would slow 
essential construction projects revitalizing our Naval 
shipyards, strategically vital construction through the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative, and investments to improve the quality 
of life for our Sailors, Marines and their families.
    In addition, I would like to hear from our witnesses on the 
following topics including the progress that we have made on 
these issues and how they will affect Navy and Marine Corps 
budgets moving forward.
    For example, contamination from the Red Hill bulk fuel 
storage facility continues to be a concern to me. Recent 
reports say that local Hawaii families not only had their water 
polluted by fuel but also by antifreeze chemicals. This 
development has only sharpened the health concerns surrounding 
the incident. I hope to hear an update on the planning for both 
immediate cleanup and long-term solutions.
    The Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program represents 
crucial investments in our Nation's--in our Navy's 
infrastructure to reconfigure, modernize, and optimize our four 
aging shipyards into new modern facilities that will serve this 
Nation into the future. We must ensure this program is taking 
care of the Navy's shipbuilding needs now and well into the 
future, which I know you agree with.
    Turning to privatized housing, the GAO's recent report 
recognized the progress that all of the services have made in 
increasing oversight of the housing portfolio. We certainly 
have pushed for that, Mr. Chairman, you and I and various 
permeations of this subcommittee. But we also listed--there was 
also listed a number of further steps that need to be taken.
    I hope the Navy and Marine Corps will fully embrace these 
additional accountability measures and will fully implement the 
recommendations, including increasing communications with 
residents regarding their rights and their options.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the 
progress that has been made towards improving access to mental 
health resources for our Sailors and Marines. And finally, I 
would like an update on Navy and Marine Corps efforts to 
prevent sexual assaults and improve trust in the reporting 
system.
    Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. And 
I know you just went through your testimonies, and so 
appreciate you being here. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    I will start, and we will follow the rules we followed and 
I announced at the beginning of this season.
    The first question I have is kind of off the cuff. You 
mentioned the visas. I was just--been over to Guam and 
Quaziland and other places over there. And the work visas are 
critical to getting the job done. The Marines have been 
slowballed in their--in the building up of their initial 
investment. They are still building it, but the labor is not 
there. They work 18 months and they leave and we need to be 
able to keep them longer.
    Have you had--I know you said, when we talked, you said you 
were going have some conversations with the State Department. 
Have you had any luck?
    Ms. Berger. Chairman Carter, having just done that trip 
myself, that is a long plane ride. The general and I were 
recently out for the opening of Camp Blaz, and I know that the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense has been the lead on this 
visa issue. I anticipate that you are hearing this from myself, 
my colleagues all across because there are two things that are 
critically important to ensuring success in Guam. And that is 
consistency of funding and consistency of labor, and so that is 
why this H-2B visa relief is so important.
    You mentioned the 18 months. But at every point that we 
can't continue to guarantee work to folks, it creates a break 
in the way that we will work, the same with contracting, 
funding, everything else. And so this will be critically 
important.
    As for your question on the State Department, let me check 
with my colleagues at OSD as they are the lead on that. But I 
would be happy to follow up with you.
    Mr. Carter. Please do because it is very important. They 
need to come from the Philippines. They have got great labor. 
They have worked them before. They want them. And the people 
there on Guam say, when the military gets through with them, 
they got projects they need them to work on to support the 
military.
    So we need to get some flexibility in these voices so they 
can keep working as they come over there. I know this is a, you 
know, this question is kind of I am throwing out there without 
a brief. But the real world is I was there, and they can't do 
it without it.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, sir. And consistency----
    Mr. Carter. General, do you want to say something?
    General Banta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, if I may, Secretary.
    Absolutely concur, sir. We are about 15 percent with our 
construction, 15 percent complete with our construction effort 
on Guam, so a lot of work yet to be done. This visa effort will 
be absolutely critical to achieving that workload over the 
coming years within cost and scheduled performance parameters. 
If we don't get it, we are already seeing the potential for 
cost overruns on the order of $1.1 to $1.5 billion. So that's 
something that we would certainly like to avoid if we can get 
this extension on the H-2B visas.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Admiral.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Just what General Banta and 
Ms. Meredith said. Particularly when you look at the things 
that are going to Guam, it is not just Marine Corps and Navy. 
It is also----
    Mr. Carter. It is everybody.
    Admiral Williamson [continuing]. The Army, the Air Force, 
everybody. And so to ensure that we stay on cost, schedule, and 
scope, I think it is imperative to have that workforce able to 
be able to drive to the end of the plan, sir.
    Mr. Carter. And just they need to be renewable, if not, 
extended, because it, you know, it--you just can't work and 
then stop and go through a big process to get them back. That 
just is so onerous to get a project done even in the United 
States. If they walk off the job, getting them back is tough. 
And so it is very important.
    On the shipyards, how much progress has the Navy made with 
these efforts? The Indo-Pacific region remains our top 
priority, and it is important that our shipyards are modernized 
and in an expeditious manner.
    How is the Navy ensuring workflow efficiency? Does the Navy 
have a sufficient stockpile of materials to adequately complete 
projects? And what other suggestions on how we can speed up the 
projects?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    Over the past year I think we have made some tremendous 
progress in our SIOP initiative, in particular, bringing 
lessons forward from earlier projects into current projects and 
future projects.
    You asked very specifically about what are we doing to 
ensure cost, schedule, and scope. By being able to work very 
closely with our partners, understanding the environment in 
which we are in as far as inflation and those things, applying 
that information not just what is being put out by OMB but 
actually what the contractor is seeing.
    For example, our inflation rates are--in Hawaii and San 
Diego are very high. And so we have to project that and be able 
to get that cost, schedule, and scope.
    One of the others things that we have to do is make the 
money available so that the contractor that is actually doing 
the workforce buys down the risk. We have to tie our workforce 
to the workflow, to our supply chain. And our ADPs are off and 
running. Hawaii is complete. We are doing that analysis now, 
and that is showing great progress of learning that we can 
apply to the other shipyards.
    We have three sprints with our workflow, in particular down 
in Norfolk, that look at monitored state-of-the-art advanced 
machinery and marrying the workflow to that to see the impacts 
it has to generate the outcomes that we are looking for.
    I would be happy to come over, sir, and talk to you in 
great detail on the progress we are making.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you. We might do that.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    The fiscal year 2024 budget request of $6.7 billion for the 
Navy and Marine Corps includes several key increases like 
increased construction funding for the Navy Reserve. Republican 
leadership has been discussing cutting funding levels to the 
fiscal year 2022 levels. If funding were cut to fiscal year 
2022, the Navy and Marine Corps could be cut at least $3.7 
billion lower than the President's budget request.
    So if all three witnesses could share how, if funding were 
reduced to the fiscal year 2022 levels, that would affect the 
priorities in the budgets request and also from each of your 
perspectives, if less money were to go towards the projects in 
the budget request and in the unfunded priorities list, how 
would that effect our military readiness and the long-term 
condition of our Navy and Marine Corps facilities?
    Ms. Berger. Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, I will go 
first here.
    As I opened, I talked about the mission set of our Naval 
facilities being warfighting, readiness, and quality of life. 
So every time that we ask for something in a budget, it is 
purpose-tied to the mission set that we are charged with. Each 
of those missions has mission need dates and different 
definitions that go along with that.
    And so as we look towards these missions and what the needs 
are, we have different milestones along the way. And if we 
don't meet those, then we move away from being able to fully 
meet that mission in each of these definitions and at each of 
those need dates with each of those requirements.
    So I will turn to my colleagues to talk in detail about 
where they see the impacts in their services. But when we--when 
we move back in budget, the people who will feel it most are 
Sailors, Marines, and their families.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
    Just doing some quick math, I think it would cut our MILCON 
roughly in half and directly impact SIOP, BIOP, CDCs, 
unaccompanied housing, and other critical infrastructure 
investments such as utilities that we are looking to make in 
2024. I think that that would basically allow us to do four 
increments to four projects and we would undoubtedly, I think, 
incur costs just based on having to push the planned projects 
out in the way that we see it right now.
    And to Ms. Berger's point, I think that, you know, we have 
made a lot of effort to get after the quality of life for our 
Sailors and families. We have taken a lot of risk in that, and 
I think our budget in 2023 started showing that. 2024 shows 
that. I am looking forward to 2025 and out to really get after 
that. I think there would be a direct impact there, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    General Banta. Ma'am, thank you for the question.
    So, yes, if we were to see reduced budgets back to the 
fiscal year 2022 level, I would expect to see a proportional 
reduction in military construction and potentially quality-of-
life investments.
    I think it would be most impactful to our facilities' 
investment strategy that looks at investing in those facilities 
that matter the most to us from an operational readiness 
perspective, and so we tend to focus on those. And there is a 
big piece of quality of life such as barracks and quality-of-
life investments there.
    So we would seek to preserve it to the extent that we 
could, recognizing that the service also has modernization 
requirements and priorities. And it would just be more of a 
rheostat, I think, that would probably delay and push out 
further into the program certain key investments.
    I hope that helps, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. It does.
    And just because you mentioned the housing, the privatized 
housing, last year this committee provided a significant 
increase of over $250 million for the Navy and Marine Corps 
family housing. Reverting to fiscal year 2022 levels would mean 
that Navy and Marine Corps family housing construction would be 
cut 77 percent from the enacted level.
    I would like my colleagues to let that sink in for a 
moment.
    That absolutely disastrous cut would slow the pace of new 
construction of housing and would prolong instances of costly 
or inadequate housing for military families. Those who have 
served on this committee over the last number of years recall 
that we have had at least two hearings where we heard directly 
from servicemembers and the impact that the atrocious quality 
of their housing has had on their family life, and we are 
starting to move in the right direction. So if we start to slow 
that down, which would be pretty dramatic under those proposed 
cuts, then obviously retention and recruitment are going to be 
impacted.
    I do want to just ask you--and Judge Carter covered the 
SIOP--but I do want to ask you about sexual assaults in the 
military.
    Mr. Carter. Go ahead.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you.
    In our recent quality-of-life hearing, I asked about the 
troubling trends in sexual assaults in the military. Given the 
importance, I just want to follow up on the evidence from the 
2021 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Military Members 
regarding servicemembers' trust in the reporting system.
    So what progress has the Navy and Marine Corps made on that 
issue? I want a detailed explanation about what changes have 
been made, the implementation of the Independent Review 
Commission's recommendations, and what more is being done to 
improve the trust, because, I mean, if you have a process that 
you design to ensure that people, that we can really get a 
handle on this problem but your servicemembers don't have trust 
in it, then it is useless.
    General Banta. Ma'am, thanks very much for the question. I 
will take the initial stab at it here.
    So I think, as my counterparts will say, sexual assault has 
no place in the Marine Corps, completely counter to our ethos 
and values. And we are working hard to get after it. We are, in 
fact, implementing the Independent Reviews Commission 
recommendations. We have stood up the Office of Special Trial 
Counsel. Brigadier General Woodard assumed that position in 
January of this year, and we are actively hiring out those 
positions that are critical to his ability to implement that 
accountability measure.
    In 2023, we have--we are spending $46 million to hire 369 
additional staff. So that is sexual assault response 
coordinators, victim advocates, and equal opportunity advisors. 
We are also investing in education from whether recruit depots 
all the way through professional military education at every 
rank. We are also standardized the SAPR training so that those 
are providing the training are given the consistent message 
across the entire force at every opportunity.
    Where we could potentially use help, so even though we have 
$102 million in fiscal year 2024 and just over $500 million 
across the profile, $560 million across the FYDP, trying to 
hire to some of these positions is challenging. So we are 
working with the Department of the Navy and OSD to potentially 
seek direct hiring authority to assist us with those measures.
    And in terms of trust, I think it just gets back to 
communicating with our Marines and family members, letting them 
know that we have these people in place, that they have the 
trust of their--of their commanders, as well as this Office of 
Special Trial Counsel to hold offenders accountable.
    I hope that helps, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    As Ted said, sexual assault has absolutely no place in the 
United States Navy. A lot of the same type of investments, one 
thing I want to highlight that Ted brought up is hiring the 
right people and making sure that we get those right people in 
place. One of the things that we have initialed is working with 
academia and doing some studies to figure out how to bring 
those folks on to work and also how to be competitive in that 
market, to ensure that we have got the right people at the 
right place.
    The other thing that Ted talked about that is a huge 
initiative for us is training at all levels. At our command 
leadership school in Great Lakes, in our senior-enlisted 
academy, to ensure that that training, it starts there but it 
doesn't stop there. Make sure that it gets all the way through 
the ranks, all the way down to the deck flight.
    And then I would say finally, ma'am, that probably the 
biggest challenge or not the challenge but one of the things 
that you see in our quality of life is to ensure that, you 
know, the facilities are up to standards, that they are 
properly met, and that this is a consideration as we look at 
building back better going forward. That is something that I 
think that, you know, when we look at generating quality of 
life for our Sailors, something absolutely has to be in that 
metric and has to be measured.
    And I think that you will see that in as we look as 
unaccompanied housing and we start looking at some of the 
others things that we are doing.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you for your 
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for taking the time to be here today.
    Ms. Berger, quick question. Earlier this year California 
Energy Commission approved funding for the Navy Electric 
Vehicle Pilot Program and Electrification Blueprint Studies for 
several Navy and Marine Corps facilities.
    Given the issues we have had in California over the last 
few years, especially this past summer, we have had some energy 
issues there. We have had times we are not even supposed to 
turn our air conditioning on, plugging in vehicles. Now we are 
seeing the governor come out and start to actually push for 
more electric cars, semis. And for anyone who has been around 
one of those large semis, they could pull a lot from the grid.
    What energy production storage projects are you looking to 
support these projects? I mean, when we look at this type of 
system, I mean, we don't want to put ourselves in a position 
where we are--where we are starting to see a threat to our 
national security, where our vehicles aren't functioning and 
moving or the ability to even get them plugged in and producing 
because of some of our grid issues.
    Ms. Berger. And, Congressman Valadao, thank you for the 
question, the attention.
    For us, energy resilience is mission assurance. And that is 
the foundation of how we approach this. You mentioned the 
California Energy Commission, and we are an early and steady 
partner on some of the initiatives that they have done.
    You mentioned some of the earlier strains on the grid. 
Labor Day comes to mind when I think about some of the heat 
waves that came through California, and I will share with you 
an example of partnership on energy with the California Energy 
Commission where both Navy and Marine Corps were able to step 
up and give back to the grid to create that relief. So through 
a partnership at the Marine Corp Air Station, there is a 
microgrid where we are able to generate and store energy. And 
so when the utility providers were looking to manage against a 
blackout or to manage a rolling brownout, the Marine Corps is 
actually able to flip the switch, give energy back to the grid 
to prevent that from happening.
    So to your point, first and foremost, we create that 
assurance. And then we manage towards what the pull will be. 
There is more infrastructure work to do, but it is happening in 
a way is that cognizant of what that looks like.
    And I will turn to my colleagues to see if they have 
anything to add.
    General Banta. Thanks, ma'am.
    Thanks, Congressman, for your question.
    So just to build upon what Secretary Berger mentioned, so, 
yes, the microgrids that we are developing are important 
investments in the resiliency of our installations and, as Ms. 
Berger said, will allow us to ensure continuity of power during 
periods of crisis, regardless of the cause, as well as provide 
power back to a local grid or decreasing our demand, which 
allows them to focus on local communities.
    We are also working on electric vehicle supply equipment 
studies at our installations. We have got seven of ten complete 
that will help identify where the real challenge areas are in 
terms of that electrical infrastructure.
    So as we complete those, we will start investing into the 
infrastructure itself to include charging stations. We have 
currently got 118 permanent charging points in place primarily 
in California, as well as 27 of the portable beam arc solar 
chargers at 15 separate installations.
    So I think we are making some good investments, 
particularly in California, Miramar, our Marine Corps Air 
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, and then most recently a 
investment in a microgrid up at our Mountain Warfare Training 
Center in Bridgeport, using the ERCIP program.
    So I hope that helps, Congressman.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    Currently we have an ERCIP project for Naval Base San 
Diego, $8.6 million, to look at place in a microgrid at Naval 
Base San Diego. One of the things I am very proud of, I had the 
opportunity to be the commanding officer of Naval Base San 
Diego and understand these challenges firsthand. We work very 
closely with SDG&E and the surrounding community of San Diego. 
Our ships obviously draw a lot of power and can produce a lot 
of power. One of the things that we regularly did, as 
instability of the local surroundings, we would actually come 
onto ship's power, reduce the grid to allow--to prevent 
brownouts.
    But the one thing I want to highlight is these two things 
actually live in harmony. The microgrid, not only does it allow 
us to store energy and be able to put it back but it also makes 
our base more resilient by allowing us to direct the power to 
the mission-impacted functions on the base to ensure that that 
continues.
    Additionally, we are doing studies. One I think has great 
promise. You don't necessarily think about it. But if you are 
in San Diego, you do: The consumption of water. One of the 
largest starting amperages that you have is when pumps kick off 
and on. You are in a water-scare environment. So how do we 
reduce the amount of those starts and stops of the--our water 
pumps and get back to the grid and take the load off of the 
local structure? So we have great hope in that that will help 
us continue to build a resiliency plan, particularly in the 
southwest.
    Mr. Valadao. When you say the pumps starting and stopping, 
I mean, the technology has been around for a while. I mean, you 
got variable speed. You got soft--I think it is called soft 
start. We have put some of those even on our farm. So is that 
something you guys are just starting to implement, or have you 
developed something different?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir, it is actually twofold. It is 
to implement that but also how to do we place that into our 
base controls basically to time when those come out? A base 
wakes up at, you know, 5:00 in the morning. You see the spike 
in energy consumption. Can we move that, you know, use this 
technology, move that start, level that off so you are not 
having a larger starting amperage? It is the same thing in the 
evening. If we can drive down to zero in the evening, like the 
Marine Corps is doing, I think there is some tremendous 
opportunity there absolutely to leverage the technology. But it 
is in how you inform that technology, how it is going to be 
leveraged to drive down the starting amperage.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, my time has expired. So thank 
you.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me welcome again our witnesses, Assistant Secretary 
Berger, Admiral Williamson, General Banta.
    Let me first start with Secretary Berger. The built 
environment now benefits from various innovative materials that 
the commercial industry widely uses. For example, Walmart is 
building its new headquarters campus out of mass timber and 
realizing several strengths and sustainability benefits. Cross-
laminated timber has been included in the Unified Facilities 
Criteria since 2016. As a result, five privatized Army hotels 
consistently saw construction speed up by 37 percent, 
construction labor hours reduced by 44 percent, and on-site 
construction traffic reduced by 90 percent, while exceeding 
resilient standards and sustainability goals.
    Despite these lessons that were learned 7 years ago, the 
department has not used cross-laminated timber in its MILCON 
facilities. Can you describe the Navy's efforts to incorporate 
CLT in its MILCON projects?
    And, secondly, I understand that the Navy has been late 
submitting its report required by the pilot program on using 
sustainable materials in MILCON projects, fiscal year 2022 
NDAA, section 2861. Can you provide us with an update on the 
Navy's implementation of that pilot and whether it will use 
mass timber in this demonstration?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman Bishop, yes, we think it is 
critically important to make sure that we are incorporating 
sustainability into our build. On the report, I need to get you 
a status on that and I would be glad to do so.
    As far as using the cross-laminated timber in our projects, 
we do have two opportunities to do sustainability pilots thanks 
to Congress where we are building out on those. And we have the 
opportunity to explore using cross-laminated timber in one of 
our future sustainability projects, and I would be glad to 
update you as we move through that process.
    We are--we are working with the Army on that and are up to 
make sure that we are moving forward to give that a good test 
in terms of how we use these sustain materials. And so please 
allow me to come back to you on that update.
    I will note more broadly the point that you made in the 
question. We are making sure that we are using materials that 
are going to make enduring the investments that we put down 
when we are using these appropriated dollars. Sustainability is 
not only making sure that our infrastructure and the way that 
we are building is standing up against increasing impacts such 
as strengthened storms or extreme temperatures but also making 
sure that we are making an investment that is for the future 
sailor and marine.
    And so we look at sustainability in that Broadway. And as 
the Chief Sustainability Officer for the Department of the 
Navy, I keep a close eye on that.
    And let me make sure my colleagues have a chance to comment 
as well on their efforts.
    Admiral Williamson. Sir, thank you very much for the 
question.
    I think that when I took this job, one of the things we 
talked about is having a consistent 5-year plan. Sustainability 
of our installations is absolutely vital, but having a 
consistent resourcing made available will get us so far. We 
will look at anything that is, to your point, that is faster, 
cheaper, and meets all the requirements, not only laminated 
timber but also tension fabric, for example, and 3D printing.
    Not only do I get the benefit of meeting the requirements, 
for example, tension fabric, now Salinas, California, seismic 
standards and also the Dade County hurricane standards, I can 
put it up 18 months as a tenth of the cost. It is durable and 
also exportable, particularly when you look at how we are going 
to operate into the future. 3D printing, 30 percent savings 
alone just in utility costs.
    I think all of those things we are willing to look at to 
maximize our buy-on power so that we build our bases back 
better.
    Mr. Bishop. General Banta.
    General Banta. Congressman, I think I can add to Admiral 
Williamson by saying that we are certainly interested in any 
construction materials or methods that would make us more 
sustainable and also faster, less expensive, and more 
expeditionary, frankly. So as we look at expanding into the 
Pacific, particularly as part of a global positioning network, 
there may be things for using things like tension fabric 
structures, as well as construction-scale 3D printing, to get 
after some of our requirements.
    Thanks, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    My time has expired.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank all of our witnesses today. Thank you 
for being here.
    And thank you, particularly Secretary Berger, for the brief 
conversation that we had the other day. That--it was very 
valuable at least from my standing.
    And as we discussed, many methods of shoreline repair 
projects fall under MILCON projects which, as this committee 
knows, can often be a long time coming and very competitive.
    But speaking with you--and I want to--and I look forward to 
working with you on this. Would you talk to the committee a 
little bit about your idea on some of these shoreline erosion 
prevention projects and how we may get them done in a more 
expedient fashion?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman Rutherford. I also thought the 
time was very nice. So thank you for it.
    And I know that in Florida, for example, out at Blount 
Island there is a shoreline project that it takes a long time 
to be able to work through the traditional funding pieces. But 
one authority that Congress has given us that we are at the 
front end of but has a lot of potential is the Other 
Transactional Authority. And so as we think about how to apply 
that authority, it helps us to move with speed. It helps us to 
move with precision towards the objective of what the project 
is.
    And so as we think about one that is targeted more towards 
a resilience objective in the case of the shoreline, there is 
an opportunity to move quickly, to innovate, and to think about 
how to use our dollars better and get the result that we are 
after faster.
    And so I would love--love to continue to think about how we 
explore that to make sure that we achieve everybody's 
objectives, most importantly getting after our problems.
    Mr. Rutherford. I know the Marine Corps support facility at 
Blount Island is very excited about this new idea on how to get 
this done, I hope.
    General Banta. Congressman, we sure are. And I think, as 
you know, we had two specific projects down there on the 
riverfront that were submitted as minor construction. And, 
unfortunately, when the bids came back, they exceeded the 
threshold. So now we are looking at having to go back and 
resubmit as a MILCON project, which just is a longer, more 
time-intensive process.
    So to the extent that we can leverage other transactional 
authorities and get to this faster, we are certainly in 
agreement and concur with that.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you very much. I think this is 
a great way to expedite that and stop, because that erosion is 
significant.
    So, Admiral Williamson, the basic allowance for housing is 
critical in our privatized military housing. And the BAH rates 
have changed dramatically, particularly in some areas of the 
country dealing with inflation and just rising cost of living. 
And then when you go back and look at NDAA in fiscal year 2015, 
we cut servicemembers to 95 percent of the BAH and they were to 
pick up the other 5. Now they are, you know, living with this 
increased inflation and cost of living.
