U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–103 PDF 2009

A CALL TO ARMS: A REVIEW OF BENEFITS FOR

DEPLOYED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

Serial No. 111–40

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 16, 2009 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S.

Government Accountability Office; Marilee Fitzgerald, Director, Workforce Issues and International Programs, Office of the Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S. Department

of Defense; Steven A. Browning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Bureau of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State; Jerome D.

Mikowicz, Deputy Associate Director, Pay and Leave Administration,

Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management; and Shelby Hallmark, Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards, U.S. Department of Labor ........................................ 9

Browning, Steven A. .................................................................................. 43

Farrell, Brenda S. ...................................................................................... 9

Fitzgerald, Marilee .................................................................................... 29

Hallmark, Shelby ...................................................................................... 57

Mikowicz, Jerome D. ................................................................................. 51

Shay, Jonathan, M.D., Ph.D.; and Susan R. Johnson, president, American

Foreign Service Association ......................................................................... 77

Johnson, Susan R. ..................................................................................... 82

Shay, Jonathan .......................................................................................... 77

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Browning, Steven A., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of

Human Resources, U.S. Department of State, prepared statement of ..... 45

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 4

Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S.

Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ....................... 12

Fitzgerald, Marilee, Director, Workforce Issues and International Programs, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian

Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense, prepared statement of ... 31

Hallmark, Shelby, Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards,

U.S. Department of Labor, prepared statement of ..................................... 59

Johnson, Susan R., president, American Foreign Service Association, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 84

Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 2

Mikowicz, Jerome D., Deputy Associate Director, Pay and Leave Administration, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of .............................................. 53

Shay, Jonathan, M.D., Ph.D., prepared statement of .................................... 79

(1)

A CALL TO ARMS: A REVIEW OF BENEFITS

FOR DEPLOYED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gerald E. Connolly presiding.

Present: Representatives Norton, Cummings, Connolly, and

Bilbray.

Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha Elkheshin,

clerk/legislative assistant; Jill Crissman, professional staff member;

Daniel Zeidman, deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Dan

Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor;

Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member; and Lt. Glenn Sanders,

minority Defense fellow.

Mr. CONNOLLY. The hearing will now come to order. And I welcome Ranking Member Bilbray of California and members of the

subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all those here in attendance.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine existing policies and

the range of employee benefits available to Federal civilian employees serving in designated combat areas. The Chair, ranking member and subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make

opening statements, and all Members will have 3 days in which to

submit statements and additional questions for the record.

I would like to welcome everybody here to this afternoon’s subcommittee hearing intended to explore critical yet frequently forgotten issues relating to the pay, protection, and other personnel

policies of Federal civilian employees serving in high-risk environments abroad.

Although our chairman, Congressman Stephen Lynch, could not

chair this hearing, his interest in this policy area is the motivation

for this hearing. Chairman Lynch has requested that his full statement for the hearing be submitted for the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]

2

3

Mr. CONNOLLY. As an advocate for the Federal community myself—I represent 56,000 Federal workers and maybe as many retirees—I’m especially pleased to serve as Chair of today’s hearing, ‘‘A

Call to Arms: A Review of Benefits for Deployed Federal Employees.’’

Today’s hearing affords us the opportunity to examine a host of

benefit challenges and discrepancies currently confronting deployed

Federal employees. Federal workers who serve our Nation in the

combat areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones deserve

assurance that the Federal Government has a uniformed strategy

in place to handle both pre- and post-deployment issues no matter

the employing agency.

With tens of thousands of Federal employees having served overseas in combat theater in this decade, it greatly disturbed me to

learn this from comments a former deployed Federal employee,

made who was gravely injured by enemy fire last year in Iraq,

that: The military saves your life, gets you home, and then it’s totally up to you.

In addition to ensuring seamless medical care upon return and

efficient and straightforward processing of Workers’ Compensation

claims, I believe Federal agencies need to do more in support of

these individuals stateside, following their deployment, in the areas

of medical screening, mental health support services, and then

dealing with their home and other agencies when filing for benefits

and seeking treatment.

Unlike their military counterparts, deployed Federal employees

do not operate within an established framework, and often have to

navigate bureaucratic hurdles to get their health care coverage,

unaided. Given the expanding role of Federal civilian employees in

support of ongoing military operations and statecraft endeavors,

agencies are in a position of needing to recruit Federal workers

who are willing to serve in hostile environments. As a result, addressing pay inconsistencies, leave flexibilities, and holes in postdeployment medical care and Workers’ Compensation are key to

guaranteeing such an abundant and dedicated work force.

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today as

we take a hard look into what’s being done and what options may

need to be considered to guarantee that deployed Federal employees, brave men and women who serve their country, and their family members are receiving the proper support and treatment they

deserve from a grateful Nation.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. CONNOLLY. I now call upon the ranking member, Mr.

Bilbray, for any opening statement he may have.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask for unanimous consent to introduce a

written statement.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Without objection.

Mr. BILBRAY. And basically you said it very appropriately. I

think that we’ve just got to understand that the rule of law has always been a cultural given, at least we assumed to have been,

since Mesopotamia started using a concept on clay tablets. So I

think that we need to have some kind of understanding of what is

the restraints, where are the limits, and where are the opportunities. And people should know that up front. We shouldn’t be making the rules as we go on. And I think the concept of written law

and regulation is just not only a cultural given in our society, it’s

common decency. And so I will look forward to this hearing.

I think that the new Obama administration’s commitment to creating a civilian surge in Afghanistan really is an example of where

we need to get our act together on this, we need to set out these

lines. The new administration obviously expects this to be a critical

part of our national presence around the world, so we need to make

sure that presence is under the rule of law.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentleman from California.

I now call upon the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the chairman for calling this

hearing today. And certainly I thank our witnesses who have come

today to examine policy disparities that exist across Federal agencies that deploy civilian employees to serve our country in deployed

environments.

Since 2001, more than 41,000 civilians have served or are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the realities of fighting concurrent wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that our military cannot conduct its missions alone. The military has to use

every available soldier on the front lines. Additionally, the nature

of how we fight our current enemy has caused us to rely more

heavily on civilians not only to provide assistance in service-support roles, but also to be actively engaged in the day-to-day stability and reconstruction efforts alongside our troops.

Rightfully, we go out of our way to ensure that our deployed military troops receive the proper medical and compensation benefits

while they fight for our Nation. Well, our deployed civilian population should be no different, as they face dangerous situations

also.

Studies have found disparities with approving Workers’ Compensation and post-deployment medical screening affecting benefits. Regardless of whether a deployed civilian originates from the

Department of Defense, State Department, or the U.S. Agency for

International Development, these volunteers are placed in harm’s

way and deserve equitable treatment when it comes to medical

care benefits and compensation.

DOD and State already have the infrastructure to provide medical care while civilians are deployed in the theater of operations;

but unlike the military, when our civilians return home, their medVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:08 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\55103.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
7

ical wellness is forgotten. We mandate that the military complete

post-deployment health assessments to identify symptoms related

to posttraumatic stress disorder; yet, DOD and State are the only

agencies that require medical screening of civilians upon return

from deployments. Therefore, we need to do a better job of communicating the policies that govern medical care, benefits, and compensation for our deployed civilians.

As we have learned from casualty reports, there are numerous

risks that a civilian accepts when he or she decides to work in a

combat zone. It is no secret that money and benefits are lucrative

enticements for agencies to attract individuals willing to deploy. As

such, individuals should receive comparable compensation commensurate with their skill levels and the amount of risk involved in

their daily functions.

Finally, understanding that Federal agencies operate under different pay systems, compensation packages will differ to a degree,

but the Office of Personnel Management should provide overarching compensation and benefit policy for deployed civilians and

the authorities given to the agencies for implementation. Given the

course of our military, I do not foresee a change in the near future

on our reliance of civilians on the battlefields. As we continue a

‘‘whole of government’’ approach to stabilizing and reconstructing

other regions around the world, we must be creative in utilizing existing systems to meet our current challenges. I think that it would

be worthwhile to expand DOD and State procedures to incorporate

the civilian aspect.