    Can you tell me your take on the BAH levels right now? Are 
they adequate really for our members?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    Obviously, you know, providing quality housing for our 
Sailors and their families, you know, as has been mentioned, is 
direct correlation to retention, recruitment, and mission 
readiness. And so our housing professionals work very closely 
with the members in the local areas to ensure that we 
understand what the market value is.
    We participate annually in a BAH analysis that generates 
the income necessary for a family member in Jacksonville, for 
example----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Admiral Williamson [continuing]. To be able to do that.
    The other thing that we do, this analysis also informs our 
ability where we have a high demand but low housing 
opportunity. For example, at Fallon and China Lake, California, 
you know, we work with the partners there, and very--you know, 
we are growing at both locations. And we have 170 new homes--72 
new homes going in at Fallon and 16 at China Lake to meet that 
demand signal.
    But to answer your question, sir, we are very aware of the 
problem. We stay on it. And I do think that we are getting 
after, making sure that Sailors and their families have what 
they need to live in any environment.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you.
    And I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I will yield 
back, but I would sure like to follow up on some of this. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Madam Secretary, thank you for your service. I know it 
is not easy, from experience.
    So the Secretary of the Navy had some interesting comments 
the other day. He said his number one priority was climate 
change. Do you also share those views?
    Ms. Berger. I prioritize the threats that we see in terms 
of weather, temperature, water----
    Mr. Zinke. Do you prioritize climate change as a primary 
objective? He said it was his number one priority.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, countering that threat is the context.
    Mr. Zinke. I appreciate that.
    When you mention sea level rise, how far has the sea level 
risen in the last 100 years?
    Ms. Berger. We have monitors throughout the ocean, and I 
would be glad to get you that data.
    Mr. Zinke. I can share that data with you. It is a 2017 
report from the Department of Interior multiagency. I would 
suggest you read it because it says between a few millimeters 
and a few centimeters.
    So are you using some other planning factor when you are 
looking at developing infrastructure for climate change?
    Ms. Berger. Yes. We use a series of planning factors based 
on historical data and other conditions, and we have seen 
historic flooding water rise in other areas----
    Mr. Zinke. In the last 100 years, do you know how much 
temperature or the sea has risen? You are using historical 
data. I am just asking, because I asked that same question.
    Ms. Berger. I would have to go and get you the data. I 
don't have it with me.
    Mr. Zinke. For your information, there is over 200 models 
of a thousand variables.
    So on EV, so are you aware that China produces about 62 
percent of the EV materials for batteries, lithium, cobalt, et 
cetera?
    Ms. Berger. Yes. And I am thankful for the CHIPS Act, which 
has helped us to look at other alternatives for that.
    Mr. Zinke. There is alternatives at the moment. It is 62 
percent, rising. You know, I am sure you are also aware there 
is a critical minerals that China has that complete--complete 
runon, germanium and others.
    So on the EV, are we using some other EV material other 
than from China as we go through and look at our batteries?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, there is tremendous industry innovation, 
and I am----
    Mr. Zinke. What country is producing it? You say we are 
moving forward on EV. I am just curious. You say we have 
alternate sources of EV: lithium, cobalt, nickel. What sources 
would those be?
    Ms. Berger. Sources of alternatives for----
    Mr. Zinke. Critical minerals and materials necessary for EV 
transfer, the batteries. You are saying you are going forward 
and putting batteries on. My question is, energy independence, 
I am wondering about energy independence and sustainability 
when materials and components come from China.
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, I think that you misunderstood 
what I said. We are going forward with that research and 
integrating it into our consideration of making sure that we--
--
    Mr. Zinke. So but you are also implementing it. Are you 
executing it, your EV?
    Ms. Berger. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. So you are executing it. So you are not 
planning. You are executing.
    My question to you is: Where are the materials coming from 
that you are executing and using the batteries from and the 
critical components from the EV? Because I believe they are 
from China, unless you have some other data I don't know.
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, I think that your point is that we 
need to make sure that we have a secure supply chain, which I 
agree with. And----
    Mr. Zinke. My point--my point is it is a national security 
issue. If China controls the preponderance of critical minerals 
and the elements that are critical in the EV, both in the 
battery and material, then I would suggest, before we jump into 
that, we look at our vulnerability in the supply chain.
    Secondly is biofuels, real quickly. General, I am concerned 
about our fuel storage in the Pacific. So without Hawaii, what 
are our options? And are our options included in your budget 
for storage of fuel in Indochina?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    The other part of my job, logistics. I think it is 
important to look at when you look at Red Hill and the fuel 
that is there and moving that fuel out, distributing maritime 
ops and expeditionary advanced based ops, particularly across 
an AOR that big, 6,000 by 4,000 square miles, I think having 
that fuel distributed closer to the point of need for Sailors, 
Marines, airmen, and soldiers----
    Mr. Zinke. Does the budget outline where the fuel is going 
to be distributed and ask for funding to do that?
    Admiral Williamson. There is resources, sir, but I think we 
get to a classified set very quickly there. I would be happy to 
come over and talk to you about that.
    We work very closely with INDOPACOM and their master plan 
for theater posture and PDI. You know, the specific locations 
of where that is being moved, I would be happy to come over 
and----
    Mr. Zinke. This is a real short time, but on the second 
round I will ask more specifics. But I am concerned about what 
we have afloat and what we have on shore. And I will work with 
you, because our job--I view my job as a supporting commander. 
So my job as supporting is to make sure that you have fuel 
distribution, that we are ready.
    Admiral Williamson. Roger that, sir.
    Mr. Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Zinke.
    Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for all of the 
witnesses being here today.
    I wanted to talk about a key facility for U.S. national 
security, the Naval Air Station in Fallon. This is a fixture 
that serves the Navy's premier strike warfare as the premier 
strike warfare training facility and the only one that allows 
the entire carrier wing to conduct comprehensive training.
    A top priority for my home State of Nevada and for our 
Nation is continuing to support Fallon's unparalleled range 
complex in the Navy training mission, especially giving the 
pressing needs to ensure our readiness in the Pacific. We 
cannot afford anything short of fully supporting Fallon's 
training mission.
    Vice Admiral Williamson, I wanted to ask you, do you--how 
you believe a reduction in spending to fiscal year 2022 levels 
would impact the Navy's readiness and ability to meet mission 
demands in the Pacific and at critical installations like 
Fallon.
    Admiral Williamson. Ma'am, thank you very much for the 
question.
    I think it would have a dramatic impact on our ability to 
fill a mission-capable fleet. Specifically to Fallon, as you 
know, we are looking at expanding that because it is the one 
area where our carrier air wings special operation forces can 
actually do the tactical training necessary to be ready. That 
impact, I think, would have a direct--would result directly in 
us not being able to expand that range to meet those mission--
those mission requirements.
    Additionally, I think, you know, the question was asked 
early. I think it would cut my military budget by approximately 
half, my military construction, which would impact SIOP, FIOP, 
which is the counterpart to our aviation. It would also have a 
direct impact to our Sailors and their families. I think we 
have four CDCs scheduled in the next year, along with numerous 
investments in our unaccompanied housing.
    So, ma'am, I think that the projects in Fallon, the land 
acquisitions at Fallon moving forward would be at jeopardy and 
we would have to reprioritize our budget to be able to get 
after that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    You know, following up on the CDCs, you know, across the 
country, ensuring access to reliable affordable childcare for 
our military members is huge and a top priority. Especially, 
you know, we have Creech Air Force Base in southern Nevada, as 
well as Fallon. They both emphasize the need. I know this--
these needs exist across the Navy and Marine Corps as well.
    And would you--Assistant Secretary Berger, could you, and 
Lieutenant General Banta, could you outline the steps that the 
Navy and Marine Corps has taken to support military families 
and to expand off-post daycare options and flexibilities for 
childcare?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congresswoman Lee, and incredibly 
important and foundational to taking care of people, as you 
note.
    So looking at a variety of ways that we can partner, first, 
a good example is out at Point Loma in California, we were able 
to partner with some unused space to increase that footprint. 
As Admiral Williamson has noted, we are making efforts to move 
against the number of children that are actually on the 
waitlist and make sure that we are filling those needs.
    There is an opportunity as childcare is a challenge that 
the whole Nation faces. And so we are looking at how we can 
partner at the State level and the local level to make sure 
that we are taking advantage of standardizing what that need 
looks like and helping more care workers to be able to meet 
that need, along with being able to pay them that competitive 
wage, and then be able to make a more supportive environment 
that will help to enable that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    General Banta. Congresswoman, thanks very much for the 
question.
    So just to reiterate, providing quality, affordable 
childcare for our families is absolutely important. I mean, it 
directly supports readiness. So we operate 58 facilities across 
the Marine Corps. Most are in pretty good shape. Staffing is a 
challenge, and we continue to struggle to hire sufficient staff 
to man those facilities. If we were able to do so, it would 
dramatically reduce our waitlist.
    In terms of being able to provide additional opportunities 
off base in particular, we fund a community childcare fee 
assistance program. Started back in fiscal year 2022. It helped 
about a thousand families to gain access to care off base when 
it wasn't available on base, and I believe there is a pilot 
they are offering on base as well for community childcare to 
augment that capability that we offer through our CDCs.
    So moving forward, we just continue to appreciate the 
continued support and funding for our childcare programs.
    Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I am over my time, So I will yield.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Certainly, thank you to the witnesses for being with us 
this afternoon.
    I am proud to represent the Oklahoma City metro area which 
houses Tinker Air Force Base. And I know many of you may be 
surprised to know this, but there is a Navy installation on 
Tinker Air Force Base in the middle of Oklahoma where there is 
no water but it is home to nearly 2,000 Sailors and makes up 
the Navy Strategic Communications Wing ONE, also known as 
TACAMO.
    As the witnesses know, the unit plays a critical mission in 
safeguarding our national defense by ensuring the security of 
communications between the Commander in Chief and much of the 
Nation's nuclear arsenal.
    My question is this: I see in the Navy's budget request 
that you have included MILCON spending to build up the 
infrastructure for the development of the replacement to the E-
6 TACAMO aircraft. Do you have everything that you need in 
place at Tinker? And how can this committee help in continuing 
to support that very vital mission?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    And I am very familiar with that base. I was the last 
commander of Navy Region Midwest. To answer your question 
specifically, right now what we are in the process of doing is 
a strategic laydown, and so particularly looking at the pacings 
for China (ph).
    As we begin to understand the requirements, what we are 
doing is looking at the specific laydown areas to include 
Tinker Air Force Base and the Navy component on there to ensure 
that we have, again, lessons learned out of SIOP, if I 
understand the requirement that I have the right resourcings 
and planning and development to meet schedule, scope, and cost 
so that we are ahead of mission-need date.
    You mentioned we have an investment in this request. It is 
at Pax River for a training facility--I am sorry--a maintenance 
facility in Pax River. As we continue to understand more about 
the requirements, particularly not only in Tinker but probably 
on the West Coast of the United States, I would be more than 
happy to come back and talk to you about that.
    But we are taking all aspects of the requirements, not to 
mention just the platform, but also we talked about CDCs, the 
healthcare for the families, housing. All those things have to 
be accounted for for the 2,000 individuals in Oklahoma City, 
ma'am.
    Mrs. Bice. Do you have a timeline on when you sort of are 
anticipating that you will be looking at moving forward with--
--
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. We have already started 
moving forward. The analysis has started, and so that is why 
you see the first investment in Pax River. We do that through 
what we call capability chains, understanding the flow not only 
of the platform but also the Sailors and the families through 
those bases to the point of need. And that analysis is well 
underway, ma'am. I would be happy to come over and talk to you 
in detail about it.
    Mrs. Bice. That would be great. I appreciate that.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Bice. And then I just want to follow up. You know, Ms. 
Lee brought up the CDC challenges that we have seen across the 
country. I had the opportunity to participate in a exchange 
with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs to visit her community and 
certainly the bases there to find out about some of the 
challenges. And it is listed that, you know, San Diego being 
one of the biggest, I think, concerns with childcare. I 
appreciate your focus on that.
    I think for Oklahoma City, it may not be as big of a 
concern, although it still is. But if we are talking about 
making sure that our families have, you know, readiness 
availability, then that childcare is incredibly important. And 
certainly for those especially higher-income areas, that may be 
a challenge. So I am glad to see that that is a focus for our 
servicemembers.
    And I would just offer up too, the other thing that we hear 
across the board is--and you mentioned this, General Banta--
that finding a workforce for those childcare facilities tends 
to be a real challenge. And I think that is something else that 
we need to be thinking about is how can we incentivize or 
recruit and retain as individuals that are providing services.
    Admiral Williamson. Yeah. Ma'am, I would love--I have been 
dying to say this. Fiscal year 2024 fully funds our CDC 
program.
    To your point about being innovative, recruiting and 
attracting, currently right now we are paying $5 above the 
national wage rate to attract the people. This is not just a 
Navy issue. This is a whole Nation issue.
    You mentioned San Diego. Our fleet concentration areas are 
definitely the locations of need. But the innovation, not only, 
you know, with the increase in the pay, but also, if you are a 
CDC worker and you have a child, we offer a 50 percent discount 
for the first child and 20 percent after that.
    In addition to that, we have partnered with universities, 
for example, Utah Tech and North Carolina State University, 
where people that are in school, that want to take a summer 
sabbatical and work in our CDCs during the summertime, which 
are our high need rates for moves and et cetera, which we tend 
to do, that is almost double, that we expect it to double this 
summer. And so absolutely we have to be innovative.
    And then the other thing to your point about the fleet 
concentration areas, the capacity is just not there. And so 
that is going to require investments. We have two next year in 
the Hampton Roads area which will give us 600 seats. We have an 
additional two, one in Kitsap and one in Point Loma, that gives 
us another 327 seats. And we have 11 additional CDCs planned 
across the FYDP for our fleet concentration areas to get after 
that need.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Chairman, if I just may, one final comment. 
It has been noted a couple of times during this hearing that 
there is a move to go back to fiscal year 2022 numbers. I think 
that that is inaccurate when it comes to the defense spending. 
The goal, of course, is to try to hold defense spending flat. 
And so I want to make sure that that is noted for the record.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    I think we will do another round.
    I am going to add a little humor here, something the 
general said. It reminded me of something that happened to be 
in the courtroom.
    A lady was being put on probation, and she had stabbed her 
boyfriend 48 times, but he lived. So they were putting her on 
probation. But as part of her probation, she was going to have 
to pay restitution for the hospital bills that her boyfriend 
had acquired, which was about $7,000.
    And so her lawyer was questioning her. And he said, Ma'am, 
now, you realize you just told the judge you are going to pay 
restitution of $7,000.
    She said, Yes, sir.
    He said, You realize that all you have is--is your--
basically your government money you get for your children, 
about $400 a month.
    She said, Yes, sir, I know that.
    He said, Now, you understand you are not telling me you are 
going to pay it. You are telling me you are going make a stab 
at it.
    And when he said that, I remembered that, because she never 
got it, but everybody else in the courtroom got it.
    Okay. I am going to start back. I got the opportunity to go 
watch a 3D printer operate, and they are actually quite 
exciting. I mean, they move very rapidly. Once they get the 
form built up, it is Katie bar the door. It is going up and 
going up good. I watched--I got to visit the finished product 
and it was very, very nice.
    I am very interested in these alternative ways of doing 
things quicker. Is the Navy looking at these advanced 
manufacturing? Have you made any attempts? I know the Army 
built something on one of our bases, and they were very pleased 
with it. And what barriers are there to using these 
technologies to advance the speed at which we get things done?
    Ms. Berger. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you saw us all 
leaning for the talk button, which is a good sign for the 
capability.
    I was recently out in Texas and got to see one of the 
companies that is in your home State that is exploring this 
exact option. And it does, it moves faster. It is more 
resilient in terms of hurricane and seismic standards and gives 
us a lot more flexibility for the speed in getting to that 
capability.
    Army set some great examples, as you noted. And we are at 
the front end of using that capability but certainly one that 
helps, and there is a market forming, which also helps. And 
then I know that a lot of them are looking at more of our 
expeditionary environments so that way we can move forward and 
move quickly.
    And let me turn over to both my colleagues who I know are 
paying close attention to this as well.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Actually, I have actually 
been to Texas and seen the same thing. I think it is a 
tremendous opportunity there. Particularly tied to one of the 
previous questions about operating in the Pacific, the ability, 
the expeditionary capability that brings for us to quickly 
construct. Like you said, once we understand the requirements, 
get that program, it is an amazing capability, not only that 
but the advantages from resilience and insulation, for energy 
consumption, et cetera.
    You know, we have even challenged them, is it possible to 
build it out of material that causes no harm to the 
environment. And they are looking at those.
    So I think there is tremendous opportunity there, not only 
expeditionary but also in CONUS. We are following very closely 
with the technology and look forward to taking advantage of it.
    And, by the way, we have also been working with EXWC, which 
is the people that set the standards for our UFC. And those are 
being baked in now. So we are hopefully to get that across the 
finish line real soon and maybe take advantage of this 
technology.
    General Banta. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for the 
opportunity to comment.
    So absolutely, in addition to everything that Rick 
mentioned and Secretary Berger, we see great promise in the 
prospect of construction-scale 3D printing.
    Now, I will mention something that I saw about a year or so 
ago that is a little bit different from what you were talking 
about. And this is the University of Maine advanced structure--
advanced composite structures center that 3D printed a littoral 
connector. So, basically, you could put two 22-foot containers 
on this. You still needed a propulsion unit to move it around, 
but it was something that could get bolted together. It was 
made very quickly, relatively low cost. And if you lost it or 
if it was attritable, it wasn't a big deal.
    So it may not be the exact solution we are looking for, but 
I think it shows the promise of where we are going and some 
potential applications beyond just buildings or things like 
that.
    I hope that helps, sir.
    Mr. Carter. And I know that I am not just--you both saw it 
in Texas, but there is a lot of people competing in this area. 
So it would be a good competition too.
    Well, thank you.
    Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me just revisit some areas with regard to what are 
reportedly proposed cuts from the other side of the aisle.
    It is my understanding that there are some who plan to 
spare proposing cuts for actual defense. But let's look at the 
nondefense discretionary, and I would like for each of you to 
comment on how that could possibly impact our national security 
and our military.
    If we go back from--if the 2024 budget that were to be 
adopted incorporated cuts, taking us back to 2022, with respect 
to nondiscretionary spending only, not just military but 
nondiscretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending, 
cuts to education, for example, affecting the opportunity for 
our young people to get the STEM training that is so necessary 
for competing with our adversaries like China.
    Healthcare. And I understand from our recruiters that we 
are expending extraordinary sums in having to pay disability to 
military members whose--who had poor nutrition growing up. And, 
of course, their bone density wasn't sufficient to withstand 
the rigors of either the training or once they got in. So it 
resulted in some medical problems, the nutrition and the 
healthcare.
    Our transportation with, for example, the lack of 
inspections of miles and miles of railroad and, of course, a 
lot of the defense logistics, supplies are transported by 
railroad, as well as air traffic problems. And we are 
experiencing a lot of near misses now with our air traffic.
    And our food safety. If we don't have--if we cut the budget 
and we have food safety issues with a lot of the--and as well 
as the inspections of our prescription drugs.
    All of this is not directly defense, but it is nondefense. 
How would that impact each of you and the services and how, in 
your opinion, would that affect our national security, if we 
were to go back to 2022, which is about a 22 percent reduction 
across the board?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman Bishop, the theme that I heard in 
the other places that you--that you listed are these are some 
of our key partners. And so I can't speak to their budgets, but 
I do know that this is a place that we partner with our 
communities. And these are some of our outside-the-fence-line 
places where we do have dependencies, and so it would create a 
consideration in terms of the inputs that come into the Navy 
and Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy's fence line, if 
you will. And so there is a dependency.
    Mr. Bishop. If we don't have adequate food safety, the 
supplies, the food that you provide to the men and women who 
are our servicemembers and their families through the 
commissary and, of course, the Active Duty personnel, wherever 
they are in the world, if that food is not adequately inspected 
to be safe, or if the medication, the prescription drugs that 
they need, the medicines, if that is not, will that impact our 
national security and our troops and their families?
    Ms. Berger. These are essentials, Congressman Bishop, that 
there is a dependency on. So we have food that comes from 
outside our installations. We recruit from the population that 
depends on a lot of these pieces. And so there is--there is 
certainly an interdependency in terms of the--the other parts 
of the entire country's budget and what they are asking for.
    Mr. Bishop. And for training, for the--our military Active 
Duty folks, are the recruiters really, really crying wolf when 
they say that the recruits, the kids are too fat to fight or 
they are--have bone densities that will not withstand the 
training and so they have to drop out and--or declare some 
people are ineligible because of that? Will that affect our end 
strength?
    General Banta. Congressman, so building upon what Secretary 
Berger mentioned, certainly there are dependencies and 
interdependencies. And I would say that recruiting, yes, is a 
very challenging environment right now. We have been putting 
more resources towards it. Thus far, we have been able to make 
our recruiting goals, but I suspect they would become 
increasingly challenging if we saw cuts to other of our 
partners upon which we depend for some of those programs.
    So, yeah, recruiting is job number one for us. We want to 
make sure we are successful at it, sir.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Just everything that Ed said, 
plus.
    And I think that to Ms. Berger's point about our dependency 
upon those things on the outside-of-the-fence line, to generate 
a ready force, obviously it is a combination of a lot of 
things.
    Also, you mentioned medical, food. You know, one of the 
attractions of, I think, coming into the military is to 
understand that that is--you know, those things will be 
provided. So any impact to that, I think, could consequentially 
have a direct impact on recruiting.
    Mr. Bishop. I think my time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Berger, in your testimony last year, you noted the Navy 
was working on a review of unaccompanied housing facilities and 
a 10-year plan to address those facilities that are in 
unsatisfactory condition.
    Is the review complete, and can you tell us what you have 
seen so far?
    Ms. Berger. I will--I will note that, just on top of the 
review that you asked about, that we recognize that 
unaccompanied housing requires a lot of attention in terms of 
making sure that we get to that foundational need.
    The 10-year review is one that we have gone through, and I 
will let Admiral Williamson talk to the details of what came 
out of that review. But unaccompanied housing is one that we 
need to pay very close attention to and take some of the 
lessons that we have learned from a few years ago when it came 
to some of our family housing, and that is the advocacy, the 
attention, and staying on top of that piece.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    We are--yes, sir, we are in--finishing the way forward in 
the investments. The investments you see in 2023 and 2024 are a 
reflection of our learning so far, and that is to invest into 
the unaccompanied housing that actually has useful life.
    What we are developing right now is what the plan is to 
generate capacity, in particular, our fleet location areas 
where we have, and that would require MILCON in some locations, 
which you will see we stop at CFT to do the analysis of those 
investments, and also maybe a combination of PPV housing. I 
don't know if you have had the opportunity to see Pacific 
Beacon in San Diego, 1,883 beds. It is absolutely beautiful. 
There is a swimming pool on the ninth floor. It is on Naval 
Base San Diego. It is what our Sailors deserve. I think there 
is an opportunity to expand that as well. But what you see in 
our budget are sustainment in our end projects to put back into 
the barracks.
    The other thing that we are looking at is, looking at just 
condition, is that truly the right metric? One of the things 
that we are looking at is a livability piece to measuring our 
unaccompanied housing. For example, wired net, internet and 
WiFi, should that be also a part of the, you know, quality of 
life for our Sailors? And we are baking that in.
    And so we have, across the FYDP, we have increased our RM 
up to almost $250 million a year. And we are looking at 
investing in unaccompanied housing construction, MILCON 
construction as well. And I would be happy to come over and 
talk to you and give you the details of that plan.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. The Navy's fiscal year 2024 budget 
includes $165 million for the Navy and $201 million for the 
Marine Corps to repair, renovate housing for unaccompanied 
Sailors and minors--Marines.
    Based off your review as the unaccompanied housing 
facilities, how much more investment is needed to address the 
remaining housing maintenance backlog?
    Ms. Berger. I will turn quickly, but I just wanted to echo 
and emphasize that that privatization authority is one that we 
have really seen such good results on. And so as we think 
through this, the ability to do more of that will enhance the 
quality of life, will allow us to get after some of these 
concerns and put those dollars in places where they count, 
especially for our Sailors and Marines who are living there.
    General Banta. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    So we have 672 barracks in the United States Marine Corps. 
Roughly 84 percent are in good or fair condition. We still have 
16 percent that are not, and we know that we need to get 
better. And that number fluctuates over time, given investment 
levels and how thinks degrade.
    So we are requesting one new barracks this year at Marine 
Barracks Washington. We plan to renovate 13 more. And if we had 
an additional $155 million in restoration/modernization funds, 
we could do 12 additional barracks.
    You mentioned what is the true scope and depth of the 
problem. If we were to look at trying to get all barracks back 
to condition code, basically FCI of one or two, that would be 
roughly $3 billion. And that is a long-term multi-FYDP 
approach, but we recognize we have more work to do and we 
appreciate the continued support of Congress towards that end.
    Thank you, sir.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. We have got a lot more work 
to do. That same standard at 60 percent of our barracks 
currently meet Q1/Q2. Forty percent don't. The RM investments 
that you see laid forward is to get after 11 different 
unaccompanied barracks in predominantly fleet concentration 
areas and also in expeditionary locations.
    We--our investment plan going forward looks at a 
combination of three things. It looks at investing back into 
the infrastructure that has useful life, getting that back to 
standard. That is through your restoration and modernization. 
It is also MILCON to get rid of. We have got some very old, 
which no one is living in, but we have got to get rid of and 
replace. PPV, as Ms. Berger talked about, I think is a 
tremendous opportunity. Like I said, in San Diego and Hampton 
Roads area, we use there very well.
    And then the last part of it is, once we get it back, it is 
the increased sustainment dollars to make sure that we keep 
them where they are supposed to be. And those numbers are 
reflected in our budget, sir.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I wanted to chat a little bit about Fallon and the 
expansion of the training range, which was a long time coming 
and took a lot of negotiation with conservationists and our 
Tribal community, and finally got it done. But the President in 
his budget request for fiscal year 2024 includes funding to 
support two Tribal liaison positions for this training range 
complex.
    And, Assistant Secretary Berger, could you speak to the 
importance of these liaison positions for furthering the 
relationships between the Navy and the local Tribes, 
particularly as the Fallon Range modernization continues?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman Lee, and I will--I will 
actually be out this weekend to celebrate Earth Day with some 
of our Tribal partners there----
    Ms. Lee. Oh, great.
    Ms. Berger [continuing]. Which I am really looking forward 
to.
    But the position that you note is critically important, and 
we saw that in making sure that we got this number one 
priority, which was the modernization of a critical training 
range to ensure this capability as we focus on the Indo-Pacific 
region and what we need there to win.
    So these Tribal liaisons that are out there at Fallon that 
we were able to partner with helped us to make sure that we 
were communicating clearly, well, consistently, and in a way 
that acknowledged the critical importance of these partners and 
neighbors that we have on these lands.
    I mention that we are looking at the access agreements for 
shared lands. There is a lot of history there. There is a lot 
of potential in our future. And roles like these help to make 
sure that we are keeping the promise that we make every time 
that we are in any community, and it is that we are a part of 
it, that we approach it with understanding and partnership, and 
that we make a commitment going forward to keep that promise.
    And so roles like this are important because of the 
commitment that it represents to the communities that are 
critically important to making sure that we can assure our 
mission.
    Ms. Lee. Absolutely. Yeah, we just designated some 
significant Tribal land in my district, Avi Kwa Ame, as a 
national monument. So honoring the spiritual and cultural 
importance of these lands and maintaining those relationships 
is so incredibly important going forward.
    And I wanted to ask, in light of pending budget cuts, could 
you--you know, which could well strike funding for these 
liaison positions, could you--how would this jeopardize the 
station's relations with the community and its overall mission 
here in Fallon?
    Ms. Berger. When we talk about the commitment that you and 
I just discussed and the critical importance and understanding, 
it is--it is not just Fallon, but it is relationships that we 
have everywhere.
    Specifically at Fallon, it means that we break faith with 
people who have made a tremendous commitment to us and to whom 
we have made a great commitment in furtherance of that mission 
assurance and in furtherance of making sure that we are keeping 
every promise that we have made. And so it would be breaking 
faith with people who are enabling our Sailors to be able to 
train like they fight, which is pretty important to us.
    Ms. Lee. Yeah, so much more significant. It goes way beyond 
Fallon. It goes across the entire service.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, because it sets an example for the way 
that we work productively together.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    I am--I will yield.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think we pretty much established we have no viable plan 
to secure critical minerals and the materials necessary to 
drive the EV, not at present. I understand that CHIPS may be in 
the future. But today, between now and 10 years, not a whole 
lot of room. So let's talk about the life cycle on the other 
end of it.
    So what is your plan for when batteries have ended their 
life cycle? Where are you going put them? Because, right now, 
80 percent of the solar cells are going to landfills across the 
country. Do you have a plan?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, I want to make sure that I am 
stating clearly we agree which is that we need to have security 
in the supply chain. I hear you loud and clear, and I think 
that that is critically important.
    Mr. Zinke. The supply chain goes from the beginning to 
mining, sourcing, processing, manufacturing, to the end, to 
life cycle. And I am asking you, does your budget have any--any 
line item, any mention of what are you going do when the 
batteries are finished with their life cycle? Because you have 
made a commitment to go EV.
    So I am asking you: On your supply chain, before you made a 
commitment, what are you going to do with the batteries?
    Ms. Berger. Well, Congressman, the entire country has made 
a commitment. It is the direction----
    Mr. Zinke. So you don't have a plan. I mean, it is pretty 
easy. Yes or no, do you have a plan? Is there a plan in the 
budget to recycle or properly dispose of batteries?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, yes, along with the rest of the 
country, we are working with industry to ensure----
    Mr. Zinke. Okay. Let's ask about fuel.
    Admiral, the Navy still is the largest user of fossil 
fuels?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Zinke. And, Madam Secretary, what is your guidance on 
biofuel, biodiesel?
    Ms. Berger. We are a fast follower of industry where they 
are looking at the synthetic aviation fuels----
    Mr. Zinke. I believe you work for Secretary Mabry.
    Ms. Berger. Secretary Mabus, Congressman.
    Mr. Zinke. Mabus. And are you reinstituting the goals for 
biofuel, biodiesel in the fleet?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, we are a fast follower of industry 
which is looking at sustainable aviation fuel, and we will make 
sure that----
    Mr. Zinke. What is the price differential between a gallon 
of biodiesel and diesel today?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, I don't have those numbers with 
me.
    Mr. Zinke. Is it also not in your budget then on added 
cost? My understanding it is eight or ten times.
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, we are watching what industry is 
doing to make sure that we are making the sustainable aviation 
fuel considerations for military requirements.
    Mr. Zinke. Is cost a part of your decision matrix?
    Ms. Berger. I am sorry?
    Mr. Zinke. Is cost a part of your decision matrix----
    Ms. Berger. We look----
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. On biofuels?
    Ms. Berger. We consider cost in every decision that we 
make.
    Mr. Zinke. Is it a priority or is it--or is it rack and 
stack?
    Ms. Berger. When we make funding decisions, Congressman, we 
make sure that we are looking at the best use of that dollar. 
And that means making sure that we are looking at risk, 
sustainability, and making sure that we are putting every time 
a sailor or marine in the best position possible, which is why 
we put mission first.
    Part of that evaluation is to understand how a sustainable 
aviation fuel, which industry is developing, could fit into our 
mission requirements and military standards, which are 
different than----
    Mr. Zinke. Are you spending money now on biofuels?
    Ms. Berger. On----
    Mr. Zinke. Acquiring, using, transporting biofuels, 
biodiesel?
    Ms. Berger. We are watching what the industry is doing to 
develop----
    Mr. Zinke. So you are not using it. Are you using it now or 
are you not using it? Are you using biodiesel today in the 
fleet?
    Ms. Berger. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Zinke. And there is no plan to use biodiesel in the 
fleet? What is your plan?
    I love plans. We know that biodiesel is in magnitudes 
higher. We know that it provides an additional operational 
cost. Is it--because we were rushing to EV, we are rushing to 
biofuels, as I see it. And you are telling me you are not using 
biofuels right now, is what you are saying, or biodiesel.
    I am just curious. And if you are, what is the plan? 
Because I assume you are going to use it within the next couple 
of years and that would be a budget line somewhere and you 
would have to have the facilities for it.
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, let me make sure that there is 
time for an operational response.
    But let me first state that we are making sure that we are 
looking across all of our options, because at the end of the 
day, we want to make sure that we have a competitive advantage 
and, increasingly, it is making sure that we are working 
against things that we know that other people are using as 
advantages.
    So we want to be careful that we don't get caught into any 
sort of confusion on how we make sure that our Sailors and 
Marines are equipped.
    And I will turn over to the general and the admiral.
    General Banta. Thanks, Secretary Berger.
    So, Congressman, I honestly I can't answer your specific 
question about whether we are using biofuels today. I know that 
we are very interested in reducing our demand signal on 
operational energy in order to increase range, endurance and, 
in effect, lethality on the battlefield forward.
    So any technologies that enable us to do that, to reduce 
the amount of fuel we are using, whether through battery 
technologies and electrification or just things like something 
as simple as anti-idle technology on new tactical vehicles, are 
of interest to us.
    I hope that is a bit----
    Mr. Zinke. No, I appreciate it. Don't get me wrong. I am 
not centric on fossil fuels. I am just centric on American 
energy, and it has to be reliable, effective, and abundant. And 
I am concerned that we are going down a path that we don't have 
a life cycle. We don't have a supply chain that is free from 
China, or we don't--we haven't figured out the what to do with 
the batteries when they are done.
    And if we are going to move to biofuels, then that needs to 
be incorporated into the budget, because right now biofuels are 
in magnitudes higher, and the Navy uses a lot of fuels. The 
Marines do.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And I yield back.
    And no doubt I will have some questions that we will send 
you.
    And thank you, gentlemen, and Secretary.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. We were able to get in two rounds 
in, and thank you for being cooperative. We appreciate your 
attendance today. We will work hard to make sure your budget is 
adequate.
    And I will reinforce Ms. Bice. There is no plan to cut 
MILCON VA.

                                          Thursday, April 20, 2023.

   AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING

                               WITNESSES

DR. RAVI I. CHAUDHARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ENERGY, 
    INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
BRUCE E. HOLLYWOOD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE 
    CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE
BRIGADIER GENERAL BRIAN S. HARTLESS, AIR FORCE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL 
    ENGINEERS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, ENGINEERING AND 
    FORCE PROTECTION, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
    Mr. Carter. Well, good morning, everybody. We are glad you 
are here. This is April 20, 9 a.m., and we are--this 
subcommittee is in order to talk about the Air Force and Space 
Force, and we really appreciate all of you being here. It is a 
real pleasure to have you here.
    We are joined today with Mr. Ravi--I am going to probably 
screw this up--Chaudhary?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Chaudhary.
    Mr. Carter. Chaudhary? Oh, that is easy.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Chaudhary or lottery.
    Mr. Carter. Lottery is good--Chaudhary, Assistant Secretary 
of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment; 
Mr. Bruce Hollywood, Assistant Chief of Operations Officer for 
the United States Space Force; and Brigadier General Brian 
Hartless, Air Force Director of Civil Engineers, Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection.
    Welcome to all of you. We are glad you are here.
    Our ability to project power in the Pacific is critically 
important, and we do need to ensure that we have the necessary 
infrastructure to do so, whether it be to maintain hangars, 
maintenance hangars, training facilities, or runways. 
Additionally, our guardians need adequate facilities to work in 
a--and a child option that meets the needs of their demanding 
24-hour schedule.
    The subcommittee understands the important connection 
between infrastructure and readiness and the effect it has on 
our airmen, guardians, and their families. I look forward to 
hearing--to discussing how the budget request balances these 
priorities.
    Thank you for being here today and for your support and 
dedication to our Nation's airmen and guardians.
    Now I would like to recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her 
opening statement.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning. It is good to see you all again. Thank you so 
much for joining us. We are really so thrilled to be able to 
welcome our Air and Space Force officials under Secretary 
Chaudhary, Mr. Hollywood, and Brigadier General Hartless. We 
appreciate you all being here today and for your service to our 
country.
    Military construction is pivotal to ensure the mission 
readiness of our airmen and guardians, and also for the quality 
of life of our servicemembers and their families. The fiscal 
year 2024 budget requests a total of $3.6 billion for the 
Active and Reserve Air Force components and the construction 
and operations of maintenance of Air Force family housing. 
While this is a decrease from the total fiscal year 2023 
enacted level, it is at least a significant increase over last 
year's budget request. But it feels disingenuous for the 
Department of Defense to year after year ask for a level of 
funding that does not meet the true needs of the Department of 
the Air Force and then expect Congress to bail you out.
    I do appreciate that this year's request is at least 
getting closer to the real needs. And I have said this at every 
hearing because this is a bipartisan continued trend from 
successive administrations, we have a serious infrastructure 
problem in the military. And the budget requests never seem to 
reflect that seriousness. And it is frustrating, especially as 
we embark on travel to go see our military infrastructure 
around the world, and we talk with frustrated military 
servicemembers who show us decrepit, aging, unsafe 
infrastructure that they have to try to piece together with wax 
and spit so that they can protect our national security 
interests.
    So it is difficult to understand why we continue to hear 
lip service from successive administrations about the 
importance of our national security interests and keeping our 
servicemembers safe and prepared and then the budget requests 
don't reflect that.
    So as you said in your written testimony, every Department 
of the Air Force mission starts and ends on an installation. 
These installations are home based, and they are vital to the 
DAF's mission.
    Military construction is so much more than just building 
bases. It is providing modern, efficient facilities that can 
weather increasingly destructive natural disasters. It is 
reducing our carbon footprint through an energy resilience. It 
is building child development centers so servicemembers don't 
have to worry about the safety and security of their children. 
It is remediating contaminants left behind our services such as 
PFAS. It is providing quality housing for our servicemembers 
and their families.
    We must continue the targeted investments that we have made 
over the past several years in these areas to support our 
airmen, guardians, and their families the best way that we can 
on this committee. And I am confident that we will do that.
    Building new facilities is necessary to meet mission 
requirements, but it is also so important that we do so 
resiliently. We need to continue to invest in resilient 
infrastructure to help protect our facilities from climate 
change and natural disasters. I know a little bit about that in 
my home State of Florida, especially as it relates to the Air 
Force facilities. And it is our duty as stewards of taxpayer 
dollars to make sure what we build today will still be standing 
tomorrow. We need to continue--and also accountability to the 
American people that we don't continually rebuild structures 
that get knocked down again by natural disasters and other 
hazards. That is fiscally irresponsible.
    We need to continue to prioritize clean and safe housing 
and dormitories for our servicemembers and their families, and 
especially ensure proper oversight over our privatized housing 
providers. It is unacceptable for anyone, especially our 
servicemembers and their families, to be living in mold, lead, 
or rodent-infested dilapidated housing, which they have been, 
or to not even have timely responses to their maintenance 
requests. We must be better for them.
    And to that end, we must work to expedite the cleanup and 
removal of PFAS, include the elimination of AFFF--including the 
elimination of AFFF. And I understand the Air Force is working 
hard on this, and I look forward to discussing this further 
during my questioning. But we cannot do all of this, support 
critical mission requirements and simultaneously take care of 
our servicemembers and their families, without adequate 
funding.
    Even worse than insufficient budget requests, Republican 
proposals to cut back spending levels to 2022 would devastate 
the progress we have made these past 4 years to better support 
our airmen, guardians, and their families. Cutting back to 2022 
levels would force the Department of the Air Force to choose 
between mission-critical infrastructure or infrastructure that 
benefits the quality of life of our servicemembers. In a time 
when recruitment and retention is struggling, not investing in 
quality barracks, homes, gyms, cafeterias, and child 
developmental centers will only exacerbate the issue.
    We have a lot of ground to cover today, and I look forward 
to hearing from all of you about how the Air and Space Force 
plan to address all of these things and more.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    And I want to thank all of you for being here.
    Without objection, your written statement will be entered 
into the record. Please summarize your remarks to about 5 
minutes each.
    Dr. Chaudhary.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss the Department of the Air Force military 
construction and family housing.
    In just the opening weeks since coming onboard at the 
Department, I have seen countless examples of the dedication 
and devotion of our airmen and guardians. And I remain clear-
eyed on supporting our heroes and their families in the 
critical missions they execute.
    In the Department of the Air Force, our installations are 
platforms from which we project combat power. Nearly every DAF 
mission starts and ends on an installation. DAF installations 
also serve as key nodes in a global network that ensure joint 
force mission success around the world. For nearly 80 years we 
have operated our installations with unprecedented freedom of 
action. Yet our Nation faces complex security challenges, most 
notably the rise of great power competition with China and 
Russia. Today's reality is that our installations are no longer 
a sanctuary. We must ensure they are resilient and ready to 
deter aggression, and if that fails, be prepared to win 
decisively.
    In the face of these challenges, we prioritize our efforts 
to deter aggressive competitors' intent on shaping the secure 
environment. To accomplish this, the DAF remains focused on 
seven operational imperatives. Among those include ensuring 
resilient forward basing and bed down of critical weapons 
systems. In support of these imperatives, the DAF military 
construction program continues to prioritize our nuclear triad. 
I will say that again, our nuclear triad. Combatant command 
infrastructure, including one of the largest investments in the 
Indo-Pacific and Europe in over 20 years. We concentrate our 
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization 
portfolio on advancing existing infrastructure.
    Furthermore, we remain ever committed to quality of life 
for our servicemembers and their families through investments 
in housing, dormitories, and child development centers. Nothing 
is more important than the health and safety of our 
servicemembers and their families.
    As a former military member myself, no issue is more 
personal to me than this one. My life experiences on our 
installations over the course of two decades of service anchors 
my passion and commitment to this arena. And on this Month of 
the Military Child I am committed to having our families' 
backs, just like they have ours, with the largest investment in 
dormitories in over a decade, recognizing that there is still 
more work to be done and we literally can't take our foot off 
the gas.
    We also fund highly innovative operational and installation 
energy initiatives which increase our readiness and provide 
more combat capability, and multiple energy sources that 
ruggedize our bases and reduce vulnerabilities.
    As a former Air Force pilot, I spent most of my career 
understanding one thing: Energy is life. Learning to manage, 
conserve, and discharge energy in order to be decisive is 
critical to ensuring victory. In this vein, I remain committed 
to accelerating our power projection capabilities and 
delivering operational energy at the point of effect for 
theater commanders at the front lines.
    Like many of our airmen and guardians, I believe that 
operational and installation energy could prove to be the 
margin of victory in the Pacific, if we need it. In the DAF we 
can no longer afford to move at the speed of government. 
Rather, our airmen and guardians are moving at the speed of 
imagination, with game-changing technologies that will shape 
this decade and beyond.
    In the midst of a great power competition, we recognize 
that this is an all-hands-on deck endeavor in which we dare not 
come in second place. As such, we appreciate the continued 
partnership and leadership from Congress to ensure Air and 
Space Forces are ready to deter aggression. And if called upon, 
fly, fight, and win decisively.
    Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Mr. Hollywood.
    Mr. Hollywood. Good morning, Chairman Carter, Ranking 
Member Wasserman Schultz, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 
Space Force military construction program and other 
installation topics of interest.
    Space power is an important source of our Nation's 
strength, both at home and abroad, and provides critical data, 
products, and services that enable our daily life and drive 
innovation in the United States and around the world.
    Today, military space capabilities and protection from 
enemy space-enabled attack are a prerequisite for U.S. success 
in every domain. Our peer challengers continue to aggressively 
develop systems to disrupt, degrade, and destroy our space 
capabilities. The Space Force was formed to provide resilient, 
ready, and combat-credible Space Forces to ensure freedom of 
action and protect United States interests in the increasingly 
contested space domain.
    Our Space Force infrastructure priorities are guided by the 
Secretary of the Air Force's operational imperatives and the 
Chief of Space Operations lines of effort. Our installation 
investments through military construction and operations and 
maintenance funding are especially critical because the bulk of 
our forces accomplish their wartime mission from their home 
station. Our installations are power projection platforms and 
require resiliency against natural and manmade threats.
    Our Space Force installations also serve as home to many of 
our guardians, airmen, and families. We work tirelessly to 
provide them a comfortable and safe place to work and live. 
Someone much wiser than me once remarked that you recruit the 
warrior but retain the family. Thank you for your continuing 
focus on quality of life initiatives that help us retain these 
passionate and talented professionals. They are our most 
important operational advantage.
    To remain a lean service as Congress directed, the Space 
Force leverages current Air Force installation support 
processes. We are active partners in all the Department's 
facility and infrastructure readiness initiatives.
    The fiscal year 2024 United States Space Force military 
construction priorities are at Patrick Space Force Base, 
Florida, a commercial vehicle inspection facility, and the 
completion of our consolidated communication center, each for 
$15 million, and security gate improvements for $12 million.
    We have also prioritized just over $90 million for planning 
and design to mature our projects through the military 
construction process and provide accurate estimates. Twenty-
four of the $90 million are prioritized for assured access to 
space at our space launch deltas in California and Florida.
    Thank you for the substantial fiscal year 2023 MILCON plus 
up. The Space Force requested just over $98 million and 
received over $291 million in appropriations. Our fiscal year 
2023 projects include over $250 million in combatant command 
support, including a dormitory at Clear Space Force Station in 
Alaska, $16 million in energy resilience projects, and $11 
million for planning and design.
    Our installation investments and our collaborative 
relationships across the Department of the Air Force are 
critical to performing our mission and to the well-being of the 
guardians, airmen, and families on Space Force installations. 
As Secretary Kendall says, one team, one fight.
    Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to 
testify. I look forward to our dialogue. Semper Supra.
    Mr. Carter. General Hartless.
    General Hartless. Good morning, Chairman Carter, Ranking 
Member Wasserman Schultz, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today to 
discuss the Air Force military construction and family housing 
programs and to represent the nearly 50,000 airmen engineers 
working around the globe to both enable the execution of these 
programs and to ensure our Air Force installations both at home 
and abroad are ready, resilient, and able to effectively employ 
combat power anytime, anywhere.
    Throughout my career, I have seen the innovation and hard 
work of airmen solve our toughest problems, and I know they 
will continue to do so as we look ahead to the pacing 
challenge. I would like to thank you for your steadfast support 
of our Nation's Air Force and the generous military 
construction funding contained within the fiscal year 2023 
Consolidated Appropriations Act. Dozens of projects, including 
three child development centers, will benefit from over $463 
million of additional appropriations to offset the effects of 
inflation.
    I also want to thank the committee for working with the Air 
Force to provide $360 million in funding for the Natural 
Disaster Recovery Program, and $421 million for the Joint 
Intelligence Analysis Complex.
    Last year, Congress also provided a temporary increase in 
the minor military construction threshold from $6 million to $9 
million, and approved an increase in the reprogramming 
threshold from $2 million to $6 million. These changes greatly 
help us restore our buying power as costs continue to rise and 
inflation remains a challenge.
    I look forward to working with the subcommittee on our 
fiscal year 2024 Air Force military construction budget request 
and tackling new challenges as we continue to advance this 
vital program. This year's budget request seeks to invest in 
the modernization of our nuclear enterprise and provides 
support for combatant commanders, while continuing to deliver 
safe, high-quality housing, and childcare facilities. The Air 
Force plans to deliver childcare development centers to Hanscom 
Air Force Base and Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland, as well as 
to construct a new dorm in the United Kingdom.
    The fiscal year 2024 request also includes $551 million for 
the family housing program. Investments in these facilities are 
essential to the well-being of our airmen and their families. 