And, Mr. Chairman, with that I thank you again for calling this

hearing, and I yield back.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, I would ask the witnesses to stand. It is committee

policy that all witnesses before this committee are sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CONNOLLY. Let the record show that each witness answered

in the affirmative. I thank you.

If I may give a brief introduction to our panelists.

Brenda Farrell was appointed Service Director in GAO’s Defense

Capabilities and Management Team in April 2007. She is responsible for military and civilian personnel issues, including those related to GAO’s high-risk area personnel security clearances. Ms.

Farrell began her career at GAO in 1981 and has served in a number of issue areas associated with national security issues.

Marilee Fitzgerald was appointed as the Director of Workforce

Issues and International Programs in the Office of Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy in June 2005.

Ms. Fitzgerald is responsible for the oversight and approval of the

Department of Defense human resource policies and programs that

affect over 700,000 employees worldwide. She also serves as the

Principal Deputy to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy.

Steven Browning is Ambassador Steven Browning, a career

member of the Senior Foreign Service, holding the rank of Career

Minister. Ambassador Browning assumed his duties as Principal

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Human Resources in August 2009. Most recently, Ambassador Browning

8

served as Ambassador to the Republic of Uganda. Prior to that, he

served as the Minister Counselor for Management in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Robin Heard. Robin Heard is the current Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Ms. Heard also served as Acting Budget Analyst at OMB. She is

not with us today, but I believe that there is somebody here from

the Department of Agriculture who can answer some questions. Is

that correct?

VOICE. I am here.

Mr. CONNOLLY. OK. Jerome Mikowicz is the Deputy Associate

Director for Pay and Leave Administration with the Strategic

Human Resources Policy Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management. He is a career member of Senior Executive Service

and manages the Center for Pay and Leave Administration responsible for administering dozens of governmentwide statutory authorities related to pay, leave, work, and—work schedules for civilian Federal employees.

And finally, but not least, Shelby Hallmark. Shelby Hallmark is

the Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and Director of the Office

of Workers’ Compensation Programs, and is also the permanent

OWCP Director.

Welcome, all of you.

Before we begin hearing from members of the panel, Ms. Norton,

the Delegate from Washington, DC, has joined us. And I now call

on the gentlelady for her opening remarks. Welcome.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to

be here for as long as I could.

This subcommittee has done an excellent job of taking care of

Federal employees at home, but our own work indicates that we’ve

not been nearly—the Congress, at least, has not been nearly as

vigilant when we deploy—and that’s the right word for it—civilian

workers abroad.

Whenever I visit abroad, in fact the first people we come in contact with are Federal employees, just like the ones who are our

own constituents here, except there they are far away from home.

And more and more of them have been deployed to combat zones

and serve under what can only be called, Mr. Chairman, hardship

posts. Try going to parts of Africa and Iraq, other parts of the Mideast which are under fire, and you are categorized as civilian,

something happens to you there, and you don’t have the same access that those who courageously serve us in the Armed Forces

have always had, and so unintentionally there is a distinction

among our Federal employees. We are responsible for them not just

in this country, but most especially when they are abroad.

And, Mr. Chairman, I recall speaking with employees who had

been deployed for some time in various parts of the Mideast, and

were astounded to learn—one of the complaints indeed was that

there has to be turnover. There’s too much turnover; that our employees come for a while, and then they go. Well, the reasons are

very clear. This is hardship with capital letters. They are away

from home, from family. And then they have uncertain benefits,

particularly when they incur unexpected events in their own lives.

9

We have to make it attractive to go abroad. We have to make it

less of a hardship to go abroad. This is not Paris, my friends. These

are not posts in the great cities that are legendary in history where

in your off hours you can go sightseeing. I have seen Federal employees in places where there was nothing in the evening. I hope

they like books. And I think because our employees tend to be fairly bookish and intelligent and intellectual, they use the time, of

course, to good effect. We need to pay the kind of attention you, Mr.

Chairman, and this subcommittee is paying now.

And I will stay for as long as I can, but I wanted to be here to

thank you and the subcommittee, and particularly to thank the

witnesses who come to educate us about these out-of-sight, out-ofmind employees of the United States of America serving their country. Thank you again.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, and thank her for her commitment to all of the employees

of the Federal Government.

Witnesses have been sworn in. I want to just say to everybody

that your entire statement has been entered into the record. Everybody has 5 minutes in which to summarize their testimony. The

green light will go on to indicate that your 5 minutes has begun;

the yellow light means you have 1 minute remaining to complete

your statement; and the red light indicates that the hook is coming.

So if we can begin with you, Ms. Farrell.

STATEMENTS OF BRENDA S. FARRELL, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE

CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; MARILEE FITZGERALD, DIRECTOR,

WORKFORCE ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; STEVEN A. BROWNING, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEROME D. MIKOWICZ, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PAY AND LEAVE ADMINISTRATION, STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY DIVISION, U.S. OFFICE

OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND SHELBY HALLMARK,

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

STATEMENT OF BRENDA S. FARRELL

Ms. FARRELL. I can project, but I think this will be better.

Mr. Connolly, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the

opportunity to discuss our recent report on actions needed to better

track and provide timely and accurate compensation and medical

benefits to deployed Federal civilians.

As DOD has expanded its involvement in overseas military operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its Federal civilian

work force to provide support in times of war or national emergency. Other Federal agencies also play an important role in the

stabilization and reconstruction of at-risk countries and regions

consistent with the collaborative ‘‘whole of government’’ approach.

Therefore, the need for attention to policies and benefits that affect

10

the health and welfare of these individuals becomes increasingly

significant.

My main message today is that, given the importance of the missions these civilians support and the potential dangers in the environments in which they work, Federal agencies need to take additional actions to ensure that the compensation packages associated

with such service are appropriate and comparable, and that these

civilians receive all the compensation and benefits to which they

are entitled.

My written statement is divided into three parts. The first addresses compensation policies for deployed civilians. Although policies concerning compensation are generally comparable across the

six selected agencies that we reviewed, we found some issues that

affect the amount of compensation that they receive depending

upon such things as the pay system and the accuracy, timeliness,

and completeness of the compensation.

For example, two comparable civilian supervisors who deploy

under different pay systems may receive different rates of overtime

pay, because this rate is set by the employee’s pay system and

grade or band.

In April 2008, a congressional committee asked OPM to develop

a comprehensive benefits package for all deployed civilians and recommend enabling legislation, if appropriate. At the time of our review, OPM had not done so.

Also, implementation of some policies may not always be accurate or timely. For example, we estimate that about 40 percent of

the deployed civilians we surveyed reported experiencing problems

with compensation, including not receiving danger pay, or receiving

it late, in part because they were unaware of their eligibility or did

not know where to seek assistance.

The second part of my written statement addresses the medical

benefits. We found some issues with policies related to medical care

following deployment and with Workers’ Compensation and postdeployment medical screenings that affect the benefits of deployed

civilians.

For example, while DOD allows its treatment facilities to care for

non-DOD civilians following deployment, in some cases the circumstances are not always clearly defined, and some agencies were

unaware of DOD’s policy. Because DOD’s policy is unclear, confusion exists within DOD and other agencies regarding civilians’ eligibility for care at military treatment facilities. Thus, some civilians cannot benefit from the efforts DOD has undertaken in areas

such as posttraumatic stress disorder.

Also, civilians who deploy may be eligible for benefits through

Workers’ Compensation. Our analysis of 188 such claims revealed

some significant delays resulting in part from a lack of clarity

about the documentation required. Without clear information on

what documents to submit, applicants may continue to experience

delays.

Further, while DOD requires medical screenings of civilians before and after deployment, State requires screenings only before deployment. Prior GAO work has found documenting the medical condition of deployed personnel before and after deployment was critiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:08 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\55103.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
11

cal to identifying medical conditions that may have resulted from

deployments.

The third part of my written statement addresses the identification and tracking of deployed civilians. Each of the selected six

agencies included in our review provided us with a list of deployed

civilians, but none had fully implemented policies to identify and

track these civilians. DOD, for example, had procedures to identify

and track civilians, but concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented. While other agencies had some ability to

identify and track civilians, some had to manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical information on the location

and movement of personnel, which may hamper their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging medical issues.