Generous congressional support in fiscal year 2022 and fiscal 
year 2023 accelerated the progress of several dorm and 
childcare projects. And we are actively working to design 
additional projects for inclusion in future budget submissions.
    Along with posturing new construction projects to increase 
capacity, the Air Force remains committed to maintaining 
existing facilities at a high level. In fiscal year 2022, 
Congress set a minimum 5-year investment requirement for dorm 
facilities sustainment restoration and modernization.
    With the projects planned for fiscal year 2023 and 2024, 
the Air Force is on track to not only just meet but exceed that 
minimum congressional requirement by approximately $600 
million, for a total investment of $1.7 billion.
    In preparation for the Sentinel missile system, the Air 
Force is undertaking the largest land acquisition effort since 
the original Minuteman. We appreciate the support of Congress 
to ensure the program remains on schedule. Minuteman III to 
Sentinel conversion must occur on a precise timeline to 
maintain the operational readiness of the nuclear deterrent and 
deliver full operational capability to the Nation by 2036.
    The request also includes three projects to prepare 
Ellsworth Air Force Base to welcome the first B-21 Raiders. 
Once online, these weapons systems will ensure the Air Force 
continues to assure two-thirds of our Nation's nuclear triad 
well into the future. Recognizing that our Nation is facing the 
rise of great power competition with China and Russia, direct 
support to combatant commands accounts for 36 percent of the 
fiscal year 2024 Air Force military construction request. 
Twelve projects totaling $574 million is dedicated to 
supporting infrastructure and facilities throughout the Indo-
Pacific. This provides our allies, partners, and potential 
competitors a clear indication of the United States' long-term 
commitment to the region.
    The request also continues to support efforts to pre-
position equipment in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Norway. 
These projects enhance deterrence in the European theater and 
enable joint and coalition forces to respond to aggressive 
regional actors.
    The Air Force's continued partnership with this 
subcommittee's members and your dedicated staff is essential to 
the modernization of our assets, the safety of our installation 
and the welfare of our airmen and their families.
    I thank you for your continued support, and I look forward 
to your questions today.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, each of you, for your 
statements today.
    I will remind our members we will follow our usual hearing 
procedures, and I guess I will start out.
    I am very interested in the new technology, such as 3D. 
These technologies have the potential to reduce construction 
costs, to increase efficiency and toughness in our facilities 
and our installations. Is the Department of the Air Force 
looking at using advanced manufacturing to address the 
infrastructure needs and challenges? And are there any barriers 
to using these technologies that Congress needs to address?
    Who wants to start? Doctor?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Chairman, thank you for that question. As 
somebody who has sat on the Defense--I am sorry, the 
Transportation Board at the Council of Sciences, we looked at 
3D printing from a broad scope, how you integrate 3D printing 
across our Nation in order for us to be competitive. And the 
conclusion of that is it absolutely is going to be imperative. 
We are doing everything from integrating 3D printing into 
rockets, but let me focus in on the construction piece.
    The construction piece of 3D printing can have lots and 
lots of applications that allow us to do things like ruggedize, 
make sure our buildings are more resilient, make it easier to 
assemble, to manufacture. So the broad capabilities of 3D 
printing are there. We are just looking to make sure that we 
push this envelope and accept a nice breadth of opportunities 
that our airmen can innovate with.
    So that being said, I am a big supporter of 3D printing. We 
want to incorporate it into opportunities to improve our mil 
construction and our abilities to not only build stronger, 
safer, easier to maintain buildings, but also increase our 
combat capability with more agility.
    So I will turn that over to the general to add a little 
more.
    General Hartless. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary.
    Mr. Chairman, the Air Force agrees 100 percent we are very 
excited about this technology. We have actually just recently 
completed a demonstration of a 3D printed building at Tyndall 
Air Force Base. We used a small business innovative research 
project to construct a small, single 1-story building, and the 
results were quite good. It actually met the Miami-Dade wind 
load standards. So there is definitely a lot of capability 
there.
    The unified facilities criteria has already been updated to 
allow for this technology. So we are excited about it and look 
forward to potentially exploring it in the future, but we are 
definitely interested in exploring it and have.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I got excited about it by going into 
Austin and watching them build just a house. And it was just 
amazing. It just went so fast, it was unbelievable. And the 
next day, they were adding the final touches, and about a week 
later had a pretty nice-looking house that, you know, I would 
live in.I wished I had it when I was in college. So it is 
pretty amazing how quickly that gets done, especially when you 
have got a swimming pool in your backyard and you are 
remembering how long it took just to put the final touches on 
your swimming pool. I thought I might never have a swimming 
pool in my entire life, and I would be glad to give it back to 
them right now.
    These nontraditional building materials, we heard about 
some others in another hearing the other day. Are you looking 
at them as far as cost saving and longevity? What type of 
benefits are you expecting to see from the new innovative 
building materials? I know there is not only 3D printing, but 
there are other things now that are out there that are being 
talked about. Can you project savings costs of 10 to 20 years 
down the line on looking at this stuff?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Chairman. At the highest level I 
would say that we have got to open up ways to look at the full 
scope of opportunities for our airmen and guardians to 
innovate, and with organizations such as the Defense Innovation 
Unit, looking across the industries for ways in which we can 
pull in new techniques, new opportunities for our airmen.
    Our airmen will--if you put the right resources in their 
hands, our airmen and guardians will innovate. So giving them 
that opportunity is something that I want to focus on in the 
coming days. And we can do that in a variety of ways, but, to 
me, being welcoming of folks that approach us with new 
innovations and then taking that innovations and seeing where 
it takes us both operationally and functionally, to me, is the 
way to go.
    And I will let the general add if he wants to, and Mr. 
Hollywood if he would like to as well.
    General Hartless. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary.
    Mr. Chairman, I would just add, we are going to lean 
forward into this. In fiscal year 2024, one of the projects 
contained in our budget request is a child development center 
at Hanscom Air Force Base. And that is going to be constructed 
with low carbon emitting concrete. So a new innovative 
technology requires about 50 percent less carbon to produce the 
concrete. And so that will be really our first big effort with 
some of this new technology.
    But I would also say that our buildings today are already 
designed to high performance sustainable building standards, 
which already adds in a lot of the characteristics that you 
might be alluding to. But specifically in this budget, we do 
have one project at Hanscom where we are going to look at the 
concrete.
    And then in next year's budget, in fiscal year 2025, we are 
currently projecting to construct a dormitory at Lackland Air 
Force Base.
    Mr. Carter. All right. Thank you. My time is up.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The fiscal year 2024 budget request has $220 million for 
three military housing privatization initiative restructures. 
Can you explain why it is necessary to provide this funding? 
Are the privatized housing providers upholding their end of the 
agreements?
    This subcommittee has had multiple hearings with the 
privatized housing providers with servicemembers who faced, you 
know, outrageous living conditions. We have added funding for 
several years for oversight to ensure that the military isn't 
just taking a hands-off approach to taking care of these 
horrendous housing conditions. So where are we with this, and 
why are you asking for that funding?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Ranking Member. There is nothing 
that is more important and more personal to me than ensuring 
our military members have quality housing. In my career, my 
family and I have actually lived through the transition, and it 
is very, very important to me. And so investing in that is 
absolutely critical.
    We have developed, from an oversight standpoint, a tiered 
approach to ensuring that our project owners meet expectations 
for our family members. Now, that tiered approach I think is 
going to bring us some gains of, the first step in that is 
putting you, if you are not meeting expectations, get on a 
watch list. So we are going to put you on a watch list and make 
sure that we provide appropriate oversight.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If I can just interject here.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Absolutely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. First, I would like to know--thank 
you. I turned it off instead of on.
    First I would like to know--I need more caffeine--what the 
$220 million for the three privatization initiative 
restructures are for. Because you are asking us to spend public 
tax dollars on privatized military housing which is supposed to 
be financed and managed by the private companies.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Ranking Member. That is designed 
to provide care and speed and renovation when we need it to 
make sure that there is no lapse in capability. And that is why 
we requested that funding. And we believe that that will 
provide zero gaps.
    And so, General Hartless, would you like to provide----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are they reimbursing the Federal 
Government for that funding? Because isn't that certainly their 
responsibility to make sure that they find the funding for what 
those needs are.
    Mr. Chaudhary. It is a responsibility, and we are making 
sure that we hold them accountable when they don't.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But we are having taxpayer--we are 
asking for taxpayer dollars to do what they should have?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Ranking Member, you bring up a good point 
there. If I could, I would like to take a look at that in more 
depth and get back to you to find out exactly where those puts 
and takes are and make sure that we are not doing that in the 
future.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can you tell me what the funding is 
for?
    Mr. Chaudhary. The funding is to make sure that if a 
renovation occurs and if a housing allowance does not meet 
expectations, then the project owner is not fulfilling the 
responsibility. So we as the government are making sure that 
that gap does not occur.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. We are supposed--the way we 
hold private companies accountable when they are not living up 
to their contract obligations is we go back and hold them 
accountable and make sure that they do, and make sure that they 
pay for--if they don't meet those obligations and if they don't 
build or refurbish to--or fix the problems that their own 
infrastructure has, then we make them pay for it. We don't step 
in and have the taxpayers pay for it.
    So if you can't answer now, then I would very much like to 
hear an answer for what this funding is for, why in God's name 
we are having the taxpayers step in to pay for things that 
these private companies--some of them should be paying for. 
Some of them have been fined extraordinary amounts of money 
for, basically, ignoring the quality of life and human rights 
of servicemembers.
    I mean, have you gone through some of these structures and 
the disgusting situation that some people are expected to live 
in? Have you been to see? I have, Judge Carter has, many of the 
subcommittee members here. It is disgusting. Have you been 
through any of those housing facilities?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Ranking Member, I am in my first 2 weeks in 
my role, and I plan to next week go to housing and get on the 
road and visit multiple sites.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry to put you on the spot in 
your first 2 weeks. I strongly suggest that you do that. And 
let me tell you something. It is unacceptable that we are 
trying to put the taxpayers on the hook for something that 
these private companies should be responsible for.
    The accountability provision portion of this is that we 
tell them, no, you pay for it. This is on you. You are the one 
that took responsibility for this, we gave you this 
responsibility, and you are not going to cost the taxpayers any 
more money.
    Now, that having been said, we also can't have the 
servicemembers being left in the lurch in between that dispute. 
So if this is how we can get it done faster than they are doing 
it, because we want to make sure we take care of our 
servicemembers, that is one thing. But I would absolutely hope, 
and, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would discuss putting 
language into our bill to ensure that the Federal Government 
can get this money back, because it is outrageous.
    Mr. Carter. I agree.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I have gone past my time.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Carter. I agree with everything Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
said. These people should not be let off the hook.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    Mr. Carter. They really shouldn't.
    Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    General Hartless, this week we learned the 144th Air 
National Guard Wing based out of Fresno is scheduled to receive 
new F-15EX aircraft. This is obviously very welcome news for 
the wing whose current F-15C aircraft are nearing the end of 
service.
    This base has been a top--this has been a top priority of 
mine and also my colleagues around the Central Valley and my 
senators from California. And it will ensure the wing continues 
its essential mission supporting U.S. national security efforts 
in the Pacific.
    Are you aware of any additional projects needed to support 
these new aircraft to Fresno airport? And can your team review 
the existing facility's written report back to us?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative.
    I am not aware of any facilities at the Fresno airport, but 
I would be happy to look into that and report back to the 
committee.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thanks.
    Dr. Chaudhary, last year, the NDAA included an increase for 
unspecified minor military construction projects. How has the 
Air Force capitalized on this policy change, and how has it 
changed how the Air Force prioritizes these projects?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you for the question. As I understand, 
the minor military construction projects allow us a little more 
agility and give us more speed in the process. And so that is 
how we are capitalizing on it and utilizing these opportunities 
to build more agility moving forward. And so by having a 
smaller project you can do more in a smaller amount of time.
    To provide a little more detail, I would offer up General 
Hartless. Would you like to share some more details on it?
    General Hartless. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary.
    Representative, I agree 100 percent with what he said. We 
are very thankful for this temporary increase to the minor 
construction threshold. And we expect to actually use that in 
this budget for projects in fiscal year 2024, perhaps as many 
as up to four projects. And we know we can potentially go back 
and recapture as many as seven projects that couldn't quite get 
under $6 million, we think we may be able to recapture and 
bring back into the program.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Dr. Chaudhary, can you share some 
insight into the metrics the Air Force uses in consultation 
with the DOD to determine grants awarded to States and 
communities for infrastructure enhancements from the Defense 
Community Infrastructure Pilot Project?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Congressman, I am not entirely familiar with 
that program. I can take a note and get back to you on that.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. General Hartless, retaining all 
three legs in the nuclear triad is critical to maintain our 
strategic stability, and the Air Force is set to begin 
replacing the aging ICBM program system with the new Sentinel 
program by 2029. Can you provide us with a little bit of an 
update on the planning and design schedule of the modernized 
Sentinel facilities? Are we on track to meet our goal?
    General Hartless. Representative, thank you for that 
question about this very important weapons system.
    Yes, we are on track. I can report back that we are on 
track to meet this goal. We appreciate the support of Congress 
through additional appropriations and authorizations as this 
project--as this program moves along. I can report that all the 
fiscal year 2022 projects in this program have either been 
awarded, with the exception of one that we move back into a 
later year in the program. All fiscal year 2023 projects are on 
track and we expect to award within this calendar year.
    The fiscal year 2024 request for the Sentinel program 
includes $189 million, and that includes three projects at F.E. 
Warren. Related to the Sentinel weapons system, in addition to 
that is the reconstruction of our weapon storage areas with 
weapons generation facilities. And I would be happy to address 
those as well, but, yes, I can report that that program is on 
track as well.
    Mr. Valadao. I had a chance to visit some a few weeks--a 
few years back, and obviously there is a lot of work there 
needs to be done and obviously the timing of it is important. 
So I appreciate that.
    One last question for Dr. Chaudhary. I am very interested 
in the microreactor pilot project at Eielson Air Force Base and 
the potential for this technology to support domestic military 
installations and other critical national security 
infrastructure. When do you expect to finalize your selection 
of a developer for this project? And I know it is obviously 
early in the project, but can you share what you hope to learn 
from this project, and has there been a lot of interest from 
third-party developers to participate?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Yes, the project is currently planned for Eielson. 
Microreactors provide incredible opportunities for increasing 
our agility, increasing resilience, and another energy source 
to ensure that our bases can operate at peak performance. And 
so looking at this leading edge technology, it is going to be 
absolutely critical that we take a look at this.
    Currently, we are in the down-select process for it, and so 
we have just completed another look. I am happy to give you 
more information on where we are and provide opportunities for 
those that are willing to assist with the efforts.
    Mr. Valadao. Just on that last question, though, have you 
been getting a lot of interest from third-party developers on 
that one?
    Mr. Chaudhary. I am not sure I can get back to you on that. 
I have a deputy that just got back from a site visit, and I can 
give you a report out and give you some feedback there.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you.
    I will yield back, Chair.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, Ranking 
Member. And good morning to all of y'all.
    San Antonio Randolph Air Force Base, and Mr. Gonzales also 
represents part of San Antonio also, so anything around the San 
Antonio area is very important to us. So thank you for the 
dormitories, the child development center, should I say, and 
the work that you all are doing there.
    Let me talk about construction of military family housing 
dormitories and how you improve them, what steps. And, You 
know, one of the first things you all should be looking at, and 
I am sure you have done this, is conduct a comprehensive review 
of existing housing dormitory facilities that need work.
    Do you all have that in one place that we can take a look 
at?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Congressman, thank you for that question. 
And yes, the San Antonio area is also important to me because 
that is where I met my wonderful wife. And also, it was 
actually at Randolph Air Force Base where we had our first 
date. So I really appreciate all that San Antonio has to offer.
    To talk about unaccompanied housing or dormitories, we have 
a dormitory master plan that we put together. And that gives us 
kind of where we are and where we need to go in the future. And 
we believe that we have done some work and made some good 
progress in this area.
    To share a little bit about what we are targeting, for FSRM 
from fiscal year 2022 to 2026, we are targeting $1.7 billion in 
investments in FSRM, and that is a fourfold increase over 
previous years. The previous 5 years was only $319 million. So 
we are working aggressively to keeping us moving forward. 
Again, in fiscal year 2024, investing $250 million to improve 
and sustain, and $50 million in MILCON at Lackland for their 
surety dormitories.
    So we appreciate all the support Congress has given us in 
this area, and we are going to keep making sure that we are 
investing appropriately.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Building standards, I assume you 
all have the latest ones where you incorporate the latest 
technology and materials to make sure they are energy 
efficient, cost effective.
    How often do you all review your standards?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congressman. We recognize that we 
have a number of models in which we have needed to take a look 
at the wear and tear on our facilities, especially with 
incidents in which we have had weather events that have 
affected our installations. And so keeping on top of that is 
vitally important. We are going to make sure that we 
incorporate that into our planning and design.
    Mr. Cuellar. So do you all review those standards so often?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Absolutely. And we have an investment--
installation investment strategy in which we have direct 
injects to make sure that we codify that and make sure it is in 
our process.
    So to give maybe a little more on that, General Hartless, 
would you like to provide some insight?
    General Hartless. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary.
    Mr. Cuellar. Somebody else who has spent time in San 
Antonio too.
    General Hartless. Representative, yes, thank you for that 
question. My first assignment was Brooks Air Force Base.
    So I would just add to that that our unified facilities 
criteria, that which is our guiding standards for all of our 
construction, are really updated on a near constant basis. 
Right now, our unified facilities criteria includes the 
inclusion of all the high-performance sustainable building 
standards. So that is what we are constructing now with our 
construction. But we are moving as fast as industry is, and we 
continue to review that on a continual basis, as you asked.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Two quick questions. I have got about a 
minute left. One, I certainly agree with the ranking member. 
You know the old saying, the private sector can do it better, 
faster, more cost effective than the government can, but there 
is many of times where it doesn't fall that way. So I certainly 
ask you to follow up on this, where if the private sector--and 
I believe in leveraging the private sector, but I don't want it 
to cost the taxpayers more. So I certainly want to support the 
ranking member and the chairman on this.
    Finally, the last thing on military construction, tell me 
how you solicit feedback from servicemembers and the families 
regarding their living conditions and feedback for future 
construction projects.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congressman. We conduct a number 
of surveys throughout the year, not only for our family 
members----
    Mr. Cuellar. At every localized area?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
    Mr. Chaudhary. And at the installation level we get advice 
from commanders. So we get a wide variety of looks to make sure 
that we have diverse inputs across. But we make sure that we 
focus on getting feedback straight from our families and how 
things are going from them.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you. And we will talk later about 
the T-7A infrastructure.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Hartless, in your written testimony, you mentioned 
issues with the private partners actually not being able to 
meet some of their challenges, that the ranking member has now 
pointed out as well and Mr. Cuellar just followed up on that. 
One of the things that I want to ask you about--because in 
fairness to both sides of this issue, in the NDAA in 2015, we 
cut the basic housing allowance to 95 percent for our 
servicemembers and expected them to pick up the other 5 
percent. And now with the increased inflation, other issues 
that we are seeing within the economy.
    Are you hearing from those private providers? Do they have 
the capital to do what they need to do to keep these facilities 
from becoming these pits like we are seeing?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative.
    As you alluded to, the revenue stream for those 
partnerships is directly related to the basic allowance for 
housing. So I think an indication that that has lagged behind 
these changes that you alluded to across our Nation is really 
very--would be evident in a lot of these restructurings that 
are needing to take place and how the government is infusing 
cash--infusing money into the program.
    But to really address that a little bit more completely, I 
would probably want to defer to the assistant secretary.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, General.
    Right now, we are in the midst of increasing our BAH to 
make sure that we provide added funding for members to cover 
this. We are going to take a close look at that this year and 
see where the gaps are and address these appropriately, one by 
one if we need to, to find out where those gaps are.
    Another area in which we are trying to get more fidelity in 
this--because each market has its own unique aspects to it--we 
are working with local communities and building partnerships 
where we need to, to make sure that affordable housing is 
something that not only is on base, but also interacting 
appropriately with the local market. So getting more fidelity 
there is going to be important and working with local 
communities is going to be crucial going forward, and I am 
going to take a look at that.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. And looking at those different 
markets too, I know one of the things that is in response to--
you know, I think you have allowed now for people to--retirees 
to actually--if the public housing is down in occupancy, we are 
allowing retirees to go in, which I would think the private 
providers would love because, number one, it helps create that 
stream of capital you are talking about, but also those guys 
are pretty stable because they are retired, they are not moving 
all the time.
    But can you give us an assurance that our regular military 
personnel, they have priority, right?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you for that, Congressman. We are 
going to take a close look at that. And as you mentioned, we 
are finding ways and creating opportunities to make sure that 
housing gets filled and occupancy rates, you know, adequately 
address revenue streams that allow us to do the things we need 
to do to ensure upkeep. So if there are gaps, we are going to 
take a close look at that this year.
    I am not entirely sure about priority but, in principle, I 
agree with you that that is right, our military members should 
have priority----
    Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely.
    Mr. Chaudhary [continuing]. Especially if they are on a 
waiting list. So I am going to take a look at that.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Very quickly, because my time is 
running out and I don't want to miss this issue. The PFAS Task 
Force is working hard to eliminate the use of AFFFs. Can you 
tell me how well DAF has done in getting rid of their PFAS use, 
particularly the AFFFs inside that?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Yeah, absolutely. We have actually made a 
lockout on all of our hangars to eliminate the use of AFFF in 
our hangars. We recognize that the risks don't outweigh the 
opportunities here. So we made sure that we are going to use 
water for those. And then we are also using a replacement 
technology, a new technology in our fire trucks that are more 
environmentally friendly, to make sure that we are not creating 
the problem. So we are getting ahead of it at the front end. 
And so we are going to keep leaning forward on this and pushing 
technology. That is what we are using our funding for.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you.
    Well, I see my time is up. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. All right.
    Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
welcome the witnesses.
    I want to follow up on the questions on military housing 
privatization initiatives. Of course, it was designed to 
provide quality affordable housing for servicemembers and their 
families through partnerships with the private sector 
developers, but according to a GAO report from March 31 of 
2022, the Air Force divested one of its projects at Robins Air 
Force Base in my district on November 2, 2021, leading the 
private realty company to sell all eight of its projects 
involved in the privatized family housing program there.
    Secretary Chaudhary, can you provide an update on the loss 
of this housing at Robins Air Force Base and how it can impact 
Air Force families' ability to find housing in the area?
    And I would like the other witnesses to also respond to how 
the Air Force prioritizes investments in family housing to 
ensure that the housing provided meets the standards that are 
necessary for the well-being of the Air and Space Force 
families. And how is the Department exploring partnerships with 
the private developers to increase availability of affordable 
housing, particularly the families at Robins Air Force Base, 
and of course other bases? And can you talk about the 
challenges that you are faced with in implementing the military 
housing privatization initiative and the impact the challenges 
are having on the servicemembers and their families?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Congressman, I can speak from firsthand 
knowledge because I have been stationed at Robins Air Force 
Base, and I have gone through that transition myself. So, 
again, this is very personal to me, something I am very, very 
passionate about in resolving this.
    With regards to divestment, I would like to take a look at 
that and understand the root causes. I will offer to General 
Hartless if he can provide added insights into that. However, 
knowing that we have got to meet needs for our military members 
is critically important to me. I will make sure that we move 
forward with an appropriate oversight schedule.
    We have a tiered approach. If we need to bring in a third 
party to increase standards, as you mentioned, to ensure we 
have standardized approaches, we will make sure we do that, and 
we currently are doing that.
    Mr. Bishop. That was over 1.5 years ago. What is going on 
with that?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Yes, sir. I will defer to General Hartless 
if he has particulars. If not, I will definitely take a note 
and get back to you with an update.
    Mr. Bishop. Sir? General Hartless.
    General Hartless. Representative, thank you for that 
question. Unfortunately, I don't have an update on that 
specific project.
    I can update the government housing piece, not the 
privatized housing piece, which is primarily in the Continental 
United States, but the government housing piece which this 
appropriation covers for construction and O&M is vitally 
important. Our housing overseas, we know, is in a state that we 
need to start preparing for, recapitalization primarily in 
Japan.
    Mr. Bishop. I am really concerned, though, about the 
welfare of the families in the Warner Robins Air Force Base 
area. And I would like--if you can get back to me on that, I 
would appreciate it.
    Now, Robins also is one of the many installations that are 
facing high levels of the PFAS, which, of course, can 
contaminate the water sources. And the fiscal year 2024 budget 
request of BRAC, which is the account that funds the cleanup 
and mitigates the harm from PFAS, is about 30 percent less than 
fiscal year 2023 enacted level.
    How might this decrease in funding affect the Air Force's 
effort to investigate and clean up carcinogenic forever 
chemicals like PFAS at Robins Air Force Base and other 
installations around the globe? And is the Air Force taking 
into consideration surrounding communities that may use the 
same water sources that could be contaminated? What has been 
done to prevent the cleanup of chemical spills in these 
surrounding civilian communities?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Congressman, thank you for the question. It 
is my understanding that we have completed a preliminary 
assessment at Robins, as well as a site inspection, and we are 
beginning remedial investigation to ensure that we address any 
issues related to PFAS in the area. We are also going to make 
sure that we do extensive outreach with the local community to 
make sure.
    Mr. Bishop. But you are only asking for--you are asking for 
30 percent less for that account.
    General Hartless. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. We are 
scoping our activities based upon the program and the 
activities that we have planned. I can get back to you and 
ensure that the amount that we have allocated for that activity 
meets the requirements to get what we need to get done, and I 
will be sure to give you a back brief.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 
witnesses for being with us this morning.
    My first question is really directed, likely, at General 
Hartless. I was pleased to see that Secretary Kendall made a 
basing action announcement that Tinker Air Force Base would 
serve as the headquarters for the E-7 Wedgetail fleet which is 
replacing the E-3 AWACS. The base in the Oklahoma City metro 
area have a very long history and expertise with this important 
mission that is--with AWACS aircraft providing support for 
national security. And it only makes sense that the next 
generation of AWACS replacement aircraft remain headquartered 
out at Tinker Air Force Base. So I am pleased for that smart 
decision.
    With that in mind, though, I would like to discuss some of 
the future MILCON needs about the decision they require so that 
we can properly support the transition.
    You may know Hangar 230 on Tinker Air Force Base currently 
houses the E-3 and is a World War II-era facility that dates 
back to the forties. The hangar will either need to be 
renovated for additional security requirements as the E-7 comes 
online or replaced altogether.
    So what assurances can you provide me that the Department 
of the Air Force is committed to MILCON projects associated 
with the E-7 basing decision among other Air Force-wide 
priorities?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative. I certainly understand that there are 
requirements associated with some of these decisions and that 
this hangar in particular, Hangar 230, might require some 
renovations. And it is something that I will certainly keep me 
eye on. However, you know, we are committed to all priorities 
that are necessary, have been identified by our installations 
and prioritized by our major commands. So I will keep my eye on 
the priority of it in accordance with the Secretary of the Air 
Force's basing a final decision.
    Mrs. Bice. Dr. Chaudhary, you may have some comment on that 
or additional insight you are welcome to provide.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we are 
keeping an eye on that closely. We want to make sure that our 
planning design activities are sequenced appropriately for any 
given mission. So we will make sure that, if there is a 
requirement to be filled, that we plan it out within our 
strategy and at the appropriate time execute plannings on 
activities to begin MILCON activity. But we have that 
particular hangar on our rolls and we are looking at it very 
closely and make sure that it gets the appropriate attention it 
deserves at the right time.
    Mrs. Bice. Great. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Hollywood, my apologies. I feel like you have been 
sort of left out a lot of these conversations. But I also want 
to discuss a MILCON project which is a priority at Tinker that 
I think is also applicable to many other facilities. Tinker is 
planning the eventual construction of a 6-day agile common 
hangar facility that could be used by the depot to cover unmet 
B-52 requirements in the short term, while also paving the way 
for future B-21 maintenance.
    Constructing the hangars with the flexibility to service 
multiple aircraft types over the lifespan is actually a really 
smart decision and would provide the Air Force with needed 
long-term flexibility. But I was disappointed that this project 
wasn't included in the President's budget or the FYDP.
    Can you explain the reasoning for not including this 
priority for this year, and what is the status of the program 
as we move forward?
    Mr. Hollywood. Representative, I will jump in there and 
take that question. Thank you for the question.
    I completely agree with you on the importance of this 
hangar at Tinker, both for the mission and then the potential 
efficiencies or cost savings that you alluded to.
    Of course, we continue to accept risk across our 
construction portfolio, but we are absolutely committed to 
working with mission owners and major commands, similar to the 
renovation project on the other hangar, to ensure the project 
is in the budget at the right time.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Thank you.
    And, lastly, I want to note that I appreciate your focus on 
child development centers. I had the opportunity to travel with 
Representative Jacobs on Armed Services last Congress, and this 
is a priority, I think, across the Air Force. Certainly, Tinker 
Air Force Base, the CDC West is in need of replacement due to 
age and condition, and it seems as though you all have begun to 
prioritize the replacement or construction of new CDC 
facilities across the Air Force.
    How can Congress help with these efforts?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    The answer is more. The more we can do, the better we can 
support our military members. One issue is--and to give you an 
overview, we have 11 CDCs that are current in planning and 
design. And so, while we appreciate that we can get those in 
planning and design, execution is very much important to us as 
well too. So we are going to be looking forward to, okay, once 
you are entered in planning and design, moving as quickly as 
possible to execution, and we are going to lean forward to make 
sure that we execute those as quickly as possible.
    Now, I think one way we could help is if there are 
executable issues, we will come to you and see if there are any 
capacity issues that we can use to help with. That could 
include, okay, do we need more hiring? Do we need to increase 
capacity to execute these? So those types of things are things 
we will take a look at, and we will welcome your leadership and 
support.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
    And, if I could just add one comment, Mr. Chairman, that I 
am thrilled to see that Chairman Granger, and certainly 
Chairman Carter, are looking at holding our MILCON and Air 
Force--sorry--military budgets flat for this next cycle. I 
think that is important.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. And votes have started. We are going to see if 
we can finish up, and then we will go.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz, and I would like to thank all of the 
witnesses.
    General Hartless, I know you spent some time at Nellis Air 
Force Base, so I am excited to hear your thoughts about the 
base's future. I had the chance to visit the base last week 
with Undersecretary Jones, and we discussed Nellis' key role in 
supporting our National Defense Strategy, and it is on track to 
become the Fifth Generation Center of Excellence.
    As you know, housing costs and shortages remain a major 
challenge at Nellis for their airmen and families. I was glad 
to do see $7.2 million included in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus 
for a new dorm, which will--we are at a 700-room deficit. So 
this new dorm is 200 rooms. So we are still at a 500-room 
deficit. And, you know, this is a major challenge in southern 
Nevada. I mean, first of all, our airmen are going out before, 
you know, their allotted time, finding substandard apartments 
in not the greatest areas of town because of cost. And, you 
know, this is certainly--we are not setting them up to succeed 
in our national security.
    And so I just wanted to ask, one, are you aware of this 
critical deficit? And what is the Air Force doing? I know there 
is a $220 million per year across 5 year plan. I want to know 
is Nellis' dorm campus on that priority list?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative, and I certainly am proud of my time having 
served at team Nellis.
    I am definitely aware of the deficit that exists in 
accordance with the dormitory master plan at Nellis Air Force 
Base. We are appreciative for the design money, as you alluded 
to, to construct a new dorm in the future. I think that will go 
a long ways to eliminating some of the pressure with that 
deficit that they have at Nellis Air Force Base. And you also 
alluded to the investment that we intend to make in all of our 
dorms in the O&M accounts in FSRM, and so we are really excited 
about that.
    Our dorms as a whole are actually in very, very good 
condition; 99 percent of our dorms rate at a Facility Condition 
Index of 80 or higher, so adequate. So they are good, in good 
condition, and we believe that the O&M dollars will help keep 
those in good conditions for the quality of life of our airmen.
    I am aware that there are some potential projects that 
could fall into that category for Nellis Air Force Base, and I 
will keep an eye on this.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    And, you know, again, I just--I can't reiterate filling 
that deficit, how important that is, because requiring our 
airmen to go out and find their own--you know, some of them are 
getting--they have to get roommates. But it is just--it is 
definitely a huge stress.
    I want to turn now to Creech. As you know, Creech is a 
remote location and their mission is so important, but one 
thing that is another deficit is their access to quality 
medical care. Right now, Creech currently relies on a very 
small medical facility. It doesn't even come close to meeting 
the needs. Airmen have to drive--think about this--50 miles 
away to Nellis to get--that is over an hour each way, so 2 
hours just to get care at Nellis.
    So are you aware of this deficiency?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative.
    I am aware of that requirement that you alluded to. But, as 
it relates to a potential requirement, it would be out of my 
purview to speak to it, but I would be happy to take that for 
the record.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Yeah. My understanding is it is not on the 
Future Year Defense Plan to expand this facility, and I want to 
know what it is we need to do to get it there.
    I will ask, Dr. Chaudhary, if you have any ideas.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Congresswoman, yes, we have been tracking 
this issue. In fact, the distance in Creech has brought up a 
number of challenges, ranging from healthcare to childcare to 
the commute itself. So we are going to take a holistic look at 
this, working with our Manpower and Reserve Affairs, working 
with our Surgeon General, and we are going to come up with a 
comprehensive plan to address these issues.
    So, just to let you know, rest assured, we are looking at 
this very, very closely. I plan to visit there. I have actually 
been there and recognize the importance of Nellis and Creech 
and what they do for the Nation. So we will make sure we take 
that back and come back to you with what the holistic plan will 
look like.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    My time is up, and we have got to go vote.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Gonzales.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman, for your leadership and 
having this hearing.
    Thank you, gentleman, for showing up today.
    I will start with Secretary Chaudhary. I know myself and 
Henry Cuellar, we would love to host you on your anniversary to 
San Antonio. We want to make sure that San Antonio continues to 
be a special place. It is a special place for us, a special 
place for a lot of people.
    I represent Lackland Air Force Base. Mr. Cuellar represents 
Randolph Air Force Base, but we work very closely because, in 
San Antonio, the lines don't really--they are blurred. Right? 
What happens in one certainly affects the other.
    I certainly appreciate, we appreciate you all making a 
priority on the child development centers. We are getting a new 
child development center in Lackland, as well as Randolph, and 
then--it isn't even in my district or Henry Cuellar's 
district--in Fort Sam as well. So thank you for making that 
priority, especially in the joint community.
    I want to start with Lackland Air Force Base. One of the 
things that has come to my attention is the chapel there. And I 
know, once again, Congressman Cuellar and myself have made this 
a priority. For me, when I was in the military, at basic 
training or boot camp, I mean, you are looking for Sundays. I 
mean, you are going, yes, raising your hand; I want to go to 
church. I mean, that is the time to pray. If there is ever a 
time, it is then.
    And so one of the things that has concerned me is that the 
chapel at Lackland Air Force Base has been closed at times due 
to asbestos and other issues. It just boggles my mind. 
Imagine--and it is not a small base. I mean, it is literally 
basic training for every Air Force airman that goes through. I 
am very concerned with that. And not only do I want it reopened 
or--let me take it another way--not to have it closed at any 
point, I think Lackland needs to be a staple for the Air Force. 
I know you gentlemen understand that, but how do we make it a 
staple? How do we make that chapel, which is a central point to 
anybody who has ever gone through basic training, a place not 
only for worship, but a place to get, you know, some comfort 
away from some of this? I just would love to hear your thoughts 
on the chapel at Lackland.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congressman.
    Absolutely, this is personal to me, having gone through 
basic training myself. I did it at the Air Force Academy and 
have done a number of training programs, but that Sunday chapel 
time is gold for you. It absolutely really lifts you up and re-
energizes you for the rest of the week. Whichever methodology 
you use to use that time, it is so valuable. So having a 
facility to go to, to me, is absolutely critical.
    So I will make sure that I put my attention to it. I would 
like to visit soon, and I would like to take a look at it 
myself, but I don't have to wait to start looking into this 
issue. So happy to do so.
    And I do have a number of anniversaries in the area. I am 
also a graduate of Laughlin Air Force Base----
    Mr. Gonzales. Oh, good.
    Mr. Chaudhary [continuing]. For pilot training, so I would 
love to come to the area and come back and see the condition of 
these facilities.
    Mr. Gonzales. Perfect. Well, the one thing that I would 
highlight, what I've been told is the gold standard in the Air 
Force for chapels is at the Academy. And I am planning a trip 
within the next month or so to go out there and see it. I hear 
it is beautiful. I hear it is a wonderful spot. I would love to 
replicate something similar like that in Lackland Air Force 
Base.
    My next question for you is on housing. Housing is 
extremely important to any family. I will ask General Hartless 
this question.
    There seems to be a lot of confusion on bases about the 
dispute resolution process and the way in which servicemembers 
are instructed to go about resolving housing issues with the 
base offices and private housing contractors.
    What steps is the Air Force taking to clarify guidance 
outlining this process in which servicemembers should go about 
addressing issues with their housing?
    General Hartless. Thank you for that question, 
Representative.
    Also a matter near and dear to me, as a recent installation 
commander, when the secretary allowed for that policy of a 
dispute resolution for the members, and I am aware it exists, 
and it was in the very beginning stages of implementing it at 
my base. And it provides those members with an avenue to go to 
their resident advocates that exist on that installation and a 
direct path potentially to the wing commander. But it provides 
an opportunity to dispute resolutions that they might have.
    And I might defer to the assistant secretary if there is 
any more policy to add there.
    Mr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congressman.
    The dispute resolution system is a welcome change. But, at 
the same time, we are finding out ways--we are going through 
these where those gaps are. So one of the things we have done 
is made sure that we go out and hire a large amount of 
installation housing representatives. And, to me, those folks 
are the people you can go to. If that dispute resolution system 
is not working for you, go to your representative or utilize 
your leadership. But we made sure that those folks are on 
staff, on board, ready to listen. And we are going to take a 
look at how effective that is and make the changes. Do we need 
to do more hiring? Do we need more clarity in the process?
    Mr. Gonzales. Right.
    Mr. Chaudhary. But we are going to take a look at that from 
a top-down perspective.
    Mr. Gonzales. Perfect. Thank you.
    And I am out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Guest.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Chaudhary, great to talk to you again. I 
appreciate the phone call we had a couple weeks back.
    Mr. Chaudhary. You bet.
    Mr. Guest. General question first is--and this is not 
something that is unique to military contracts or even 
government contracts, but the rising costs of construction. And 
we know that, because of the rising costs of construction, that 
there are projects which have been approved and projects which 
have received funding, but with those rising costs, the dollars 
appropriated are not sufficient to complete those projects.
    And so what is the general strategy to make sure that those 
projects receive the funding that they need?
    Mr. Chaudhary. Quite simply, Congressman, get ahead of the 
information loop and market understanding as quickly as 
possible. I think we are doing that this year. In fiscal year 
2023, we have done some work to account for inflation and other 
cost growths. I believe we have allocated $66.5 million to 
account for that growth in fiscal year 2023. We are going to do 
more of that.
    One of the other things that we are going to do is work 
with our communities to better understand the community needs, 
how the market is operating in the local area.
    For the rest of that, maybe I could share with General 
Hartless if he has any additional insights.
    General Hartless. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary.
    Thank you for that question, Representative.
    To just add one other bit of context is, within the overall 
MILCON account, we certainly look to solve our problems within 
the account if we can, from bid savings on another project we 
could apply to one that might be short. So we would look to 
solve our problems first internally, but the magnitude of the 
increases over the last--you know, projects from 2022, 2023, 
and potentially in 2024, we certainly are aware, and we are 
grateful for the help that we have gotten from this committee 
to account for those rising costs.
    Mr. Guest. Well, and kind of with that in mind, so as we 
see that whatever dollars are appropriated by Congress, with 
the rising costs, we are going to be more limited in the number 
of projects. Even if we appropriate more dollars, with the rise 
in construction costs, of course, we can't build the same 
infrastructure now that we could have built 2, 3, 4 years ago.
    And so, with that in mind, I am assuming that, as the Air 
Force is looking at the placing of new platforms, that the Air 
Force will take into consideration the existing infrastructure. 
If we are looking at putting new planes at certain bases, do 
they have the infrastructure that they need to house those 
platforms versus are we going to have to come in and spend 
dollars bringing that infrastructure up to speed for that 
platform versus somewhere else?
    And it brings me specifically to the KC-46s, which I know 
that the Air Force is looking at rolling out, I believe, two 
groups of those here in the near future. The plan is to replace 
the aging KC-135s. And really the only assurance that I would 
like to get is that there is going to be assurance that there 
is going to be criteria that will allow our National Guardsmen 
to compete with Active Duty establishments to make sure that 
they have the ability to fly those planes as well.
    I think many of you--you may know that we do have a base in 
my district that is going to be competing for that, and one of 
the concerns they have is that the criteria that may be written 
would be detrimental not just to them particularly but 
detrimental to National Guard units as a whole.
    So I just want to bring that to your attention, and I want 
to thank you all for being here today. I want to thank you for 
what you do.
    I know we have got votes, Mr. Chairman, so I have no 
further questions and will yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you for yielding back.
    And we are going to adjourn now. Thank you for your 
participation. We appreciate it very much.
    We may have a few more questions that we may submit in 
writing. We didn't mean to not talk to the Space Force. I have 
you right here to ask you, when you said they are working from 
home, are they working from home or home station?
    Mr. Hollywood. Home station, Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Okay, okay. I just wanted to make sure it all 
works. Okay.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, 
thank you so much for your presentations today. And, you know, 
we have been engaged in this oversight in a number of areas for 
a long time, child development centers, PFAS, privatized 
housing, and we look forward to your responses so that we can 
make sure that we are working together towards the same goal of 
maintaining the quality of life of our servicemembers, which we 
know you are all committed to.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. I agree with her totally. When we speak, we 
speak together.
    Thank you.

                                     Wednesday, September 13, 2023.

                            VETERANS AFFAIRS

                               WITNESSES

NEIL EVANS, ACTING PROGRAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD 
    MODERNIZATION INTEGRATION OFFICE
JONATHAN NEBEKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLINICAL INFORMATICS AND CHIEF 
    MEDICAL INFORMATICS OFFICER
    Mr. Carter. Good morning and welcome each of you. We are 
very proud to have you. This is a subject near and dear to my 
heart. It is also one that keeps me up at night on weekends and 
sometimes makes me mad and kick my dog because of what is going 
on for now almost 20 years and we haven't solved this problem 
yet.
    And so we are going to talk about something that has been a 
problem that we started spending money over in 2004, and it 
ain't done yet.
    So I thank you for talking to us today about our Electronic 
Health Records Modernization Program. Let me introduce our 
witnesses.
    Dr. Neil Evans and Dr. Jonathan Nebeker who are leading the 
program for VA and Mr. Mike Sicilia for Oracle Global 
Industries.
    A modern interoperative Electronic Health Care Record 
System, it fully integrates VA, Defense Department, and 
community providers is a fundamental part of fulfilling our 
promise to provide world-class healthcare to our country's 
veterans.
    For more than 20 years the VA has attempted to modernize 
their system. About 5 years ago I was hopeful, hopeful that the 
VA was on the right track when it decided to acquire the same 
system as the Defense Department and then signed a contract 
with Cerner, however, we are now in a reset period.
    I recognize the need for the reset and appreciate that the 
VA Oracle team is working to fix the issues with the system 
itself and VA's implementation plans. Together VA and Oracle 
must resolve the technical issues within the system.
    VA senior leadership must standardize VA's processes and 
systems and eliminate unnecessary specialization. They must 
decide soon on what works best for most users. The clock is 
ticking.
    Frankly, the American taxpayer, they have spent too many 
billions of dollars for this to fail and I still want to know 
where those billions of dollars went. If VA cannot make the 
decision necessary, this Committee will.
    I would like to recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her 
opening remarks.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, everyone. Mr. Sicilia, I assume that we share the same 
problem with just answering to every version of our names, so 
we welcome you and the other witnesses and I feel your pain.
    I want to thank you all for being here and I want to concur 
with the Chairman and our entire Committee of varying 
iterations because we've had different--we have some new 
members who have not really been through the EHRM process with 
us and members who have been through the long haul, but the 
Electronic Health Record Modernization Program, this version of 
it, officially started in 2018.
    It is supposed to be a 10-year, $10 billion contract with 
what is now Oracle Cerner, plus an additional $6 billion for 
program management and infrastructure, which would ideally be a 
total cost of $16 billion.
    We are now finishing up the fifth year of the program, 
despite having appropriated over $10 billion in total, 
including more than $5 billion for the contract and we only 
have five sites to show for it.
    We are more than halfway through the funding contract with 
Oracle Cerner and halfway through the original expected 
timeline and have barely made a dent in the rollout of the 
system nationwide.
    Part of the original deployment schedule that VA built its 
cost estimates around, the new Electronic Health Record System 
should have been deployed at close to 70 sites by now.
    Now, I want to be clear, I don't believe in pushing out a 
system before it's ready and this has certainly been a problem 
across both party's administrations.
    I think it is prudent for VA and Oracle Cerner to hit pause 
and fix the issues at the five sites where the new EHR system 
is already deployed and get that right before launching more 
sites, and clearly, because some of the issues that have 
arisen, particularly related to the unknown que, were 
potentially life threatening to VA patients, we have to get 
this right.
    When the reset is over, the expectation and necessity is a 
fully functional system that can deploy to the remainder of the 
166 sites. The expectation and necessity is no patient safety 
issues, no unplanned system outages or degradations, and 
successful end-user adoption of the system.
    We need a health record system that works and that 
clinicians are excited to use. It should be easy to navigate 
and save them time so they can prioritize patient care.
    I hope we can see efficiencies in the deployments so we can 
make up for lost time and deliver the new system that 
seamlessly transitions the single electronic health record from 
DoD to VA and is interoperable with the community, promises we 
have been making to veterans for decades.
    DoD has been relatively successful. They have deployed to 
all domestic sites and are planning to deploy overseas next 
month. While DoD does have hiccups, they seem to have finally 
hit their stride.
    DoD has done it and I know, I am going to be the eternal 
optimist, that VA will do it too. I hope to spend this hearing 
getting a better understanding of where we are in the reset, 
what issues have been fixed, and which ones remain.
    I would like to get a better understanding of where we are 
financially. VA is adding interfaces, workflows, and 
capabilities outside the original scope of the project, and 
that is going to cost more money.
    As the saying goes, if you see one VA, you have seen one 
VA. Every medical center is different. One of the reasons why 
so many people like the current outdated VistA System is 
because it has been so customizable to the individual needs of 
each facility.
    If we wanted 130 separate systems, we would keep VistA, but 
that is not the goal of one seamless Electronic Health Record 
and it is important that we do not go down a path of too much 
customization to VA's system.
    ``If you have seen one VA, you have seen one VA'' is not 
going to be the mantra for EHR, and we need to culturally embed 
that in our VA's employees because they are still resistant and 
their resistance is strengthened when we go through these 
really ridiculous bureaucratic and technological challenges.
    I want to get a better understanding today of how you are 
reining in the number of workflows, capabilities, and 
interfaces and as I have mentioned, the point of EHRM is to 
have one system that is completely seamless between DoD and VA.
    VA is not DoD and there is definitely a need to make 
changes to support the different population that VA supports 
and the wide variety of services VA provides, but it has to be 
balanced.
    If we customize too much on the VA side, not only is it 
going to be more technologically challenging to develop, but it 
is also going to cost more, it will defeat the purpose of the 
system, we want a repeatable model that can be deployed at 
every VA site without special customization at every location, 
which will slow down the deployment.