Mr. Connolly, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to

take questions when the committee so desires.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Fitzgerald.

STATEMENT OF MARILEE FITZGERALD

Ms. FITZGERALD. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cummings, and

Ms. Norton. I am here today representing the Secretary of Defense

and all of our civilian employees who deploy to austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan. On their behalf, let me thank you

for your strong support of our programs and benefits that help

compensate and provide incentives for our deployed work force.

The Department of Defense civilian employees play an integral

role in supporting our military members around the globe in all

types of operations. Since 2001, more than 41,000 civilians have

served or are currently serving in direct support of our U.S. military operations, including 26,000 to Iraq and 7,900 to Afghanistan.

We are proud of our brave men and women who have served. Their

sacrifice, service, and experience are valued, respected, and recognized as career-enhancing.

Regrettably, our work force is not immune from the inherent

risks of these missions. Some of our employees and their families

have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. For these brave

injured and fallen civilians, for all their colleagues who have answered the call to serve, and for all those who will answer the call

in the future, the Department is committed to ensuring these employees have the highest level of support and care as may be needed to serve our noble mission.

The Department has learned that the dynamic and asymmetric

21st century mission challenges require greater and more expeditionary capability within our work force. In response to these expeditionary missions, the Department developed a new framework

through which an appropriately sized subset of the Department of

Defense civilian work force is preidentified to be organized, trained,

and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities for these operational requirements. These employees are collectively known as the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce [CEW].

We have learned that our employees volunteer for these types of

assignments primarily because of a desire to serve our country, to

witness their results on the ground, to make a difference, and to

engage in this type of work. They believe it is an honor and a privilege to serve our country and to support our warfighters, and, in

return, they bring back broadened perspectives, critical experiences, and a deeper understanding of their role in support of our

expanding missions. The men and women who answer this call are

making a critical difference.

Building a strong civilian expeditionary work force, however, also

requires promoting the right incentives and benefits to help compensate for the inherent risks of these missions. Thanks to the

strong support from Congress, we have been able to offer many additional financial incentives. They certainly include the 35 percent

danger pay allowance and 35 percent post differential, and allowances and benefits and gratuities comparable to those provided by

the Foreign Service. That benefit was offered to all Federal civilian

employees.

30

They include such benefits as enhanced death gratuity, travel,

home leave, and emergency visitation travel, and rest and recuperation trips. Our DOD civilians singled out the authorized R&R

trips and the Foreign Service benefits as particularly critical to

maintaining a level of effectiveness during these extended months

of employment.

We’ve have enhanced FEGLI options from the Congress, approved premium pay cap waivers, elimination of the aggregate pay

caps. This incentive permits our deployed civilians to maximize

their earning power in the year in which they are serving. In these

economic times, this incentive has been most valued and appreciated.

The Secretary of Defense Global War on Terrorism medal and

the Defense of Freedom medal for those who are injured or killed

in theater. This one is similar to those of the military’s Purple

Heart.

In terms of medical screening and medical care for deployed civilians, the Department does take seriously the need to protect the

health of our deployed civilians and to medically assess all those

who serve our expeditionary requirements. And, as was stated earlier, prior to deploying all DOD civilians are required to obtain a

physical examination. In addition, they are required to have a predeployment health assessment within 60 days prior to their departure. These two pieces of information combined provide a baseline

for wellness. Upon their return from deployment, the DOD civilians

are required to have a post-health assessment within 30 to 60 days

following their return from deployment and a health assessment

and reassessment within 90 and 100 days from their return.

We have also established the Armed Forces Health Surveillance

Center, which now collects these data and is able to track and monitor the completion of both the pre- and post-health assessments.

The Department of Defense-established medical treatment policies assure civilians who become ill, contract diseases, or who are

injured or wounded while deployed in support of U.S. military

forces engaged in hostilities receive medical evacuation and health

care treatment and services at our military facilities at no cost and

at the same level and service.

The Department looks forward to the opening of the National Intrepid Center of Excellence on the campus of the National Naval

Medical Center in Bethesda, which will be the premier health care

resource in the Department of Defense for psychological disorders

as well as PTSD and traumatic brain injury.

And, finally, we must address the critical role families play in

support of our DOD civilians who deploy. The Department continues to strengthen its capacity to serve families of DOD civilians

better. We require family care plans to ensure that there are powers of attorney in effect, designated beneficiaries, to ensure that

our families are aware of and understand the benefits and entitlements provided to them through their spouses’ employment.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fitzgerald follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. CONNOLLY. And then we will get on to a round of questions

and answers.

Ambassador Browning.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. BROWNING

Mr. BROWNING. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bilbray, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Cummings, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before you today. I appreciate your interest in the State Department’s

efforts, as well as those of our sister agencies, to support our employees serving in difficult and dangerous places, including Afghanistan and Iraq. I look forward to sharing with you some of the concrete steps we have taken to address the critical needs of our employees and their families.

Under the leadership of Secretary Clinton, our men and women

are working to renew America’s leadership through a diplomacy

that enhances our security, advances our interests, and demonstrates our values. They are doing inspiring work under difficult

conditions.

Currently there are over 900 positions where no family members

or only certain categories of family members may reside because of

dangerous conditions or other severe hardships. In 2001, there

were approximately 200 such positions. This steady increase in assignments to difficult and dangerous regions reflects the Department’s concerted effort to send the Foreign Service wherever it is

most needed. Our men and women are answering the Nation’s call

to service and putting their lives at risk for the American people.

The call to serve has been a hallmark of the Foreign Service. We

have fully staffed our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan with volunteers, volunteers who have stepped forward to serve in these highly

dangerous yet critical missions.

In recognition of their service, we offer a broad package of benefits, incentives, and support structures. This package has improved

greatly since when I served in Iraq in 2004 and 2005.

Mr. Chairman, let me share with you some of the benefits we

now offer to our employees serving in Afghanistan and Iraq that

other agencies may also be able to extend to their employees: hardship and danger pay allowances, overtime or an equivalent payment, rest and recuperation or R&R trips, pay cap increases, and

onward assignment preferences.

Mr. Chairman, we also know that the medical and mental wellbeing of our employees is critical, as is support for their families

during and after their assignments. To address those needs we

have expanded the medical services available pre-departure, at

post, and after completion of the assignment, and we expanded the

scope of our Family Liaison Office to provide support to employees

and family members during an unaccompanied tour. All employees

assigned to Afghanistan and Iraq attend pre-departure training

that familiarizes them with security issues unique to combat zone

assignments. It alerts them to the causes and the signs of stressrelated conditions, and it provides them with techniques for managing the stress of being in a war zone.

Following any high-stress assignment, we conduct a mandatory

high-stress outbrief that helps employees recognize posttraumatic

44

stress disorder. Our Office of Medical Services established a Deployment Stress Management Program with a board-certified psychiatrist to serve as director, two social workers, and an administrative assistant. Additional mental health personnel have been assigned to the health units in Baghdad and Kabul.

Employees who are identified as possibly suffering from stressrelated disorders and who require treatment that is not available

locally are assigned to a 6- to 7-week program of treatment conducted by our medical office. To support essential continued monitoring, we have developed an assessment system for Department

of State employees who have served in combat zones to screen for

PTSD through our Deployment Stress Management Program, and

our Family Liaison Office has expanded in size to work with our

families while the employee is serving in an unaccompanied tour.