    I know we are not going to solve every problem with VA's 
Electronic Health Record System today, but I do hope we can 
have a candid conversation about where things currently stand 
and how we are going to make this system successful and improve 
the lives of our veterans and those who provide their critical 
care.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. And I agree with everything my colleague said.
    Thank you for taking the time to be here. Without 
objection, your written statement will be entered into the 
record. Please summarize your remarks in about five minutes 
each. Opening remarks will begin with Dr. Evans.

                        Statement of Neil Evans

    Dr. Evans. Thank you. Good afternoon, good morning, I'm 
sorry. Chair Carter and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support 
of VA's initiative to modernize its Electronic Health Records 
Systems. Joining me today from VA, representing the Veterans 
Health Administration is Dr. Jonathan Nebeker, to my right, the 
Executive Director of Clinical Informatics.
    As you are aware, VA needs to modernize its Electronic 
Health Record System, as was just reflected in both of your 
statements and the Department remains steadfast in its 
commitment to doing so.
    The replacement of VA's EHR is one of the most complex 
health IT projects ever undertaken within one of the federal 
government's largest organizations. This project will impact 
more than 300,000 VA employees, and more than 100,000 trainees 
who will eventually use the new system yearly, and more than 
seven million veterans whose care will be orchestrated and 
documented within the system each year.
    But I should emphasize that this is much more than just a 
change in technology. The EHR change, by its very nature, 
requires VA to revisit, reconsider, and where possible, to 
standardize clinical processes and workflows.
    There is a direct impact on the very operations of the 
health system because Electronic Health Record Systems 
profoundly impact how care is delivered in the modern 
healthcare system; how clinical staff can access and organize 
the information that they need to care for veterans when and 
where they need that; how instructions for care, also known as 
orders, are transmitted and received within the hospital; how 
appointments are scheduled; how complex and high-risk care is 
organized in our ICUs; how surgeries are successfully planned 
and completed; how prescriptions are entered and provided to 
patients; and much more.
    Getting this right requires a massive team effort across 
the entire VA enterprise. Attention to detail, effective 
communication, and consistent execution. Despite the challenges 
we have experienced so far, VA must continue to move forward.
    In fact, the suite of technologies that make up a modern 
Electronic Health Record are just part of a larger ecosystem of 
orchestrated technologies needed by VA to enhance the quality 
and safety of healthcare delivery; to empower clinical teams 
with the decision support that they need; and to advance 
veterans engagement in their own healthcare.
    It is this entire suite of technologies, both the federal 
EHR and other critical health information technologies that 
need to be modernized and integrated effectively to simplify 
the healthcare experience for veterans and VA staff, to enhance 
standardization across the VA enterprise, this was mentioned 
earlier, and to improve the VA and Department of Defense's 
interoperability with the rest of the US healthcare system.
    As has been mentioned, VA is implementing the same 
Electronic Health Record as the Department of Defense, the US 
Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. And this system is often referred to as the 
Federal EHR.
    DoD has completed their deployment of the Federal EHR, 
which in DoD they call MHS Genesis, at all of their clinical 
sites in the continental United States, with the exception of 
the Joint VA-DoD facility in North Chicago, Illinois and DoD 
will finish their deployments outside the continental United 
States this fall and then together we will implement the record 
at the Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago in 
the spring of 2024.
    In the VA the Federal EHR is currently in use at five VA 
Medical Centers, 22 community-based outpatient centers, and 52 
remote VA sites like Telehealth hubs and call centers that 
serve the locations where the record is live.
    There are more than 10,000 VA users of the system and more 
than 200,000 veterans who live in the areas that are served by 
this new EHR.
    We have been listening to Veterans and clinicians and it 
became clear that the federal EHR was not fully meeting 
expectations in VA, and therefore, in April of this year, VA 
announced a program reset halting work on future deployments of 
the EHR except for the Lovell Federal Health Care Center.
    As a result, we are now focusing on delivering the 
improvements needed for current system users, while also 
preparing the enterprise for future deployment success.
    Staff productivity, revenue, collections, technical system 
performance, user adoption, and satisfaction in other areas 
require dedicated attention and positive improvements before 
deployments resume at full pace.
    VA has organized the work of this program reset into three-
month increments and just completed its first increment on 
August 31. Initial efforts focused on making necessary system 
changes, improving the technical stability of the system, 
enhancing end-user support and ticket management, addressing 
communications within VA, and developing a larger cohort of VA 
experts who can support the new system in the years to come.
    We are making progress and yet, there are still more work 
to be done before we will be ready to publish a new schedule 
and proceed with deployments across the rest of the VA 
healthcare system.
    Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 
members of the Subcommittee thank you again for this 
opportunity to testify.

                       Statement of Mike Sicilia

    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    How you say your last name?
    Mr. Sicilia. Sicilia.
    Mr. Carter. Sicilia. Okay.
    Mr. Sicilia. Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Wasserman 
Schultz, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me today.
    And thank you for your past and current support of the VA's 
EHR Modernization Program. Since Oracles acquisition of Cerner 
in June 2022, we have seen the critical importance of not only 
your support, but also your active engagement and concern for 
the program's success.
    We share your concern. And since day one we have made 
turning this program around our top priority. Oracle is proud 
to be working with VA to modernize its EHR system and we 
believe strongly in the importance of this mission.
    The EHRM program is the largest health IT modernization 
project in history, replacing the decades old VistA system. 
This modernization involves not only updating the EHR 
technology to ensure our veterans receive the best, most 
innovative seamless care possible, but also change management 
and governance challenges in moving from 130 systems to one.
    The initial deployment of the system to five VA Medical 
Centers has been challenging on the technology side and the 
user side. And further deployments are paused while the program 
undergoes a reset.
    We are supportive of the reset and believe that it, along 
with the renegotiated contract, provide the foundation needed 
for the program's ultimate success. In the new contract we 
agreed to 22 Service Level Agreements or SLAs to measure 
Oracle's performance.
    If we fail to meet these SLAs, we are subject to harsh 
financial penalties. We currently are meeting all 22 of them 
and intend to continue to do so.
    One issue that has received a lot of attention in the past 
is system outages, but since implementing our engineering 
changes, the Oracle owned outage free time has been 100 percent 
in 11 of the last 12 months.
    Oracle has long been in the business of providing stable 
and secure enterprise class systems to government worldwide. We 
are confident the system will be able to perform for current 
users and scale at deployments for future users.
    Much of our confidence is gained from the system's success 
at DoD. The initial DoD rollout was similarly challenged for 
the first two years, only completing four deployments, and then 
taking a 2-year pause to improve governance and finetune a 
standard enterprise baseline system.
    Those efforts enabled DoD to achieve a repeatable 
deployment model. From there, DoD completely deployed the new 
EHR domestically in less than four years with overseas 
deployments scheduled to start this October.
    This includes deployment at DoD's most complex facilities 
such as Walter Reed Medical Center with no instances of patient 
harm and a quick rebound to pre-deployment clinical 
productivity.
    During the reset period we are working together with VA to 
make 270 workflow reconfigurations, which will result in more 
intuitive system interactions for VA providers.
    Additionally, we recently extended the reach of our Joint 
Health Information Exchange to 90 percent of all community 
hospitals serving the VA and delivered a package of upgrades 
with pharmacy and patient safety enhancements and other 
reliability improvements.
    We further believe that the work being done now planned for 
the deployment at the Joint VA-DoD Facility in Chicago in March 
2024 will demonstrate that the system is scaled to function 
well and handle operations at complex facilities.
    As we continue to proceed with all this work in the reset 
period, Oracle stands ready for VA to put their success 
criteria into a plan and provide a schedule for resuming 
deployments.
    With regard to cost, a year ago I committed in testimony to 
the Senate Appropriates Committee to keep costs in line with 
the contract ceiling, barring major new requirements from the 
VA.
    This commitment also includes moving the EHR to a modern 
cloud-based system at no additional cost. Once we begin 
deploying again, we should be able to speed deployments.
    As I've said, to do so will require achieving a repeatable 
model during the reset. Not only will this minimize costs and 
allow more predictable timely deployments, but it will also 
allow VA to achieve a consistent provider and veteran 
experience and quality of care across its system.
    There is much to do and we appreciate that this reset 
period gives us time working with VA to get this right. We look 
forward to delivering a EHR system that succeeds at VA and 
provides our nation's veterans with the type of modern 
healthcare system they deserve.
    Thank you again.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you. Quite a few have some 
questions. I have three questions and I will expand on.
    How much is needed for FY 2024? How much money? Why are we 
at this point? And, what are we doing to fix it? That is the 
three questions.
    The President requested $1.863 billion for FY 2024; VA has 
modified this request. We know there is going to be significant 
amount carried over from FY 2023. Assuming we continue this 
initiative, how much additional funds will be required?
    I don't want to play the blame game, but it is important to 
understand why we need this reset after we have had other 
strategic pauses and reviews. What should have been done 
differently from the beginning? Why aren't the technical issues 
and training adoption challenges identified and addressed five 
years ago?
    As I said in my opening statement, we have spent too much 
money already. We want to make sure this doesn't fail. And one 
of the things--you gave a list of things that the VA had to do.
    Now, my question, somebody gave me a timeline over here, 
pretty interesting. 1983 we talked about it; 1986 we started 
talking about it and talking with the Defense; 2000, began the 
first modernization project; 2009, and there was other money 
spent in between because I came on in 2004; 2009 we entered 
into a critical issue with the accounting department; 2011 more 
issues; 2013, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2018, 2020, 2021, 
2022, 2023, now, 2024 to 2028, all that time VA had to make 
those same people come online with us, why haven't the 
conversations gone on?
    And then those other questions I asked.
    Dr. Evans. Okay. So I'll start with the timeline that you 
laid out.
    I guess I'll start with saying that I started my career 
with VA in 2001. I finished my residency and my first and only 
job has been with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A place 
that I'm incredibly proud to work serving veterans every day.
    I started seeing patients just 3 miles north of here at the 
Washington DC VA Medical Center in 2001, and I'm still taking 
care of the same panel of patients that I started taking care 
of in 2001. I'm in clinic twice a week caring for patients. In 
fact, I have virtual care Telehealth appointments this 
afternoon after we finish here.
    And I will say that we have made an investment in health 
information technologies and the situation when I see patients 
now in the clinic versus 2001 is entirely different.
    And so I don't think--and I think the investments that we 
have made over the course of the last 20 years have led to 
value. I don't remember the last time I could not find a piece 
of information that I needed from the Department of Defense 
Health Care System in real time in a clinic visit with a 
patient.
    I also am increasingly getting access, through the effort 
of this modernization effort, through our Joint Health 
Information Exchange, which you heard Mr. Sicilia mention, that 
private sector data, community health data, data from outside 
hospitals when I'm seeing patients, I'm often seeing that 
directly in our Electronic Health Records Systems because of 
the investments that we have made instead of having to run back 
and forth to the fax machine.
    We're delivering more care by telehealth and virtual care. 
There's a long list of areas where we've made significant 
improvements as a result of the investment to date.
    Having said that, we need to get right the path forward to 
modernize the Electronic Health Record. And one of the value 
propositions here is moving from a federated system of 130 
different instances of an Electronic Health Record to a single 
integrated national health record.
    And that does require the hard work, as has been mentioned, 
of figuring out how we standardize how care is delivered. That 
one VA is not--that once you've seen one VA, that saying that 
you've seen one VA, you've seen one VA, no, we should be able 
to deliver care in a consistent way across the enterprise.
    Those conversations have been happening. More need to 
happen, but I guess I would say, my answer to your question 
around the timeline is we are seeing value. With regard to this 
particular effort of the Electronic Health Record 
Modernization, we need to push harder to get to the finish line 
as we've clearly established.
    With regard to the question of how much funding? You are 
correct. The original ask was for $1.86 billion for FY 2024, 
and we've lowered that based on the reset, based on the fact 
that at the moment we've paused pre-deployment and deployment 
activities.
    There are still ongoing costs to sustain the solution, to 
do the work of the reset, and we are still committed to 
deploying and there is a long lead time, from a funding 
perspective, for deployment.
    So when we get to the point where we're ready to restart 
deployments at pace, our budget request takes that into 
account.
    Mr. Carter. Anybody else want to comment?
    Mr. Sicilia. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would echo Dr. 
Evan's comments that we have seen benefit from the Joint Health 
Information Exchange, which does bring data together, even from 
existing systems like VistA.
    I would also say that the spirit of cooperation between the 
VA and Oracle, particularly in the last year, has been 
extraordinary. I've been complimentary of Dr. Evans and Dr. 
Elnahal's leadership as they have joined the EHR Program in the 
last year and I think we're seeing a spirit of velocity and 
teamwork that we haven't seen in previous years.
    So in my opinion, and please keep in mind I've been 
involved since June of 2022, so my history is not as deep and 
as long, but even in that short time I would say that the 
working relationship, the exchange of information, the exchange 
of ideas and the common goal of driving towards an enterprise 
baseline, which I do believe will steer this program in the 
right direction, will allow us to redeploy deployments in 
parallel, meaning we can do more than one site at a time, and 
will keep us, at least from the Oracle Cerner side, in the 
context and in the envelope of the amount of money that was 
originally contemplated for the entirety of the contract.
    I don't believe that's an unachievable goal.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I guess my first round of questions will focus on the reset 
and will be more granular in the information I am seeking.
    The program began, or this iteration of the program began 
in 2018. It has been riddled with delays, issues impeding its 
success. We have had our strategic review. The assess and 
address delay, now what we are calling the reset period, on top 
of individual site delays also.
    So there are a few things that I would like some feedback 
from you on. One, Dr. Evans, can you describe what the 
intentions of the VA reset are? Like, what is the very specific 
short, medium, and long-term goal? And what exactly are you 
intending to accomplish? Do you have metrics established so you 
know whether or not you are meeting your goals? How long is the 
reset intended to last? We will start there and I would like to 
hear from all three of you.
    Dr. Evans. Okay. So what is the intention of the reset? As 
I mentioned in my opening statement, we're committed to 
deploying this record. There's work that we need to get done to 
be confident that we can move forward with the deployments at 
pace.
    We've set three goals for the reset. Those are to address 
the issues at the live sites. We had heard--you know we've 
deployed the system and learned a lot from deploying it to five 
medical centers, 22 clinics, 52 remote sites.
    We're addressing those issues in order to improve 
productivity of providers, user satisfaction and adoption, 
technical reliability of the system. We can go through what 
some of those issues are, but we're addressing the issues at 
the live sites, number one.
    Number two, we're doing some of the foundational work that 
is going to be necessary for us at the enterprise to be able to 
operate this as an enterprise system.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Do you have metrics that will 
measure whether you're meeting those goals? Because frankly, 
you are speaking in very broad rosy, you know, summarizing 
terms.
    Dr. Evans. Right. So we are organizing our metrics of how 
we value--how we measure our success in four categories. First 
category, the veteran and the user, the staff experience. 
Looking at user satisfaction, we measure on a yearly basis and 
we'll be doing it more often than yearly, the satisfaction of 
our end users with the system.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. We can't be in the reset for 
years.
    Dr. Evans. Correct.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am talking about discernable 
metrics that are going to determine whether you are meeting 
goals or not meeting goals so that we can get out of reset and 
go forward with implementation.
    Dr. Evans. I completely agree.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am talking about those kinds of 
metrics in the reset specifically.
    Dr. Evans. Right. So I'll go through the categories and 
then let's dive in to some specific metrics that I think would 
be helpful as examples.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Dr. Evans. So veteran and staff experience No. 1 category. 
Second is the impact on facility operations. Are we returning 
to our goal levels of provider productivity, as an example of 
that, revenue collections, the impact of how this impacts 
operations and metrics that we have aligned to that.
    Third, our metrics around the program processes. Our change 
management, our governance, have we--some of those are yes, no. 
Did we establish the governance structure and is it working in 
a way that we need it to work?
    Some of them are basically evidence where it's a metric 
where we can track progress over time. And the fourth area is 
around the technical performance of the system.
    That's really foundational. It's got to be up all the time 
and reliable. Those are very easy to measure. Up time, incident 
free time, is the system performing or are users having hangs, 
crashes, or lags that are unacceptable.
    I think it's also important and we're building out the 
actual criteria, which we will be happy to share with the 
Committee, with the metrics themselves. That is work that we're 
doing this month that we will be tracking as we move forward.
    It's important that we do not need to get to perfection on 
those metrics to exit reset. We need to see a positive trend, 
improvement in productivity, improvement in user adoption and 
satisfaction, improvement in the right direction with regard to 
the technical reliability, which by the way we're already 
starting to see.
    And so we're looking for the positive trend as the point 
where we make the decision that we can exit reset.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So with that said, how long is 
the reset intended to last? What is your expectation of when 
you would be able to come out and what are the indicators that 
would tell you you could come out of the reset and that we 
would be in full implementation?
    And we are holding Oracle Cerner to a 99.95 percent 
accuracy rate here. So and they are making progress on that, 
but when are we coming out of the reset? What is the goal and 
when are you going to know that that is possible?
    Dr. Evans. Yeah. I think the path to restarting is several 
fold, right? Sustained positive trajectory on the success 
criteria, the metrics that I was just talking about, number 
one.
    Number 2, a successful launch of the record at the James 
Lovell Federal Health Care Center in the spring of 2024. And by 
the way, we'll go live in the spring and, with these EHR 
rollouts, it's usually a month or two that we actually see 
things settle in after we go live with the new system and we're 
able to see the impact of that go live.
    So if we go live in March, I think we're going to have a 
lot of information, with regard to our progress on the metrics 
that we'll be setting, and the success at James Lovell Federal 
Health Care Center that in the summer of 2024, we should be 
having, and even before that, we should be having real 
discussions about whether we are ready to move forward with 
restart.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, with your 
indulgence, if I can just get some feedback from Mr. Sicilia on 
your understanding. Is that okay?
    On your understanding of the reset. What engagement you 
have had with VA to determine the appropriate amount of time 
the rest would need to last to accomplish VA's goals, and what 
are your responsibilities in that time period between now and 
next summer?
    Mr. Sicilia. Sure. Our primary responsibility in that time 
period, as Dr. Evans says, is to ensure that the system is 
available, is not in the way of providers, and is reliable. And 
I believe we've made demonstrable progress in that.
    We share the co-responsibility for the 270 configuration 
workflow changes that I mentioned in my opening statement, 
which I think are also a very positive thing.
    It may seem like a big number, but for a program this size 
it's actually not that big of a number and those 270 things 
that we are responsible for implementing during the reset will 
move the program towards standardization, not towards 
customization.
    So these are things that we're cleaning up, if you will, 
and based on direct provider feedback from VA providers who 
have given feedback around certain--the way the system 
functions. Again, it's not that we're customizing the system, 
it's that we're delivering easier to use interfaces for the 
providers to consume.
    So there are primary roles in the VA reset. I would concur 
with Dr. Evans' timeframe. It seems to me that next summer we 
should be in a position, particularly with the go live, which I 
think is trending well in March, that we should be in position 
to resume go lives. That is our expectation.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And who decides, at the end of the 
day, when the system is ready to deploy again?
    Dr. Evans. The Secretary.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, obviously. I mean, is there a 
collective decision that is going to be made or do you make a 
recommendation to the Secretary?
    Dr. Evans. I think, you know, in part one of the things you 
asked a question about what's, somebody asked a question about 
what's different? One of the things that I think is important 
is there is very close alignment and excellent teamwork between 
the Veterans Health Administration, and the program that is 
executing the implementation, as well as our vendor partners.
    We are meeting on a regular basis. We're having these 
discussions. Our commitment is continuous value delivery during 
the reset. So I think we're going to be having the continual 
discussions. I have it every--I wake up every day wondering, 
you know, how are we moving in this direction?
    We don't want to stay in reset forever. In fact, I would 
argue that we are at higher risk the longer we maintain a 
healthcare system that's running two different Electronic 
Health Record Systems.
    And so we need to feel an urgency to move forward with a 
single--get back to a single Electronic Health Record System 
that supports the enterprise. I feel that urgency. I know that 
VHA leadership feels that urgency and I know the vendor feels 
that urgency. We will be together making that decision.
    It ultimately will be presented to the Secretary.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
indulgence. I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sicilia, in 
your testimony, you talked about being able to speed 
deployments on a repeatable model, and how you successfully did 
that with DOD.
    My question is, in light of the conversation that we just 
had, and notwithstanding the great relationship that you all 
have, I want to ask, you can't create--I assume, you can't 
create a repeatable model unless VA has provided you with the 
work processes that they need you to repeat. So, is there a 
breakdown--is the problem here in not having already achieved a 
repeatable model within VA, like you did in DOD. Is it because 
VA is not providing you with the processes?
    Mr. Sicilia. I think that historically has been a 
challenge. Prior to Oracle's acquisition of Cerner, which 
happened just over a year ago. As I mentioned though, I think 
that the leadership now is staunchly aligned, and I do feel 
like we are on a path to get that repeatable model and 
configuration from VA so that we can implement it in a timely 
manner.
    And then as you point out, we can move into a parallel 
deployment strategy, which I think ultimately will keep the 
program in line with the original amount that was contracted 
for the--for the Cerner piece of this, and we can--to make it 
quite simple, deploy more than one site at a time. We don't 
have to be in a serial mode where you've got one site at a 
time.
    So, you're right. We do need the configuration to be able 
to implement it. However, I am very confident and I would tell 
you if I was not, that we are moving in that direction, and 
that the cooperation and teamwork, as Dr. Evans mentioned, is 
in fact squarely aligned along exactly that point, which is we 
need a baseline model that we can deploy at every VA site, and 
then if there are things to tweak on an individual site basis, 
over time and afterwards certainly those thing can be done. But 
I think Dr. Evan said it best.
    We don't need to be perfect to get real value from the 
system, and I think in the past it was--it was probably fairly 
an issue on both sides, and to be quite fair to VA, prior to 
Oracle's involvement there were a lot of system issues that I 
think were technical system issues--technical issues that were 
frankly a distraction and didn't allow the right attention to 
these kind of enterprise standards. I mean, the plane is fairly 
turbulent.
    When you're flying, it's hard to serve hot coffee and 
things like that, right? And I'm much happier to now be into 
the--to the thing where we're looking at configurations, which 
is how do you like your coffee rather than, you know, put your 
lap belt on pretty tight, and that was the situation we were in 
prior to getting involved. So, all that said, I think you're 
exactly right. I mean, we need to know what to build. I do 
think that Dr. Evans and Dr. Elnahal are pushing very hard 
inside VA and we are making progress, and those 270 things that 
we are actively working on right now and making, I think, great 
progress on, are in that vein.
    Mr. Rutherford. So, let me go to Dr. Nebeker. Look, when--
you know, when VistA was developing, it was like, 130 
different--you know, it was all called VistA, but it was really 
130 different systems.
    And I understand you all have to try to overcome that, but 
my question is, and it's something interesting that Mr. Sicilia 
said about, you know, the tweaks for individual sites. Are we 
really going to wind up with 130 different sites like VistA? Is 
that where we have to go? Because VistA obviously had to go 
there, and it did, and you all--well, not you all, but VA 
developed that. And so, what's your--what's your beliefs, 
doctor, about how we can get that, as Mr. Sicilia calls it, 
that repeatable model at 130 different sites? Is that possible?
    Dr. Nebeker. So, yes. And these are fantastic questions. 
So, the mission in my office, Clinical Informatics, is to 
advance the standard care, a single enterprise standard of care 
and experience for the entire VA using, you know, through 
standardization of tools and processes. And this is--this is 
including VistA and Oracle sites.
    So, how do we do this? So, VA under Dr. Elnahal's 
leadership has--and also his deputies and, you know, assistant 
undersecretaries have all now fully endorsed standardization of 
care. We know from experience through the difficulties that is 
introduced in this program that we must standardize care.
    Moreover, we want the veteran to get the same standard of 
care, whether they're going to Spokane or Salt Lake City or 
Baltimore. We don't want geography to drive the veteran's 
experience and standard of care. So, how do we do this? So, we 
do this by--through a couple of things.
    So, one is we look at processes independent of the 
technology. How do we want to get our work done? How do we 
check in patients? How do we communicate with patients? How are 
we using additional information systems as Dr. Evans alluded 
to? How are we doing tele-help? How are we communicating with 
the patient through their portal?
    So, it's an ecosystem of technologies and processes that we 
explicitly now are documenting, you know, like in a flow chart. 
When you check in a patient, this is what happens. When you 
care for cancer patients, we have clinical pathways.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Dr. Nebeker. And then based on those clinical pathways, we 
are standardizing both in the Oracle system, and then 
retroactively standardizing in VistA systems, and then based on 
the best, you know, really great practices in the VistA 
systems, forward doing the configurations, not customizations 
in the Oracle system, again, to maintain that consistent 
standard of care so that--and while we're doing that, advancing 
that standard of care.
    Mr. Rutherford. But have we done that? Because doctor, 
you--I mean, Mr. Sicilia just said that they're----
    Dr. Nebeker. We have not.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Dr. Nebeker. But we're making progress towards that end.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Dr. Nebeker. And real progress, and we have a ways to go. 
We will not wait--you know, the reset period exit is not going 
to be dependent upon this, you know, complete end to end 
standardization of healthcare, but we will--we are making a lot 
of progress, and we already have made progress this year.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. I see my time is way over. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and ranking 
member. Can you tell me what Kaiser Permanente, one of the 
largest integrated healthcare systems in the US, the Mayo 
Clinic, a renowned medical practice research institution, 
Cleveland Clinic, a leading academic medical center, 
Intermountain Healthcare in Utah--based in Utah, a Sutter 
Health network of hospital healthcare providers in Northern 
California, the Department of Defense, the US Coast Guard, and 
the NOAA all have in common?
    Dr. Evans. They all deliver healthcare.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay, and can you tell me besides that, what 
else? I'll give you a hint, the topic today.
    Dr. Evans. Well, I mean, so--I mean, essentially 
effectively at this point in time all health systems in America 
are using an electronic health record.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay, except for VA?
    Dr. Evans. VA is using an electronic health record as well.
    Mr. Cuellar. Well, the modernization, integrated?
    Dr. Evans. Right. So, I would say that I think if we're 
looking for what's in common with those healthcare systems, 
they are all using commercial electronic health records across 
their enterprise. Not necessarily the same commercial health 
record. Some of them are actually running multiple different 
vendors, commercial EHRs, to support their enterprises, but 
they're all running on an electronic health record, as is the 
VA.
    Mr. Cuellar. So, what's the difference between a successful 
roll out of a modernization electronic record initiative and a 
lackluster situation that we're seeing in the VA? And I say 
that with all due respect.
    Dr. Evans. Yeah. I mean, I think, look, I'll start with 
saying the electronic health record is----
    Mr. Cuellar. Well, let me--let me interrupt you. Let's look 
at some of the challenges, scale and complexity, inter-ability, 
resource constraints, data migration and integration, change 
management and user adoption, data security, privacy, technical 
challenges--which vendors play an important role--regulatory 
policy and compliance, stakeholder engagement. What of those--
which of those challenges are affecting the work that you're 
trying to do, all of the above? One more than the other one?
    Dr. Evans. Yeah. I mean, I think there's several pieces, 
right? So, first of all, an electronic health record 
transformation is an IT project, and there are to your point 
technical factors that need to be taken into account. The 
system has to work and be reliable.
    We're making progress there. We're not where we need to be, 
but I think we're making good progress, and that had been a 
barrier. There is a significant--it is a significant--it is--
the biggest challenge is managing the change. For providers who 
have been--and staff have been coming to work using VistA every 
day for years, they can almost do that in their sleep.
    They know how to navigate the system, right? And so, 
they're--so, the system has gotten out of the way, because 
they've learned how to use it so well. Moving to a different 
system is a change--a significant change, and that change 
management I think has been one of the larger challenges as 
we've asked folks to move to a new way of doing things, and 
we've heard much discussion about the importance of 
standardization, that is, when you're deploying an enterprise 
system as opposed to 130 instances of a system that can be 
customized locally, and an enterprise system requires 
standardization at the--at the base.
    Mr. Cuellar. I gave you a list, and I'm sure somebody took 
notes of the different challenges. Can you all follow up with 
committee and tell us where exactly the problem might be? I 
mean, it's not just simply an IT issue, right? It's more than 
that, right?
    Dr. Evans. Correct.
    Mr. Cuellar. I mean, there's different challenges. When you 
look at the modernization effort and what challenges have, you 
know, you encounter, it's more than just an IT issue.
    Dr. Evans. Absolutely, and we'd be happy to comment on that 
list.
    Mr. Cuellar. Sir?
    Mr. Nebeker. Yeah, so I think--so, what's--what kind of 
struck me as you're going through that list, and I've had 
friends, you know, at those institutions leading the 
implementation, some of which were fired after, because of the 
main problem with these implementations, and that main problem 
is change management.
    So, for example, Intermountain Healthcare, I live in Salt 
Lake City, I'm enjoying the agriculture room here because I'm 
kind of a farm boy and a cow hand from my youth, but the--it's 
the--especially systems like, Kaiser early on that had sort of 
a health--its own EHR, Intermountain had its own EHR. Mayo 
Clinic had its own EHR. The hardest problem for them was to get 
out of their heads about how do we replicate our EHR--our 
custom EHR that was attuned over years and decades in some 
cases to make my workflow a particular way.
    And so what they've done, and failed doing it, is trying to 
make the commercial EHR system like their usual, custom, highly 
tuned EHR system. They've over-complicated the solutions.
    They've tried to break standardization with all good 
intentions, and almost all of these healthcare systems that 
you've listed have had to enter a reset period. They've called 
it different things, but they've had to step back and say, 
wait, what are we doing here? How do we get back on track for a 
standardized approach that fits the commercial solution that we 
have? Not trying to make the commercial technology like our 
custom technology. That's the commonality that I see.
    Mr. Cuellar. And my time is up, but let me just say this, 
but are they in a better situation? I just listed a whole bunch 
of private, not-for-profit, and government agencies, even 
though they went through a reset and they had the same--I mean, 
they're in a--I would say in a better situation than VA.
    Dr. Nebekar. Yeah, and in any case----
    Mr. Cuellar. So let's look at the lessons learned that 
maybe some folks have been fired for coming up, but some folks 
probably got promoted for doing the right thing also. So, thank 
you so much. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for 
being here--all three of you being here this morning. First, I 
want to say I was a little surprised to hear that we are 
pushing the reset into next year. I certainly think that I 
understand that there are some challenges that we need to 
address, and we want to make sure we rectify those, but--before 
we push forward, but a year delay seems like a very long time 
given that we've already spent 5 years into this project. I 
want to follow up on the ranking member's comments.
    Dr. Evans, with all due respect, I think the 5 minutes you 
had at the beginning was a really vague, high level overview. 
There wasn't a lot of nuts and bolts as to where we are and 
where we're going. So, I think that I would like to see, and I 
think my colleagues would agree, a very detailed outline of 
what the metrics are, what your expectations are, and what the 
timeline that you believe you'll be able to meet to be able to 
restart this program for next year.
    On that note, it was mentioned, Mr. Sicilia, that you've 
re-negotiated the contract. Can you talk a little bit about why 
there was a renegotiation, and what the specific details of 
that were?
    Mr. Sicilia. Yeah. The primary point of renegotiation was 
to move to a more granular level of measurable system level 
agreements.
    Mrs. Bice. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Sicilia. So in the original contract, there were either 
four or five, which frankly is a--usually a usual--pretty low 
number for a contract of this size. This was a Cerner contract, 
not an Oracle contract, that was signed. So we moved to 22 
system level agreements, and this was in collaboration with the 
VA.
    The reason was we wanted to be very transparent about and 
very public about everything that we're measuring, and all of 
those SLA compliance reports are available on a Congressional 
dashboard for everybody to see, and I think that's--it holds us 
all more accountable to have a contract, which is--which is far 
more granular, at least along the technical system things that 
are fairly easy to mention.
    The other--the other piece of the--major piece of the 
renegotiation was to move to a series of five 1-year options 
rather than a five year extension, you know, given the 
uncertainty around reset periods, and given the uncertainty 
around what may be the end result of that. I think the VA felt 
it better to move to a--to a series of one year--of one year 
extensions, and we supported both of those--both of those 
decisions.
    That said, we have no intention to do anything else but 
continue to support this for the original amounts contemplated 
and for the timeline contemplated and to continue to move 
forward.
    Mrs. Bice. There was no additional costs renegotiated in 
the contract, is that correct?
    Mr. Sicilia. There's no additional cost for negotiating.
    Mrs. Bice. Okay. I'm glad to hear that you're committed to 
the project, because it does worry me a bit that we've 
renegotiated to a one year extension every year, rather than a 
five year. I think that leads to concerns about cancelling the 
contract and going in a different direction at some point, 
which is a huge problem for all of us, I think, on this 
committee.
    If I can pivot for just a moment, I want to ask, I--it is 
an incredible honor for me to represent Congressional District 
5. I have about almost 50,000 veterans that reside in my 
community, and the Oklahoma City VA medical center has already 
completed construction to allow for additional service space in 
the forthcoming transition. Do you have any idea where this 
particular project will fall in the timeline, and have you 
given out a sort of projected summary of when you'll be doing 
each VA facility?
    Dr. Evans. One of the key tasks that we are working on in 
the reset, and that we have actually just started right now, is 
to re-look at what our original deployment schedule was, and 
you heard mentioned here at the table already that we--there's 
an opportunity to rethink what that looks like. The DoD, as an 
example, moved from a model where they were doing a series of 
individual deployments to doing what they called waves, where 
they were deploying multiple medical centers at the same time, 
and able to move more into parallel.
    They started to think about where--markets where we should 
go live as opposed to individual medical centers in order to 
make the transition where there's resource sharing. VA operates 
and shares resources between medical centers. So in short, we 
are going back to the drawing board with regard to what the 
schedule should like, taking into account the investments we 
already made.
    So for example in Oklahoma City, we have made the 
investments in the preparation for the technology. So, where 
we've made investments, that will certainly be a factor in how 
we consider what that new schedule should look like, but we've 
committed it at the end of the reset, we will publish a 
schedule, and we're going to----
    Mrs. Bice. Are you also--are you also giving the regional 
centers advance notice on what they may need to do to be able 
to meet the expectations to go in and start the process?
    Dr. Evans. Yes, and we're having--the intent is--and we 
will be having the conversations with the regional, the VSNs, 
the networks.
    Mrs. Bice. Great.
    Dr. Evans. To say what is right for you, right? This needs 
to be driven by them.
    Mrs. Bice. I'm running out of time, but one final question. 
You mentioned the 130 different variations of the current 
platform that you're having to navigate. Are there any specific 
sites that you have concerns with based on how the program that 
they currently use is structured that could be very much more 
complicated than other particular locations?
    Dr. Evans. I don't personally have any particular concerns 
about any given site, and I would--and as Dr. Nebeker 
mentioned, one of the other things that his team is doing is 
working at--is looking at how we can start to standardize 
better in VistA in preparation for the change. If we hope--if 
we start to do the change at VistA sites, before we even arrive 
with the Oracle record, that transition will be easier.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Thank you for your indulgence, and I 
would--once this is concluded--love to have those additional 
details that we talked about as far as metrics that we want to 
try to adhere to. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 
thank you all for being here today. I believe I have been 
serving on this subcommittee longer than anyone on the podium, 
and quite frankly I am frustrated. Frustrated that our veterans 
have been waiting more than a decade to try to get this 
situation accomplished. Year after year, first it was struggles 
between the VA and DoD. We appropriated millions and millions 
of dollars.
    We finally get to a point where we think that it's going to 
get done, 2018, after all those years, and we continue to have 
problem after problem after problem. What is it going to take?
    And what will the costs be safety-wise to veterans while 
the data is being transferred? What steps are you taking--I 
think the GAO has indicated that there was some issues with the 
allergy and medication and immunization data which affected 
patient safety concerns.
    During this process, which now has been almost a decade and 
a half, I mean, veterans are having to suffer, and what --how 
are--how are you maintaining the risk level to make sure that 
veterans are not impacted by this transfer process? And what 
lessons have you learned with the deployments that you've 
already done that are going to inform you to try to get this 
done?
    And ultimately, with all of the billions of dollars that we 
have already spent, and every year we're adding more to that, 
ultimately, what will be the cost savings? Will we ever recoup 
our investments? And how are you going to--do you have metrics?
    And I've heard a lot of questions this morning about the 
metrics. What are your ultimate metrics for rolling out this 
system? Can you just kind of address that? I--my frustrations 
are really welling up, because I've listened year after year, 
meeting after meeting. I've heard people from VA, from--people 
from DoD, talk about where we are on this, and I've seen the 
appropriations bills roll out, billions of dollars. Please, can 
you--can you address that for me?
    Dr. Nebeker. Let me start. So, the--I've been, you know, 
with the program for--through the EHR, the DoD program, and 
also--you know, my office runs--used to run the health 
information exchange, and I'm sure you're one of the people 
that got calls from your constituents that said, you know, I've 
had to take a wheelbarrow and collect all my records for the 
various VAs, and wheel those over, you know, from DoD, and 
wheel them over to VA, and literally this has happened, you 
know 15 years ago, but since that time, as Dr. Evans--we 
actually have made a lot of progress--no satisfactorily, I will 
agree with you, but we have made progress. We're now within 
three minutes I can get a veteran's record from anywhere in the 
country.
    Again, we're connecting to 90 percent of hospital systems. 
Anywhere in the country within three minutes, it will--we do a 
query, we go out and get their episodes of care, 
hospitalizations, office visits, it's there. It's not 
integrated. It's, like, in a PDF, but that's the state of the 
health information exchange. But let me go back to some of the 
issues that you talked about specifically, patient safety.
    So, I made a career--one of my past lives was a researcher 
in patient safety, especially around IT systems. One of the 
problems we have is we try to make--the cause of safety 
problems is we try to make the system--another vendor system 
work like VistA.
    And so, we've come into these--to these with our human 
processes that are tuned to work with VistA, and try to apply 
those same human processes to work with Oracle. That's been a 
problem, and some of the unknown queue issues that you brought 
up are related to not understanding how to really work 
optimally with the system.
    In addition to changing our workflows to work optimally 
with the Oracle system, we are doing now--pro-active--we're 
getting the data from Oracle into our enterprise data 
warehouse, and running algorithms on those data to proactively 
identify problems before they even--you know, before the 
healthcare systems themselves know that there may be a problem.
    Again, you know, safety is a Swiss cheese problem where you 
have to line up all the holes in the cheese for something to 
happen. And so, we may--we can detect electronically when the 
holes are lining up before the patient--there's patient harm. 
So, we're combining many systems, supplementing the Oracle 
systems to get to patient safety. And I won't take any more 
time, but I'm happy to elaborate.
    Mr. Bishop. Anyone else want to comment on that?
    Dr. Evans. I mean, I would just emphasize I think I agree 
wholeheartedly with what Dr. Nebeker just said. First of all, I 
think we have made a lot of progress, and I think it's very, 
very--and we have an application called the Joint Longitudinal 
Viewer, and when you open that application, which opens--which 
every VA clinician is opening today, or most of them are if 
they need information, they can see information from every DoD 
site, every VA site, and 90 percent of American hospitals. And 
so, we've made a lot of progress with regard to the 
availability of the data.
    Mr. Bishop. How close are you to the finish line?
    Dr. Evans. The finish line is--there's health data 
interoperability is one question. Do we have access to the data 
that we need to take care of veterans? And I think we're 
getting closer access to the data, but the ability to use that 
data and have it integrated into an integrated, single, 
standardized national health record, we need to get to the 
finish line with regard to this project.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, how close are you to that finish line? I 
mean, I've--we've got VA clinics all over the country. We have 
CBOC--all of them need on a daily basis to have access to that 
information.
    Dr. Evans. They have that now.
    Mr. Bishop. They're still expressing to my constituents and 
my case workers problems accessing that. And they are also 
expressing that they're having concerns with getting accurate 
information. So, I'm just frustrated. I mean, this is--this has 
been almost a 20 year process for me.
    I--that different people come and sit at this table, you 
know, every two or three years, and give us updates, but you 
know, we may be not where we started, but we are certainly not 
where we had hoped to be ten years ago. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back. My time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Gonzales.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman Carter, and thank you for 
holding this hearing, and I echo my colleague Representative 
Bishop's frustration. I feel like we're in the Twilight Zone. 
This hearing is not going well for you, and you know, I'm a 
veteran.
    I spent 20 years in the military. I'm a retired Navy master 
chief. I believe in results, not excuses, and I hear a whole 
lot of excuses, and this is dangerous. It is dangerous on two 
fronts. People are dying, and it's costing taxpayers money--not 
a little bit of money, a lot of money. So, let's talk about the 
health of people and their welfare, and some of the failures 
that the VA has done that has caused people to lose their 
lives, so let's start.
    Dr. Evans, last year, the VA Inspector General found that 
the department's electronic health records system had failed to 
flag patients who had been identified as suicide risks, gave 
doctors inaccurate information about patient's medications, and 
caused delays in scheduling appointments. What percentage of 
these issues have been resolved, and how many of these problems 
still exist?
    Dr. Evans. Specifically with regard to the suicide risk 
flags, that problem has now been resolved. Suicide risk flags 
have been implemented in all of the key components of the 
federal EHR and are available.
    Mr. Gonzales. They've been resolved? So, the VA is not--is 
not responsible for not identifying any of these issues? That's 
what you're telling me?
    Dr. Evans. That report that you're referring to is 
referencing the fact that suicide risk flags--the electronic 
health record--the new electronic health record, the Federal 
EHR is composed of different modules. There's the module that 
the provider in a clinic would open. There's a module that 
somebody who is doing scheduling would open.
    There's a module that somebody who is organizing X-rays and 
radiologic care would open, and the patient record flag--the 
flags for suicide risk were not visible in every one of those 
key clinical applications.
    In the past, we just had a single application in CPRS 
VistA, and that flag would appear and folks would see it and 
everybody was using the same application, but based on the 
architecture of the federal EHR, there are multiple views, and 
we needed to make sure that those suicide risk flags were 
appearing in all of them. As of this past block upgrade, which 
was just delivered two weeks ago, the last of those 
applications had the suicide risk flags added.
    Mr. Gonzales. Do you agree the importance of ensuring that 
this does not happen again and we make sure that this, going 
forward, is a priority? I spent 20 years in the military, 5 
years in Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, this week, we just 
celebrated, we just honored 9/11 and the victims. You know, a 
few months ago or a few weeks ago, the withdrawal, the debacle, 
withdrawal of Afghanistan. I mention these things, not as 
political points. As veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, 
this is very personal to us, and it is hurting us. It is 
causing many people to go down very deep, dark paths. And we 
need to identify--they fought for us, I fought for us. A lot of 
people that have served, we have done our part to keep this 
country safe for decades. And we have to do our part, both the 
Department of the VA and Congress, in order to fix this problem 
and make sure veterans are taken care of. So that is the human 
part of it.
    Now, let's talk about money. You are coming before the 
Appropriations Committee. This year, $1.9 billion for this 
program. Last year, $1.6 billion. The year before that, $2.3 
billion. The year before that, $2.6 billion. The year before 
that, $1.5 billion. That is $10 billion of taxpayer dollars. 
What the hell has that gotten us?
    You mentioned something earlier. We need an urgency. I 
agree with you. There absolutely needs to be an urgency in 
fixing this issue. What if we cut funding? Would that light a 
fire? What if next year was zero? Would that light a fire in 
fixing this program?
    Dr. Evans. So you asked two questions. I will answer the 
first question. What are we getting for the investment? The 
investment, there are three parts to the investment. There is 
the money that we are spending to implement and deliver the 
electronic health record solution itself. There is money that 
we are spending in order to work through the changes that we 
need to manage the program. And then there is money that we are 
spending to upgrade infrastructure, IT infrastructure across 
the enterprise, to support the new EHR and, frankly, it will 
support other key health care delivery outcomes, like being 
able to deliver telehealth from our remote clinics, et cetera.
    That IT investment is going to deliver value no matter 
what, and that has continued. So we have expended on the 
infrastructure side $2.1 billion, and I think there is real 
value seen from that.
    With regard to the electronic health record, I think you 
have heard clearly from all of us at the panel, we feel an 
urgency to deliver that. We anticipate that, as we finish the 
reset, find a new strategy to move forward with regard to 
deployments, we will be able to accelerate the value provided. 
There is a lot of up-front investment that is required in order 
to move forward.
    As to your question of if the budget was zero, I think that 
would be very hard for us to execute the reset activities that 
we need to move forward.
    Mr. Gonzales. My time is up. But I would just say the 
takeaway needs to be the gray train is over and there are cuts 
coming. And we got to make sure, if you want people to protect 
some of these programs, there has to be results. You have to 
look back and we have to be able to defend where taxpayer 
dollars are going. And if we cannot, then it is just going to 
put a lot of scrutiny on our things.
    This is personal. My wife gets her health care through the 
VA. My friends, everyone I know, I do. We want to fix this. 
This committee, you have heard this over and over again, we are 
committed to do this. The chairman would not have brought this 
up if it was not an important issue for all of us. Please work 
with Congress, find the solutions, let us know what we need. 
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
gentlemen, for being here. I apologize for not being here on 
the front end. I missed your testimony. I was hoping to hear 
more. But, you know, candidly, when I read through the written 
testimony provided in advance, I found it so vague I could not 
really take anything away from it.
    If we were playing NBA jargon bingo, we would have maxed 
out the card. I mean, there is every buzzword known to man in 
here, but very light on specifics. So I am just kind of 
following up on, obviously, you can tell there is a sense of 
frustration among the committee here.
    But, Mr. Evans, you had mentioned with respect to the reset 
a couple times things like, we are going back to the drawing 
board. Or, as we find a new strategy. Can you be more specific 
with that? Because there is a growing frustration that we have 
an open checkbook, and we are spending billions of dollars 
every year. And I am curious to know from your perspective, is 
this a failure from Oracle's perspective to deliver? Is this 
the VA crawfishing and moving the goalposts at every turn on 
what it wants, what it is looking for? Is it some combination?
    But how are we going to get to a point where we can deliver 
for the veterans out there? Who honestly, and I talked to them 
in the district, they honestly feel they are all going to be 
dead before this happens.
    Dr. Evans. Yeah, if I could ask for--so I think what you 
are asking is specifically, for example, what are we 
accomplishing in the reset or what does it take to----
    Mr. Franklin. Well, that, too. When we talk about setting a 
new strategy, who is the person specific for that strategy? Who 
signs off on that and says, yep, this is our new strategy going 
forward, this is what we have learned from the reset, and here 
is how we are going to fix the problem? Who has got the final 
say on that?
    Dr. Evans. Right, okay. So I think specific to the 
strategy, right, one of the things that we have talked about is 
we need to build the expertise inside of VA to own and drive 
what this looks like for us in the future from a perspective.
    So Oracle is sitting to my left. We need and are dependent 
on the vendor. But we need to be able to drive this and 
understand what good looks like with regard to the EHR. That is 
an area that we are focusing on. We need to revisit what our 
deployment strategy looks like. Should we be deploying multiple 
medical centers at a time? How do we sequence this in order to 
implement the record.
    Mr. Franklin. So the strategy to this point clearly did not 
work, and that was trying to roll it out to too many too fast? 
Is that----
    Dr. Evans. I think we have learned a lot from our first 
five deployments. And I, again, I do not think we have arrived 
yet at a conclusion. But if we were to line up 160 or 159 more 
medical centers and do them in sequence, this is going to take 
a long time to get done.
    And so, Dr. Nebeker, you have some thoughts?