We are currently working with our colleagues at the Office of

Personnel Management and the Department of Defense to examine

the compensation benefits available to deployed civilians to ensure

that it meets our needs for recruiting and retention. If changes are

needed, the administration will put forth a comprehensive proposal

to address the issues identified with the goal of regularizing authorities across the agencies. This interagency approach has made

considerable progress, and we look forward to working with Congress to support all Federal civilian employees serving in zones of

armed conflict.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that our employees and

their families deserve comprehensive support before, during, and

after their overseas assignments. The need is particularly great for

those serving at our most difficult and dangerous posts. The Department of State has worked hard to provide benefits and programs that support our employees, but we recognize that our work

may never be truly done as we adapt to a changing world. Thank

you for providing me with this opportunity to appear before you

and the members of the subcommittee, and I look forward to receiving your questions. Thank you.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Browning follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just an advisory. I am hopeful that we can hear

the last two pieces of testimony before we break for votes. Votes

are going to be called very shortly, they are at the last votes of the

day, so we will take an appropriate break when we are notified of

that and come back. Forgive the imposition, but it is the way of the

world here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Mikowicz.

STATEMENT OF JEROME D. MIKOWICZ

Mr. MIKOWICZ. Representative Connolly, Delegate Norton, Representative Bilbray, on behalf of our Director John Berry, I want

to thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel Management at

this hearing today and for your commitment to Federal pay and

benefits. We are deeply grateful for the service of Federal civilian

employees deployed to areas of armed conflict. They put their lives

in danger, and they work under extraordinary challenges to get the

job done. OPM is committed to ensuring the government has fair

and accurate compensation necessary to attract and retain an effective civilian work force.

Federal civilian employees who are deployed to work in Iraq and

Afghanistan and other overseas locations are entitled to compensation that is controlled by three factors, and these three factors influence the application of pay and benefits.

First, deployed civilians continue to serve under normal pay system, and most pay and benefits are across the board, but some are

entitlements, and some are discretionary flexibilities, but the flexibilities are determined on a case-by-case basis. Entitlements include things like annual pay adjustments, step increases, overtime,

and leave. Flexibilities are applied on a case-by-case basis. For example, the use of recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives

are discretionary and may vary based on staffing needs.

The rules provide for some exceptions overseas. For example,

since deployment to a war zone is considered a life event, employees have an opportunity to elect different health insurance coverage or enhanced insurance coverage.

The second factor is that multiple pay systems exist at home and

overseas, and employees working side by side in close quarters in

combat zones become very aware of these differences. These differences are often based on different mission and work force requirements and are the result of separate laws that have been authorized over many years. However, current law does allow agencies not otherwise covered by the Foreign Service Act to provide

certain Foreign Service benefits to their employees serving in Iraq

and Afghanistan, and this has been very helpful.

The third factor is that the standardized regulations administered by the Secretary of State do provide a common framework for

payment of allowances and differentials to all civilian employees

overseas. Such payments include danger pay and post hardship differential, which, combined, are worth 70 percent of basic pay in

Iraq and Afghanistan.

OPM itself administers two special temporary provisions affecting most civilian employees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are

grateful that Congress has provided them. First, OPM administers

a waiver that allows a higher premium pay cap ceiling on the

52

amount of basic pay plus overtime and other premium pay. The

higher cap permits the payment of premium pay that otherwise

would not have been payable.

Second, OPM also administers a waiver of the aggregate pay limitation, which means that in addition to base pay, employees can

receive all of their Title 5 payments the year they earn it instead

of having it rolled over to following calendar year. Normally the

limit is the rate for Level I of the Executive Schedule, which is

196,700 currently.

Now I would like to comment on some OPM initiatives. In June

2008, we issued a memorandum to Agency Chief Human Capital

Officers, describing the existing pay and benefits available to civilian employees working in combat zones. OPM strongly urged Federal agencies to become informed of and to take full advantage of

those authorities.

In September 2008, OPM wrote to the Committees on Armed

Services in the House and Senate concerning the National Defense

Authorization Act. OPM supported providing appropriate benefits

to employees in combat zones and the extension of existing temporary authorities. We continue to work collaboratively with DOD

and State and other agencies to determine how we can provide better and more consistent pay and benefits, and this is a work in

progress.

So, in conclusion, for the changes that we find are needed, the

administration will put forth a comprehensive proposal to address

the issues identified. We believe that the outcome of this process

will also help assure greater consistency in the compensation of

employed civilians. We want to do all we can to ensure that the civilian employees who put their lives on the line for the American

people are appropriately rewarded and supported by the Federal

Government as their employer.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I

will be happy to respond to your questions.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikowicz follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

Mr. CONNOLLY. And finally, Mr. Hallmark.

STATEMENT OF SHELBY HALLMARK

Mr. HALLMARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Bilbray.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Hallmark, you’re going to have to speak into

the mic. We can’t hear you. Thank you. And if you can speak directly into that mic. I don’t mean to suggest my hearing is going,

but it would be helpful.

Mr. BILBRAY. So people hundreds of years from now can hear

your sweet words.

Mr. CONNOLLY. None of us are getting any younger here.

Mr. HALLMARK. It’s my pleasure to appear here today to discuss

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ role in providing

benefits to the brave Federal civilian employees who serve in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and other dangerous areas around the world. We deliver services to these employees under the Federal Employees

Compensation Act [FECA].

Starting at the top with Secretary Solis, all of us at the Department of Labor are fully committed to ensuring that our deployed

Federal colleagues and their families receive the care and compensation they deserve. We know they have undertaken assignments that involve significant hardship, substantial risk, and that

their work is critical to the success of American efforts in the Middle East.

OWCP has reached out to the Departments of Defense, State,

and other agencies to see that Workers’ Comp claims from these

deployed civilians are handled promptly and appropriately, and to

coordinate on related issues such as pre- and post-deployment

counseling. We will continue to work with our sister agencies to

make further improvements in the administration of the FECA in

this respect, and to assist where we can in the overall delivery of

services and benefits to these deserving Americans.

To ensure that claims from deployed employees are handled

expertly, we have assigned that work to a special unit located in

our Cleveland FECA district office. This unit has received special

training and experience in dealing with various types of extraordinary claims, including those resulting from overseas injuries.

They’ve developed ongoing relationships with their counterparts at

the major overseas agencies, and they work closely with them.

For example, as a result of a recent specific agreement put in

place following an interagency meeting last year, our Cleveland

staff now notify the employing agency whenever they find themselves at the point of needing to deny a claim because they haven’t

received the information they need to pay it. That allows the agency the chance to investigate, determine whether there is more information that they can help to provide, or if perhaps the injury is

simply resolved.

Cleveland has also relaxed their normal FECA timeliness standards for receipt of such documentation so that there is adequate opportunity to obtain that medical or other information that may be

difficult to track down from an overseas location.

As noted in my written testimony, FECA coverage for deployed

individuals, although universal, extends to an extremely wide

58

range of circumstances beyond the normal workplace nexus. This

includes while eating, sleeping, and during travel and a whole

range of other circumstances.

In practice, the great majority of claims received from Iraq and

Afghanistan are quickly and accurately handled and are approved.

Of those that are not approved, the great majority involved injuries

for which OWCP simply never receives any followup medical. On

more severe cases, OWCP engages closely to address ongoing disability or complicated medical conditions, and assigns occupational

nurses to assist such workers in navigating the medical delivery

system and in returning to work when medically able to do so.

GAO recently conducted a review of our FECA claims process for

civilians injured in war zones. Their report included only two recommendations: One, suggesting that we provide a better explanation of the type of medical evidence required to support a claim

for compensation, and another to speed the issuance of our regulations concerning the death gratuity which was enacted in the Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2008. That new FECA death

gratuity provides $100,000 in benefits to specified survivors of

workers killed while supporting a contingent operation such as Iraq

or Afghanistan, and our interim final rule was published with respect to that gratuity on August 19th, this past month, making

that benefit fully operative for deployed civilian workers.

With respect to the medical evidence issue, we agree with GAO’s

recommendation that we review those instructions that accompany

our claim forms, and, in fact, we expect to issue a separate instruction form for use by deployed Federal employees within the next

few weeks. This fact sheet will address coverage issues as well as

the type of medical documentation needed in certain circumstances,

and will be distributed through the key employing agencies as well

as via the OWCP Web site.

I would like to end by commending the actions reported by my

colleagues today at Defense and State and at other agencies with

respect to the overall health and safety of their employees. Complex issues such as PTSD need to be addressed in comprehensive

ways, and many key services must come not after the fact from

Workers’ Compensation or medical assistance, but in advance via

enlightened preparation and assistance on the part of the employer. In ensuring that workers get, for example, pre- and postdeployment screening and counseling, these agencies are serving

their employees while they’re maximizing their ability to perform

both in the stressful environments and when they return, and they

are reducing the likelihood of serious injury and trauma.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer your questions.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Hallmark.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallmark follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that buzzing you’re hearing is a call for

votes. I am going to start, and then we will—if Mr. Bilbray wants

to go, he can, or we will recess and reconvene after the series of

votes. And thank you all very much for your testimony.

By the way, before we begin my 5 minutes, I know that if Chairman Lynch were here, he would want to announce that a wonderful bill has been introduced by myself and my colleague, my friend

from California, Mr. Bilbray, H.R. 3264, the Federal Internship Improvement Act, and that this subcommittee would want to hold

hearings on that act. And I know were he here, he would join Mr.

Bilbray and me in committing to that and urging our staff to prepare for those hearings.

Mr. BILBRAY. And this was an unpaid advertisement.

Mr. CONNOLLY. That will teach him for putting me in the chair.

OK. Let me ask first, Mr. Mikowicz, a little earlier an interagency working group was put together for Federal employees, civilian employees deployed overseas in combat areas. OPM at that

time declined to chair that interagency working group. Why is

that? And is that decision now up for reconsideration?

And, Ms. Farrell, welcome your comments as well if you have

any.

Mr. Mikowicz.

Mr. MIKOWICZ. Thank you.

From the way I would characterize it is that we’ve had a very

collaborative approach all along. One thing that you always have

to consider is what’s going to be your vehicle for introducing legislation. DOD Authorization Act certainly has been the vehicle for

the premium pay cap and the waiver and for other provisions that

are in there. The Foreign Service Act sometimes is another vehicle.

DOD, obviously having the most employees that are directly affected in any single agency across government, took the lead, and

we attended all the meetings. We were working along with them.

The GAO report did come out, did recommend that we form an executive group or that we submit a legislative proposal.

We have continued to work with the agencies. All of our meetings have not been at Department of Defense. Some have been at

State. And we are all working for the same end product. So I think,

from OPM’s point of view, we will be looking at interest governmentwide, just as DOD and State are, but we will have a special

role.

Mr. CONNOLLY. But given that fact, Mr. Mikowicz, doesn’t it

make sense for you to chair it?

Mr. MIKOWICZ. I am sorry?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Given that fact that you’re looking at it agencywide—Federal agencywide, does it make sense OPM chair that

interagency working group?

Mr. MIKOWICZ. I would say OPM needs to have a leadership role,

and we will do that. We will vet proposals with the agencies. Some

of our proposals might be guidance, but if there’s a legislative proposal—obviously we work with OMB, and all agencies get a chance.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Ms. Farrell.

Ms. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.

69

Our report had 10 recommendations, and the first recommendation was directed at OPM to lead such a comprehensive review as

requested last year by the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee to determine if legislative changes were needed. And we don’t want to not give credit to

OPM and especially with DOD for the meetings that they have had

to try to organize such a review, but we do think it’s time for OPM

to step up and have the leadership role.

As you may know, strategic human capital management has

been on GAO’s high-risk list since 2001, and it has remained on

that list. Our most recent list was January 2009, where we noted

that leadership was needed in this area of human capital reform

to make sure that there was a level playing field. And there is

much concern about the number of pay systems that we are talking

about today that often result in differences, and the amount of pay

or what pay one receives, and this is a responsibility of OPM where

they could step up and show the leadership role.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Ms. Fitzgerald.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Yes. I would like to add to this. I think the spirit of that recommendation is now in full play, because OPM, Department of State, and the Department of Defense are coming together, and including OMB actually, jointly. It is almost a triumvirate of leadership. So I think your concerns about having OPM

in the lead have been addressed through this interagency working

group. They’re working as full partners, full leaders in this, and

issues such as the disparities in pay systems are being addressed

through the proposals that we’ll be sending through Congress.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Let me ask again, Mr. Mikowicz and Ms. Farrell—and we’re

probably going to have to break after this. Increasingly, we are

using term-limited employees, Notice 3161 employees. One of the

concerns I would have and I think the subcommittee would have

is, with the best of intentions, what happens to those folks should

they suffer a medical condition in the service of their country and/

or should PTSD, posttraumatic stress syndrome, occur or make

itself manifest long after the 5-year term is over? We know that if

you were in the military, we’d deal with that. But if you’re a limited-term employee of 3161, presumably we would not unless

there’s special provisions for that. So I wonder if you would comment on that.

Mr. MIKOWICZ. Well, I can say that’s one of the issues we’re looking at. GAO did start with pre- and post-deployment assessments,

but obviously there’s traumatic injury and other benefits, and those

are on the table for discussions. We just haven’t reached an administration position yet, but we are concerned.

Ms. FARRELL. Again, this is one of our recommendations. Much

is to be learned from DOD in this area of how they have tracked

their military personnel and conducted the pre- and post- and now

the reassessments after deployment. It is a lessons learned, I

think, from DOD of what should be with the civilians, because, as

we noted in our statement, many of the civilians do not have assessments after deployment, and, as you mentioned, posttraumatic

stress disorder often shows up 6 months after they return.

70

Mr. CONNOLLY. We are going to have to vote, and we have five

votes. The first one is a 15-minute vote. That’s the one right now.

And then there are four 5-minute votes, presuming that’s it, and

hopefully that’s it for the day in terms of votes. So bear with us.

It is going to be about maybe sometime—quarter after, roughly, if

you can hang in there with us, because I think there’s a lot more

we’d like to get to and talk about. Forgive the interruption, but as

I said, it’s the nature of the beast here. I appreciate your indulgence.

Obviously, one of the things we are going to want to talk about

is the unevenness of how we are treating men and women who

serve overseas, and what services are allowed and what services

are made available by sufferance, and what, if any, changes we

ought to make to try to move toward a uniform policy and make

sure that quality services are available to our men and women who

serve overseas. I also want to get back to the problem of time lags

on claims and complaints.

Mr. HALLMARK. Before you go, though, I just might note that if—

the 3161 employees you were just referring to are, I believe, Federal employees, so they have FECA coverage regardless of the limitation of their appointment. And that coverage would continue in

perpetuity for the latent diseases such as PTSD.

Mr. CONNOLLY. OK. We will come back. This hearing is in recess

until our votes are over and we recall the hearing. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. CONNOLLY. The hearing is reconvened. I hope you had a

chance in the brief interval to address the subject at hand. Rhode

Island is neither a road nor an island. Welcome back. Forgive us

for the length of voting on the floor of the House of Representatives, but it is always a little unpredictable. So, anyway, welcome

back.

We were discussing 3161 term employees, and I wonder, Ms.

Farrell, if you might comment from GAO’s perspective on the deployment of term employees and the issue, I think Mr. Hallmark

had indicated, that they had health care benefits in the event of

PTSD showing up, for example, years later. I thought the words

you used were in perpetuity; is that correct?

Ms. FARRELL. That is our understanding as well. What has been

conveyed is correct about those temporary employees.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Combat-related or environment-related. Obviously they don’t have health care benefits in perpetuity.

Ms. FARRELL. Correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could you expand?

Ms. FARRELL. Let’s take DOD’s memo regarding non-DOD employees who have compelling reasons for care would be eligible for

that at military treatment facilities. So they would fall into that

temporary, whether they served for less than 180 days or more

than 180 days. Despite the classification, they would be eligible for

certain care.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Eligible, but let me turn to Ms. Fitzgerald then

in response to your response. It was my understanding that is still

up to DOD whether somebody who is not a DOD employee would

actually have the benefits of a DOD facility and that is being determined on a case-by-case basis at the moment; is that correct?

71

Ms. FITZGERALD. That is correct. So in the case I think where we

are, for those who are under the 3161 authority who are not DOD

employees, and even those who are DOD employees, fall under the

worker’s compensation program. And so for life they have access to

medical care, free of charge, if you will, if it has been determined

to be covered by this, at their own private medical care facilities.