    Dr. Nebeker. So the main strategy shift is treating this as 
a change management project first and a technology management 
second. So, and again, that kind of goes back to Mr. Cuellar's 
questions as well. You know, what is the same with all these 
other health care systems? What are we going to do differently? 
So let me just walk you through this.
    So the first, the difference is, we had a current state 
review of what is going on at the sites. Well, originally, that 
was a Cerner task, where Cerner sent out its people to say, 
okay, what is going on with the technology? Well, that is just 
a small piece of the puzzle. Now we are going out and saying, 
how are you doing your work? And then how does that work need 
to change? Then that information that gets rolled out to the 
people we are training the system on to say, this is how you 
have to change your work.
    Second, we are actually verifying with the VA people that 
the configuration is working. We are running through workflows. 
Say, okay, not just how do you, like, enter an order, how do 
you do the technology. How do you accomplish primary care? You 
are checking on the patient, you are doing the front desk, then 
you are sending them to the nurse, then you are sending them to 
the physician, then you are doing a checkout review with them 
at the pharmacist, and then you are doing a checkout review at 
the desk. So it is the human process integration that is new, 
and we are doing much more aggressively.
    So finally the training. So the training, and I am sure we 
will have an opportunity to talk about training a lot in future 
questions, is we are looking at the entire journey of the 
train. It is not just how do you enter an order, how do you do 
a referral, how do I look up a lab test. It is, the training is 
how do you use the technology? How do you use the technology in 
your workflow? And then, how do you create shortcuts that work 
for you? There are little, like, key shortcuts that you can 
enter in like two or three keys and get stuff done faster.
    And then also we are looking at adoption. We are having at-
the-elbow support as people, you know, more aggressively as 
people are there. So they have a peer, another physician, 
another nurse, or another expert who can say, hey, this is how, 
I see you are doing it this way, maybe if you did it this way 
you would save, you know, five minutes of your time trying to, 
instead of being frustrated.
    And then finally, we monitor the system. Oracle has really 
excellent tools for monitoring the behaviors as people are 
using the system, to identify people who do not quite get it. 
And so then we can, you know, my team then and the field help 
informatics staff at the facility can say, hey, we have 
identified some people. Let us proactively reach out to you to 
help you use the system better. So these are just a sample of 
what we are doing differently now to make things work. Some of 
that we have fully implemented, some of it we have partially 
implemented.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And nice to see 
you again, Doctor.
    And since I saw you last, you have aged a little bit. Then 
again, so have I. Some of it because I agree with my good 
friend from Georgia, is it has been a long time and it should 
not be this long. And I understand, you know, the change in 
primes. And that was a big deal. In a combat way, that is being 
jumped in in the middle of the firefight and you inherited what 
you got. And I also understand the complexity of the problem.
    But the frustration I think we all feel is that when can we 
move from implementation to maintenance? And along the way, we 
know that we have learned a lot. And I get it. It is a very 
complicated system. And the next phase is probably going to be 
AI, because you are going to ask. But from our side is, when do 
you anticipate, you know, milestones? And how are you 
outlining, because from a military point of view, I have always 
appreciated objectives and a plan to get there. So the 
objectives, you have kind of laid out. And I am sure we would 
all like to know the objectives, you know, in a little more 
detail about what are you seeing, an objective, as far as a 
program, a system that works, so then you can go to 
maintenance? And maintenance is always going to be process 
improvement and we are going to be integrating things.
    But at what point in time do we move where we have now 
deployed the asset? I understand the training, too. And now the 
next phase, right? And that is, I am sure, what we all at the 
end of the day just want answers of when we get there. But we 
have to have objectives and we have to have a plan to get 
there.
    So walk me through, in a perfect world, where do you see 
the whole integration of the system so most of us that are not 
in the industry can go back to our constituents and say, you 
know, we think that the program on Phase II, on maintenance, we 
think will wrap up what we are doing here, and we will have a 
good system that meets the objectives? Can you walk me through 
real quickly your--and this is a hearing, so I do not expect 
exact dates. But just a sequence would be nice of how you view 
it to reach the goal line.
    Dr. Nebeker. Yes, I will start. I mean, Dr. Evans runs the 
program, but we are working very closely together and trying to 
plan this out.
    So what we are doing now is, instead of being activity 
focus, we are trying to be results focused. So we want results 
for any project in no shorter time than three months. So let me 
just kind of walk through some of the activities that we have.
    So one, Mr. Sicilia kept referring to the 270 issues that 
we are addressing. So we started, we met in Kansas City with 
the Oracle team, and that started, what was that, like three 
weeks ago, four weeks ago that we did it. So now we have very 
clear milestones, and I would be happy, if you would like them, 
to provide those to you for those 270 items, when we expect to 
finish those and deploy those. And those again are changes in 
users' experience. It is not just like, let's come up with a 
plan, let's have a meeting. It is like results we are 
delivering to the field.
    Mr. Zinke. I am sure all members would love to see the 
milestones.
    Dr. Nebeker. Great, we will take that for the record. And 
then, and so we have a bunch of focus projects that we are 
working on. We have six workstreams that Dr. Evans' team is 
leading, that VA, Oracle, and OIT are all participating in. The 
first is those 270 projects for improving the user experience, 
the efficiency of the system at the sites.
    The second is workforce development. This is getting 
informatics people, so the people who kind of help users use 
the computers at the sites trained so that they can better help 
with adoption and use of the system at the sites.
    Mr. Zinke. And turnover, you are always going to have 
workforce development.
    Dr. Nebeker. Yes, and that is the sustainment part.
    Mr. Zinke. This is like commission of a ship. When you have 
everything on board, and you are going to launch it.
    Dr. Nebeker. Right, and sailors come on, you hire new 
sailors, they get restationed, exactly.
    Mr. Zinke. Maintenance never ends.
    Dr. Nebeker. Right. And it is the entire responsibility of 
the field health informatics workforce to do that, because 
Oracle and the program, Dr. Evans' program, has moved on to the 
next wave of sites. So we are establishing now, we are training 
people up to be able to do that maintenance activity.
    The third project is helpdesk incident management. People 
are complaining, look, I enter a help ticket, you close it, 
what has happened to it? Where is my ticket, you know?
    And so we now have--I mean, we made a lot of progress in 
this, and also reducing the time it takes to evaluate tickets, 
clear metrics for that.
    Mr. Zinke. And in the interest of time, when do you think 
the commissioning will be, in an analogy, naval officer.
    Dr. Nebeker. So, to Dr. Evans' point, let me say this. It 
is not going to be an answer that I can give you the date. But 
we will have, once we go live at a level one facility at North 
Chicago, and several months after that, seeing the aftermath of 
that, we will have a lot of information to make that decision. 
So by spring, summer, we will have the information to make that 
decision. But we are committed to not go live, to choose it, to 
prejudge a date to go live when we are not ready.
    Dr. Evans. And, Mr. Zinke, I think you are asking a 
question as well about when are we at the end of the 
implementation. Right? That is when is the ship launched and 
now we are fully----
    Mr. Zinke. And there are going to be sea trials, there are 
going to be all sorts of things. There are going to be tweaks 
to it and someone is going to ask you to do different things, 
and I get that. But when do you perceive the $10 billion 
investment, we can say, all right, we got it, the ship is 
afloat, now we are going to adjust the course and do all this 
stuff.
    Because most of what I am hearing from my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, from veterans, is they want to hear, 
this is the date when we are ready to launch in the condition 
that it is and get a win on this. Because I think we all want a 
win, and we want to make sure our veterans are taken care of. 
And records are probably one of the earlier steps.
    Dr. Evans. Understood.
    Mr. Zinke. I yield back, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
focus on training and adoption of the system and the obstacles 
that are presented when training is faulty or falters.
    So GAO recently came out in March of this year on change 
management challenges, user satisfaction, and included system 
issues. So it is good that VA is seeking feedback. But those 
results were not very optimistic.
    Strikingly, based on VA's September 2022 survey of the 
satisfaction of the system at the time, only 6 percent of users 
in March agreed that the system enabled quality care, and only 
4 percent of users agreed that the system made them as 
efficient as possible. And those are very concerning numbers. 
But users' dissatisfaction is not a new issue. And we know that 
there is resistance to this change built into the culture of 
VA.
    So I would like to know how are you working to restore 
users' trust with the system? Because obviously, there was 
already inertia. There was already resistance, even at the 
outset of shifting to a noncustomized interoperable system. And 
then, you know, anyone's confidence who worked there, and 
frankly patients' confidence as well, would be shaken by the 
number of times that we have had to name a do over.
    What are you doing to restore users' trust with the system, 
achieve user buy-in? The more delays we have, the harder it is 
going to be. And we have had user adoption that has not gone so 
well so far. And how are you measuring VA end user 
satisfaction? And are there metrics in place to consistently 
measure that satisfaction?
    And that is really for Dr. Evans and Dr. Nebeker. And then, 
Mr. Sicilia, I have a question for you, too.
    Dr. Evans. I will start with the user trust and user buy-in 
question. And then on the satisfaction, I think I will ask Dr. 
Nebeker to comment on that.
    Your points are important. It is one of the reasons why one 
of the significant focus areas of the reset is on addressing 
the needs of those at the live sites. We have 10,000 users who 
are using the system and we need to build that confidence with 
that user base.
    They are the ones who will be able to share with their 
colleagues at other sites about the success of the system. And 
it is by addressing the issues that they have identified in 
using the system, that is going to be a keystone, one of the 
most important parts of how we get to success.
    Partly, we are doing that by identifying what the issues 
are and the challenges they are facing, and then working them 
down. As you heard, Dr. Nebeker said we are working those 
issues and prioritizing those issues for resolution, for making 
the configuration changes or for thinking about how we change 
the process to support it better matching with the new 
electronic health record that they are using.
    I think the----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How are you measuring your success 
in that arena?
    Dr. Evans. Right, so talking about user----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are listing the things you are 
doing. Right?
    Dr. Evans. Correct.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How do you know that the culture is 
changing, that the satisfaction is improving, and that the 
transition from full customization to a seamless interoperable 
system between VA and DoD has been accepted and the training 
has been effective?
    Dr. Nebeker. So the foundation of user satisfaction is a 
working system. And Mr. Sicilia has mentioned the great 
progress we made in reducing outages and hangs.
    Because that is for, he used a word you may have missed, 
Oracle owned. So within the enclave that Oracle operates, they 
are doing a terrific job. However, there are many other 
connections that are causing slowness in the system, some of 
which we do not fully understand, and we are still working to 
solve.
    And so there is a very big effort where we can measure, and 
we are buying new software to actually measure all the lags and 
hangs, all the interruptions that providers have. Intermountain 
Health Care has implemented these, other health care systems 
have implemented this new software, and we will be doing the 
same, to get at the granular details. Because that is what is 
killing people the most, the frustration. I just want to get my 
work done. Why am I having another--why did I have to wait for 
30 seconds for this page to load, or something like that.
    The KLAS measures, KLAS measures for the Arch 
Collaborative, which is a usability collaborative. About 20 
people in that are Cerner customers. Most of them are Epic 
customers. They have a series of best practices.
    The survey that you have mentioned comes from KLAS. And 
what health care systems do typically is, they may not do it 
once a year, but they make an intervention, then they measure. 
And they may measure all the, you know, I think there are about 
24 different items on the test. We are only using 11 right now. 
We intend to use the full measurement system, and then repeat 
the appropriate measures to a sample of the people, not bother 
everybody at the site, but a sample of the people at the site 
to try to get in real time the responsiveness of the measures 
to our interventions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And, Mr. Sicilia, when the go-
lives resume, how are you going to take the lessons learned 
from previous training issues, the gaps, you know, go forward 
too soon, which clearly occurred and there was not enough 
training and enough buy-in, so you can optimize the best 
training experience and quality and schedule for end users? I 
mean, you can have the best system, but if you do not have 
clinician buy-in, we are still going to have a problem with 
adoption.
    Mr. Sicilia. Well, to your point, let me just say that the 
feedback around the training, the metrics and the surveys were 
unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. And we noted that in 
our initial testimony when we made this acquisition.
    We have since, at our expense, brought in third parties to 
look at the entire training process, to critique it, to give us 
feedback. And I think, working together with VA and VHA, we 
will unveil a new training process.
    And this day, too, I still struggle with the idea, and this 
is my personal opinion, not being a doctor, I still struggle 
the idea that we have to put people through extensive classroom 
training to learn to use a system. I mean, you do not have to 
learn to use many IT systems these days. It should be fairly 
intuitive to be able to pick up a system and use it.
    That said, there are specialty workflows, there are 
specialty things that do require some training. But I think you 
will see us move to a just-in-time or iterative model for 
training, rather than an extended, elongated training. I mean, 
very few people inside an organization like this will use the 
entirety of a system. They have a role. If they are a 
radiologist, they work in the ICU, they do something that is 
specific to their job.
    And I think some of the mistakes, and these are our 
mistakes, this is our job to fix, was that the training was too 
cumbersome, it was too all-encompassing, and not enough of it 
was role specific to say, this is your job, and this is how you 
get the benefit of the system.
    To Dr. Nebeker's point, we have also rolled out existing 
telematic information into the system telemetry into the 
system, so that we can actually see when people are struggling. 
We can see that there is an excessive number of clicks for 
certain workflows, people are spending too much time. It should 
only take you 30 seconds to do this, and you have been there 
for three minutes, what is going on? We should be able to get 
real and direct feedback and fix it at the time.
    I think waiting to the next time you come back to the 
classroom, it is just not the way that we should be rolling out 
training. And again, I am owning this. I am not pointing any 
fingers here. It is not that I think we should be rolling out 
training in 2023, let alone 2024 with the go-live resets.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And lastly, are you also just 
balancing, you know, managing clinician buy-in, which, you 
know, obviously you need to get, with their interest in 
optimization and specifications for their specific needs? I 
mean, you cannot move so far towards clinician buy-in that we 
are right back at a VistA, you know, customization system.
    Mr. Sicilia. If I may give my observation as to one of the 
problems, I think, in the beginning was that there actually was 
not enough clinician buy-in in the beginning. Now, you are 
right, we have to be careful that we do not go too far that we 
end up with custom systems. At some point, we have to snap a 
chalk line because if we do not snap the chalk line, we will 
not be able to get to it. But Dr. Nebeker mentioned the forum 
we had in Kansas City, where over 100 people attended from 
various VA sites, some live, some not, in fact, many not live, 
working together with VHA, with the councils, and with Cerner. 
And I think what you saw was a very good exchange of ideas and 
we had clinical voices being heard, maybe they feel like for 
the first time. And I think that that feedback is very 
important.
    It is also possible to roll out systems, and I used the 
word ``tweaks'' earlier. It is also possible to roll out 
systems with national standards, with national baselines, and 
allow, if there is something that is site specific, that may 
happen. Because there could be. There are different sites that 
do different things. Some of them do not do all of the advanced 
care. Some of them are more acute or more ambulatory. It is 
possible that we could tweak that without actually breaking 
that chalk line, without actually changing the national 
standards by just giving label changes or something that is a 
little bit more intuitive that do not change the underlying 
architecture of the system. I think those things are important. 
I think those voices are being rightly held. I do think that 
the change management process that is under way right now is 
very different than it has been. And I think we are getting to 
a point of snapping that chalk line. I will say, as I said in 
my opening statement, that is in my mind the key to success.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Are there any organizations of doctors, nurses, 
unions, any of that that are throwing up roadblocks in this 
process? Is everybody on board?
    Dr. Evans. Yes. It is my----
    Mr. Carter. Are there organizations organizing against our 
projects?
    Dr. Evans. No. I mean, I think I have--I do not see that as 
being a problem.
    Mr. Carter. Because I know that I have been around 
government for a long time now, and people are very reluctant 
to change. They really are. Because it is too easy to do it the 
way they know how to do it. And the minute you start changing 
it, they do not want to change it. When you finish changing it 
they love it because now they can do it. And that is an issue 
that is personal to most people, actually.
    But I do not want anybody organizing that rebellion. If so, 
we are going to have to figure out some way to have a 
conversation with them.
    Mike, when he was talking about what they are doing right 
now with the current previous groups' work product that you are 
working with. All this stuff that they are doing right now on 
previous groups' work product which is now part of your group 
is not going to influence--if they are learning something off 
of the experience we had on the West Coast, that learning would 
carry over to the work product that's ultimately going to be 
part of yours?
    Mr. Sicilia. That is correct. We are not changing the work 
product; we are enhancing the work product. So we have 
inherited all of those lessons, and we will roll all those 
lessons, and they are part of the 270 items that are being 
addressed right now. We will roll them into the new work 
product, which will be deployed in March at the North Chicago 
site.
    Mr. Carter. I think one of the things that is peculiar to 
people when you are dealing with the difference between 
government and private industry is private industry just says, 
we are going to do this, like it or not. And if you do not want 
to do it, then somebody else can be hired to do it. And I 
personally think that is a good idea. If you are going to stand 
up and say, I will not do it, here is your retirement papers, 
have a nice day. And that is what happens in private industry. 
And ask some--if I you do not know, ask Elon Musk. You know, he 
fired half of the people working for that outfit he just 
bought. And he gave them a retirement benefit, too.
    So I just want to make sure that we are not running up 
against an organized effort, because we cannot stand the--it is 
too long to run up against an organized effort.
    Now here is one thing that is going on. I am not going to 
go into detail about it. But there are some people that are 
advocating walking away from the current EHRM program, to 
maintain the current VistA system and start over. Do you want 
to comment on that? There are people that are advocating it in 
Congress right now.
    Dr. Evans. So, you know, I think what you have heard over 
the course of our discussion this morning is that the 
Department is committed to moving forward as part of the 
federal EHR, in partnership with the Department of Defense, in 
partnership with the United States Coast Guard, in partnership 
with NOAA, partners in delivering the federal EHR, and that we 
see value in a single enterprise EHR that supports the entire 
system that is fully interoperable with the Department of 
Defense, has connections with community providers to provide 
the data that clinicians need. That is the direction that the 
Department is committed to going. There is value in doing this 
together.
    Mr. Carter. I sure hope so. Because we have been in this 
for a long time. When we started out, you had the best and DoD 
did not have the best. They were the ones that were keeping 
those records where the kids had to stay over here, sleeping in 
the halls while they got the records. And now they have done it 
and we have not stayed with them, and that is tragic.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the 
state of Florida. And so we are probably looking at another 
decade before we get a rollout. That is kind of the word, 
anyway.
    So one of the things that I have a question on, Mr. 
Sicilia, is, you know, when Cerner started into this, they 
realized very quickly that the problem was the hardware 
backbone could not support the software that they were trying 
to develop. And so then it became the realization that we had 
to change the entire VA IT backbone.
    Now, I am asking for the state of Florida, since we are--
look, we have a very large veteran population, as you know. 
What can we tell those folks about, you know, advancements that 
we are going to make in Florida? Are we going to be able to 
improve the backbone while we are waiting for the software? Or 
does it have to come at the same time? How are we going to 
maintain VistA during this next whatever period of time it 
takes for the rollout? Mr. Sicilia.
    Mr. Sicilia. Well, with regard to the new system, the whole 
premise of moving systems to modern, cloud-based systems is 
that you do not need the hardware in local centers to be able 
to run it. What you do need is you need connectivity, you need 
laptops and things like that to be able to have connectivity, 
but you do not need what is called the server farms, which are 
the large, sophisticated machines that run these.
    As far as maintaining VistA for some period of time, you 
know, that would be probably more directed to the IT team at 
VA. What I can say is that, you know, you mention it is going 
to take a decade to roll out in Florida, and I sure hope that 
is not true and I do not think it needs to be true.
    Mr. Rutherford. I do, too.
    Mr. Sicilia. Because I just, in my personal opinion, 
running old systems is risky. And that system is only going to 
get older. The VistA system was rolled out during the Carter 
administration. The database that powers it was developed at 
Massachusetts General in 1965. It has not changed very much 
since.
    In this day and age, and cyber issues and things like that, 
I do not think that we want to maintain old technology any 
longer than we have to. And that is true in any industry. That 
is not specific to VA or specific to--our banking customers are 
doing the same thing. That is why they have left mainframe and 
moved to modern systems.
    So I do think that this baseline and this chalk line and 
getting us moving to a national system as quickly as possible 
is not just a benefit for veterans, not just a benefit for 
providers, but it is also a risk mitigation strategy to 
eradicate very old technology, which is only going to continue 
to get older.
    If we have to wait a decade, then we have failed. Because I 
do not think that that would be an acceptable outcome for this 
at all. Again, nor do I think it has to be. I do not believe 
that we have to do that. That is my personal opinion. 
Obviously, VA has an opinion, too.
    Dr. Nebeker. So I think what I would tell your constituents 
is VA and Dr. Elnahal is committed to the standard of care that 
is consistent across the country. That just because we are 
deploying a system in Ohio or in Washington State or Oregon, 
that the standard of care is going to be the same.
    Well, how do we do that? Again, by--there is a lot of 
shared--you know, I definitely think we need to move to a 
commercial system. So let me just be super clear about that. 
But a lot of the capabilities are comparable for Oracle and VA 
for the care provision, for providing that decision support, 
for helping with orders, for collecting data from the patients 
on forms. And we are going to maintain parity.
    Again, there is some work to do here. It is not like it is 
an easy thing. But we are going to maintain parity, so we are 
collecting the same--we are using the same form in Tampa that 
we are in Spokane. And so the data we are collecting and then 
the orders that we are issuing and the care pathways we are 
following will be the same.
    In addition, there is more than just the EHR. There are 
other technologies. So for COVID management when someone shows 
up in the emergency room, we have separate applications. There 
is new technology that works alongside the EHR. So we are using 
this new technology at the VistA sites and at the Oracle sites. 
And we just deployed this at the Bock Nine upgrade a few weeks 
ago.
    Similarly, for lung cancer screening, one of the most cost 
effective interventions that we have in medicine right now is 
we are using applications in VistA and in the Oracle system. So 
it is not only the EHR. We are able to bring in this burgeoning 
market and new technologies to more powerfully address decision 
support and patient management that work in both systems.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And I think that goes back to 
the advances that you were talking about, correct?
    Dr. Evans. That is right. You know, the EHR, as I mentioned 
earlier, is, and as Dr. Nebeker just highlighted, it is in 
essence the operating system of the hospital. But there are 
other applications that need to work, orchestrated, integrated 
with those applications that are what are going to deliver 
value over time. There was a mention of artificial 
intelligence. There was a mention of other technologies, 
telehealth technologies. Those are technologies that integrate 
and are, you know, extensions of the electronic health record 
and that we can deliver in partnership with both VistA as the 
operating system, and the Oracle records as the operating 
system, to start to deliver a standard experience.
    Mr. Rutherford. That is what I wanted to know. Thank you. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Carter. I had one more question for anyone about a 
policy change that you made locally. At the Temple Hospital, 
there were a lot of women who were complaining about having to 
go past all these men and getting all these whistles and 
hollers. And so they decided to make Waco women's specialty and 
leave PTSD at Temple. That would not change with the new 
system. Now Waco supposedly is a women's health specialty area. 
Maybe it did not turn out that way, but that is what I was 
told. I know we are having very good success with PTSD and 
brain injury, both at [off mic].
    So I just wondered, would changing the system change up the 
hospital that has been designated as a women's specialty 
hospital?
    Dr. Evans. No, it should not. It will not. In part, this is 
where we are designing the system so that I can support women's 
health care, management of PTSD, primary care, rheumatology, 
name the clinical specialty.
    If a medical center is delivering services that are unique, 
that module, those workflows would be turned on to support that 
medical center. And so when we are talking about standardizing 
a baseline, it does not mean that we have to deliver the exact 
same services at every facility across the enterprise. What it 
means is that when we are delivering women's health care, that 
we are able to deliver that where it is available, which should 
be everywhere, we are able to deliver that in a consistent way 
across the enterprise.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Personal fight.
    I think we are all through. Thank you very much. We will 
see you very soon, probably.
    We are adjourned.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
                                  [all]