If they are DOD, 3161s, there is an added benefit that they do and

they can since they were a former DOD employees have access to

our military treatment facilities.

Mr. CONNOLLY. So let me get this straight. If I am a Department

of Agriculture employee, I am sorry, if the Department of Agriculture hires me as a 3161 term limited employee, I am limited for

a 5-year term; is that correct?

Ms. FITZGERALD. Correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. OK. I am deployed to Afghanistan to help in the

poppy eradication program and the crop substitution program, and

I am unwittingly witness to, and involved in, hostile fire, some

kind of traumatic incident. I am not hurt. I get on with my business. As a matter of fact, I resume my duties in Afghanistan, and

when my term is up I feel fine. I come home. Ten years later, out

of the clear blue, I am shopping at the mall, and all of the sudden

I hear a loud noise and I am back in Afghanistan, and all of the

sudden I am not the person my wife thinks I am, and neither am

I, and clearly I need some help.

Am I eligible still for Federal medical care and where do I go as

a non-former DOD employee who was hired by DOA, not DOD?

Anybody?

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, if I can interrupt——

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are not interrupting; you are answering.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Do you want to take the answer?

Mr. HALLMARK. Sure. The individual in the example you give

would have the opportunity to file a claim under FECA if they

learn of the connection between this condition that has evolved 10

years later and their employment and they file the claim within I

believe it is 3 years of the time they knew or should have known

of that connection. So there is plenty of space for that person to be

able to come forward and file a claim. It would then be adjudicated

by OWCP to determine whether, in fact, there was a causal relationship between that medical condition and the events that occurred in Afghanistan. And if there was, then that, as Ms. Fitzgerald indicated, then benefits for that condition would be paid 100

percent by the Department of Labor.

The issue that would arise, and that probably is of concern to the

folks at the table, is making sure that people know that they have

that capability, because if they are a temporary employee and they

have gone off to work somewhere entirely different—they are no

longer within the Federal civilian structure—there would be a need

to make sure that people, as they are exiting out of that position,

have knowledge about what they are eligible for in the future.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Hallmark, if I could stick with the example

I had and your response to it, under the example we are both talking about, but I would be sent—you may or may not approve the

claim I submit, but it would be a claim to a private provider.

72

Mr. HALLMARK. It would be a claim to the Federal Government,

and the individual’s medical treatment would be through a physician of their choice.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah, but——

Mr. HALLMARK. It would not be military.

Mr. CONNOLLY. But my physician is not an expert in post-traumatic stress syndrome. That expertise, by and large, resides in the

military side of medicine in this country, not the civilian side of

medicine. Most hospitals in America don’t have in-depth experience

with combat-related PTSD. So why would you limit me to my private physician or a series of private physicians who have no expertise in my problem, which was acquired because of my experience

in a military combat environment, a civilian employee nonetheless?

Mr. HALLMARK. The Labor Department doesn’t limit the civilian’s

ability. We simply will pay for the physician that you choose.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I choose to get the best expertise in the world,

which happens to be in a military health care facility.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Then, sir, this policy——

Mr. CONNOLLY. You need to speak up, Ms. Fitzgerald.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Then the policy that Ms. Farrell talks about

would apply. Then the individual would have to come to DOD and

request a special permission to use the military treatment facility

for their continued care.

Mr. CONNOLLY. But there is no policy going forward that would

guarantee 10 or 15 years hence, and we still have Vietnam veterans 30 years later suffering PTSD. So right now the policy is on

a case-by-case basis, and frankly, it is at your sufferance; it is not

my right. It is at your sufferance.

Ms. FITZGERALD. That is correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are being generous under those rules in saying yes to most cases who apply, but there is no guarantee 20 or

30 years hence you will continue that policy.

Ms. FITZGERALD. That is correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Whereas, if I were in the military and had the

same symptoms at the same time—in fact, everything I described

applied to me wearing a uniform or having worn it, then by entitlement I would have access to military care and the expertise of posttraumatic stress syndrome intervention.

Ms. FITZGERALD. That is true. But the Department has always,

as long as we can trace this back, has always provided for the exception for individuals to come into the military treatment facility

if they needed care.

Then there are a couple of things that are happening that might

be helpful, too. They are not perhaps adequate substitutes, but we

are setting up the centers for traumatic brain injury, and one of

those centers is a repository of where physicians and employees can

go to get the latest information on care and so on. So that may be

helpful as a resource center, and certainly the Department has and

continues to make available its knowledge and transports knowledge across the civilian community in these cases.

And then—for now, that is what the policy is, that they would

come to the Department of Defense and seek special permission to

come into a military treatment facility. I have not been aware of

any that we have denied.

73

Mr. CONNOLLY. Professor Browning, we have talked about a lot

of subjects. Anything you wanted to comment on in terms of the

range of questions, albeit with an interruption?

Mr. BROWNING. I just admit that I have only been on the job less

than 2 months, so I am not an expert by any means in the full

scope of what we as a department do. I have, in preparations for

this testimony, have been educating myself on it, and I am learning

the difficulties that are out there in tracking former employees.

When an employee at the State Department retires, we give

them a copy of their medical records if they ask for it. They sign

the papers, they go away, and we don’t hear from them again. We

don’t track them, we don’t keep in touch with them, and they have

no benefits accrued to them that we would have to offer them for

their continued service.

It is an excellent point that the expertise in dealing with PTSD

is centered around veterans hospitals in Washington, DC, and

quite frankly, the number of cases we have seen are so small—I

think the total is six for the universe of our population—that we

right now haven’t set up a program to address it beyond our tracking the employees.

Ms. FITZGERALD. In terms of what the Department is doing to

track our 3161s who have left us, we know that this has been a

problem, those who leave us after short periods of service, how do

we stay connected with them, and we do feel the obligation to do

that, take that very seriously. When we stood up a new civilian

readiness unit, we have built in the capability there to track those

folks. So now all these post-deployment physicals, we have a place

to track those who take part in these assessments. So we know

who they are, and then we are taking on an outreach effort so that

we stay in touch with them through their period of departure, even

if we do it annually through a note that says, hi, we are still worried about you, we care about you, any services that you need,

please feel free to contact us, to be very deliberate about it. But we

had to install a separate organizational capability to do that.

It still remains a challenge once they leave here.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Fitzgerald, let me ask you a question then,

and I think in some ways it does come back, Mr. Mikowicz, to,

frankly, OPM’s abrogation of leadership in not chairing the Interagency group. But we have found that some Federal agencies were

unaware of the fact that their employees could avail themselves of

DOD services when they come back with service-related medical

problems, including injuries, which is a little stunning given the

fact that they served, too, and why wouldn’t they have available to

them the same services as anybody else.

So what proactively is DOD doing or planning to do to make sure

that all Federal agencies are aware of the availability on an equal

basis?

Ms. FITZGERALD. We did three things. When the report first came

out about making the communication more widespread and known

and the benefit more known among our communities, we sent out

a communication to our Federal agencies, and we did a briefing.

We brought our Federal agencies in, and we provided a briefing to

them about the benefits that are available. That was the first thing

we did.

74

The second thing we did, we institutionalized that communication effort and put it on our Web site so they could have access to

it.

And the third thing that we are doing is we have developed, or

I am developing, ready to launch by the end of the month—the end

of October, I am sorry, it is a short PowerPoint presentation that

takes someone through the process sort of in a way that speaks to

them in more easily understood terms than perhaps the policy

would. So that this PowerPoint presentation could be used in any

forum where our Federal agencies are orientating, giving a pre-deployment orientation to their folks.

We think the combination of those three efforts may be helpful

in showing that this knowledge is institutionalized in all of our

Federal agencies. We will be ready to roll out that training module,

as I said, sometime in October.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sure that will be helpful because I am sure

you are aware of the fact that the two individuals to your left actually represent agencies that were not aware of that fact. State Department and Department of Agriculture were not aware of the fact

apparently, based on our information, that DOD offered this service

and it was available to their employees when they came back. So

I mean we have work to do.

Ms. Farrell, from GAO’s point of view, I think—I ask you, is this

not a weakness in the system: lack of communication, lack of uniformity, different policies, different benefits, sort of a hodgepodge

and even problems tracking how many of our employees, or as Mr.

Mikowicz indicated, former employees, have in fact served and may

or may not over some period of time needed to be tracked because,

even if they don’t need it today, they may in the future need medical help and services that is a future claim on the Federal Government?

Your comment.

Ms. FARRELL. I think you have hit upon several of the issues that

our report brings to light, especially that of identification and

tracking. You probably noticed, and our report will note, according

to DOD and State Department officials, over 10,000 employees

have been deployed since 2001, and DOD has a more current number now, stating somewhere in the neighborhood of 41,000. This

has been a challenge that DOD has been working on since 1995,

and they have made some progress in trying to get a handle on it,

but we still need to know about the other agencies, and you are exactly right. You need to identify them, track their movements.

Issues can develop years after the deployment, and in order to have

that communication, you have to be able to identify them and know

where they are.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. And Mr. Mikowicz, I think—I hope

that is a message to be brought back to OPM leadership because

if OPM isn’t going to take the lead in trying to create some sense

of equity and uniformity across the board for our civilian work

force serving in dangerous environments, who is? It can’t be DOD.

They have their hands full with their own challenges. I just think

it has be somebody like OPM, and that is why I would hope that

with the new administration, new leadership, the issue of chairing

that interagency group would be revisited and swiftly.

75

Mr. MIKOWICZ. We will certainly take this information back.

Mr. CONNOLLY. And because we have time and we have one more

panel, I have one more question, and that has to do, Mr. Hallmark,

among the GAO findings was one that is pretty stunning. Approximately 80 percent of deployed civilians who filed a claim with the

Office of Workmen’s Compensation reported experiencing problems.

By the way, much higher satisfaction among those filing claims

with DOD, nowhere near 80 percent. What kinds of changes do you

think are going to be necessary to try to bring that number down

to something more satisfactory?

Mr. HALLMARK. I am not aware of the 80 percent satisfaction

finding, but we are working, as I said in my comments, every day

to try to improve the performance. FECA process is a joint interactive process that involves OWCP at Labor and the employing

agency, and that is true wherever the injury occurs. I know it is

something that we need to work together increasingly well to make

the outcomes appropriate.

As I said, one of the things that we have done is set up processes

whereby we communicate out of our Cleveland office with the employing agencies where a claim has reached the point where we

don’t believe we can accept it so that we give the agency a chance

to help us come to the right outcome. I think that is working. That

may result in some cases the case taking a little longer than it

would in the normal course, but we think that is the right outcome

in that circumstance to make sure we get to the right answer.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Farrell, can you confirm for me, Mr. Hallmark indicated he was not aware of that 80 percent. That is a finding of the GAO study, is it not?

Ms. FARRELL. Yes. You are referring to the 125 of the 188 claims

that took significantly longer than the goal of 45 days, in some

cases 20 percent longer than that. So, again, it dates back to the

person filing the claim not having a clear understanding of what

documentation is required so that when they do submit it, it is facilitated, and those particular claims that we broke down also were

related to TBIs, which someone has a TBI it is very difficult I think

for them to put the package——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do you know what the comparable statistic

would be for DOD?

Ms. FARRELL. No, I do not.

Mr. CONNOLLY. But not 80 percent?

Ms. FARRELL. Not 80 percent.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Fitzgerald.

Ms. FITZGERALD. I don’t know what the satisfaction rate is with

the services at DOL. I can tell you that we have had by our statistics, in 2008 there was about a 50 percent increase in the swiftness

in which the documentation was processed and received at DOL,

and part of that goes to what Mr. Hallmark talked about. Some

things have changed since the day the report was done by the GAO

to fix the problems that were found at that time.

Obtaining the appropriate evidentiary documentation is very difficult in a war zone and early on we learned that. These folks

would come back and the physicians who even attended to them in

the beginning were no longer even a part of the Federal Government. And so it was hard to go back and try and accumulate the

76

documentation that was needed. So today there are systems in

place to try and help gather that documentation, and with the

intervention of the Federal agencies by allowing a little time for us

to intervene before they deny a claim, allowing us to get in, help

assemble that documentation, we have been able to help improve

the processing and I think the outcomes for the individuals.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. And let me just say to all of you and

to Mr. Hallmark in particular, you know, this is the Oversight and

Government Reform Committee. We are at war. We are running

two wars right now, and irrespective of how one may feel about

that, the men and women who serve, whether they are in uniform

or they are civilian Federal employees, are brave men and women

who have answered the call of their country.

In theory, you could have two people in a vehicle who are hit by

an RPG or they hit an IED, one is in uniform and one is a civilian

employee of Federal agency X. Both of them lose their left arm.

Both of them are treated in field combat medical facilities with expert care. But one of them comes home to a military medical system, and the other does not necessarily. And over time, we have

two different approaches to two different individuals who served

the same purpose and were involved in the same accident with the

same injuries.

And there are issues of equity that flow from that, and fairness,

and we want to make sure that at the very least there isn’t a delay

and that if we need to facilitate their having the evidentiary documentation they need, then let’s help them, but 80 percent doesn’t

cut the muster.

Final point, Ms. Fitzgerald, we get complaints from a lot of civilians who do have access to military medical care in these circumstances who, because of a bureaucratic snafu, however, cannot

get the necessary credentialing to, in fact, have access to the base.

Now, when I was chairman of Fairfax County, I had my own

stickers on my car by virtue of that capacity for Fort Belvoir, and

I wasn’t seeking medical care daily or weekly. We need to facilitate

these brave men and women’s access to the base without bureaucratic hassle. And security is one thing; these people have been

through hell and back. We need to help them.

So I am going to count on you to please take that back to DOD.

We don’t want to be hearing about those kinds of problems. They

have enough to manage without that.

Ms. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. I think you will be happy to hear

that we are going to be modifying the credentialing card that we

give so that the back of it—they can have swipe access to the bases

and so on. So hopefully we fix that problem.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you all so much. Thank you for your forbearance in the schedule of the House of Representatives, and

thanks for serving your country. We may be submitting some additional questions for the record and would appreciate your getting

back to us. Thank you all very much.

Our second panel—and I am going to read this while you are

shuffling seats. We have two members on our second panel, Dr.

Jonathan Shay, who is a clinical psychiatrist who recently retired

from the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Boston, MA, my hometown, where he garnered eminent expertise in

77

the treatment of combat trauma suffered by Vietnam veterans. In

2004 to 2005 he served as Chair of Ethics, Leadership and Personnel Policy in the Office of the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff of

Personnel. Dr. Shay is also the renowned author of ‘‘Achilles in

Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character’’ and has

written more recently a book, ‘‘Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming,’’ and he promotes the adoption

of policies to minimize future psychological trauma.

Also serving on this panel is Ms. Susan Johnson. Ms. Johnson is

the current president of the American Foreign Service Association

and has served in Iraq as senior adviser to the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and in the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and

Herzegovina as Deputy High Representative and Supervisor of

BrckoDistrict, and she recently served as senior coordinator in the

front office of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Welcome both and if you would rise to be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you. Let the record show both witnesses

indicated in the affirmative.

We have your prepared testimony, and I would ask that you

summarize in the space of 5 minutes the basis of that testimony.

Dr. Shay.

STATEMENTS OF JONATHAN SHAY, M.D., PH.D.; AND SUSAN R.

JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SHAY

Dr. SHAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that the ranking

member is no longer here, so—I am, as you so kindly pointed out,

someone who learned his chops from combat veterans as a psychiatrist in the VA. Veterans have been wonderful teachers. You were

kind enough to mention my two books, and as much of an obsessed

author as I am, I don’t have to mention them again.

The veterans have made me their missionary to the military

forces on prevention of psychological and moral injury in military

service, and it has been an amazing trip for me. In the course of

it—and you mentioned that I have worked for General Jim Jones,

now the President’s National Security Adviser; for the Army G–1,

the Lieutenant General Hagenbeck; and, most recently, an interesting gig at the Army War College.

I am not a universal expert. I believe that what I have learned

about soldiers and veterans probably has applicability to other populations, other folks who are going into harm’s way.

My riff to the military people as to how to protect their people

is threefold: to provide for stable face-to-face community when

going into danger. Train them together, send them into danger together, and bring them home together. It is not rocket science.

The second is expert, ethical, and properly supported leadership.

The third is prolonged cumulative training for actually what they

have to do in trade.

So my mantra is over and over: cohesion, leadership, training; cohesion, leadership, training, as the keys to preventing psychological

and moral injury.

78

Now, this is an easy sell to military folks because they are also

combat strength multipliers. I do not know the world of the diplomat or the agricultural specialist or the person from the FBI assigned to some investigative duties in Iraq. People would have to

make these translations for themselves, and in my written testimony I tried to use my imagination as to how non-DOD agencies

might hear my words to the military for their own purposes.

I apologize for any way these recommendations might be off base.

It comes out of my ignorance. I am not a universal expert, but I

do feel quite confident that some of the things that I say are of

merit, and that is to always as far as possible to be thinking in

terms of teams, that you are not deploying people to a war zone

one by one by one by one, but as work communities.

In the matter of leadership and policy or leadership policy, if you

wish, I want to emphasize something that is probably

counterintuitive, and that is that there needs to be policy on sleep.

Sleep crops up again and again as a cause of psychological injury

and something that keeps it going once it is established.

Finally, on training, I would hope that our Federal agencies are

making use of hostile environment training. I know that journalists

sometimes get it. The BBC trains all their war correspondents.

They give them hostile environment training, and that the teams,

to the extent that they are deployed as teams, must cross train so

they know each other’s jobs. That is a very positive thing.

Now, this is really good for the agencies to do this, not out of

pure humanitarian impulse or a sense of responsibility, but it is

good for you because terrible things happen when your employees

acquire bad psychological injuries. And the worst of these are operational paralysis, desertion. People check out psychologically or

physically, and unfortunately, there is always the potential for recruitment to extremist causes, people who carry these injuries.

And I am not running the riff that somehow it is the political

right that has a unique attraction. The sorry history of Weimar,

Germany indicates that both the political right and the political left

and the anarchists and the criminals are equally capable of recruiting people who are vulnerable to it because of their psychological

injuries.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shay follows:]

79

80

81

82

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Dr. Shay, and we will come back obviously to that thesis in questioning.

Ms. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN R. JOHNSON

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of AFSA and the employees of the member agencies, I thank you for the opportunity to

speak before this committee on the subject of benefits for Federal

employees deployed abroad. AFSA warmly welcomes the renewed

bipartisan commitment to investing in our civilian diplomatic and

development services.

Key to that investment is ensuring that all of the men and

women who are patriotically serving our country overseas, particularly in combat zones, whether military or civilian, are being taken

care ofand receiving well-earned benefits, making the focus of this

hearing both urgent and welcome. So thank you again.

The GAO report on human capital highlights the major compensation equity issue facing members of the Foreign Service, the

loss of locality pay when junior and mid-level members of our services are deployed abroad. This overseas pay gap represents a major

inequity within our agencies. Junior and mid-level Foreign Service

members now take a pay cut to serve at 183 of 267 overseas

posts—that is 68 percent of them—which often effectively zeroes

out the hardship and danger pay allowances for everyone except

those at the senior levels.

This problem faces Foreign Service personnel across the U.S.

Government, not just at State, but also at USAID, the Foreign

Commercial Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the

International Broadcasting Bureau.

I am pleased to report that the first steps to resolve this issue

through a phased approach over 3 years have been taken, but further authorization language is needed to finish the job by 2011.

Completely closing this gap and ending a longstanding and divisive

inequity remains a top AFSA priority.

I would like to thank Secretary Clinton and Under Secretary for

Management Pat Kennedy for their dedication and efforts on this

issue and for working closely with AFSA to find a solution. And of

course, we would like to thank the many Members of Congress that

have helped correct this unintended inequity.

Turning to the other recommendations of the GAO report, overall

AFSA supports the recommendations that GAO made to the State

Department in this report. We also agree with State’s response and

its action plan to implement these recommendations, particularly

the mandatory medical screenings upon completion of assignment

in a combat zone. Members of the Foreign Service should not have

to worry about being able to receive the medical care they need

while deployed abroad, particularly in war zones.

AFSA agrees with the GAO that this policy needs clarification

and encourages the Department of Defense and the State Department to coordinate and communicate the policy more clearly to employees deployed abroad.

AFSA applauds State Department’s new Deployment Stress

Management Program [DSMP], a community-based program to

support psychological health of members of our Foreign Service asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:08 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\55103.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
83

signed to high stress, high threat, unaccompanied tours. We look

forward to working with the State Department to ensure that

DSMP continues to meet the needs of the Foreign Service.

One area that the GAO report does not address, and that we

would encourage this committee and the GAO to review, is support

for dependents of Foreign Service members and other civilian employees who are deployed abroad at unaccompanied posts. We

would like to see the services provided to family left at home

brought more closely in line with those provided by the Department of Defense to military dependents in similar situations

through the military one-source program.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your support. We

appreciate your leadership in convening this hearing and AFSA

hopes to continue to be a resource to you and this subcommittee

in representing the views of the Foreign Service.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much, Ms. Johnson. I thank you

both again for your testimony and your forbearance as well with

the vicissitudes of House voting patterns. Our earlier information,

by the way, was we weren’t going to have any votes until about 4

p.m. and of course so much for that. We voted a little after 2:30.

Let me ask you, Dr. Shay, first, and Ms. Johnson, your comments

would be welcome, to what extent do Federal civilian employees

have the same kinds of risks when they are deployed in the hostile

environments as the military for psychological injury?

Dr. SHAY. Clearly, there are certain risks that they don’t face.

Every soldier faces the risk that he is going to fire his weapon at

someone that he then realizes he shouldn’t have and carries that

on his soul for the rest of his life, and that is terrible, and civilian

employees, unless they are armed, don’t face that.

But in terms of the general exposure, both to personal threat but

also, so to speak, the moral exposure to witnessing terrible things

happening to other people, whether it is them getting blown up or,

A, is brutalizing, B, and nobody is doing anything about it and the

awful things that people witness in war zones can sear people.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, in other words, putting aside the first example you gave, presumably somebody for a given department, civilian employee is probably not armed or may not be authorized to

be armed, but the second example you gave, we could witness the

same horror and have——

Dr. SHAY. Absolutely.

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. Virtually the same impact on us

emotionally?

Dr. SHAY. That is right.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Johnson, your take on that.

Ms. JOHNSON. I would agree with the comments that Dr. Shay

has made. Naturally, in some respects, the risks differ, but since

World War II, 160 Foreign Service members have been killed in the

line of duty, the vast majority of those as a result of terrorist attack, either blowing up of embassies, snipers, blowing up of cars or

other attacks of the sort.

In addition, certainly in both Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian

members who are serving in PRTs and are serving all over the

country face many, if not all, of the same risks that their military

counterparts do and certainly witness much of the violence and,

you know, danger experienced by the military.

Dr. SHAY. If I may adjust that, military officers face strain—

moral strain and moral injury based on things that they know were

done by other people on the basis of their decisions or the information that they gave to others, and I would not be surprised if there

are analogous injuries in the Foreign Service world where people

know they made decisions or gave information that led to a horrific

outcome, unintended outcome, but they carry that with them.

Ms. JOHNSON. I don’t know to what extent this exactly relates to

that—perhaps Dr. Shay would know better—but certainly we

saw—and I served in Iraq from July through December 2003—and

several of the Iraqis in the Foreign Ministry that I worked with

were assassinated—targeted and assassinated directly as a result

of visibly working and cooperating with us. So that is something

that you do carry that here is someone that you have worked closeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:08 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\55103.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
89

ly with and who has worked with the United States who is then

assassinated as a result of that.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Sure. You could feel terribly guilty unwittingly

putting someone in a terrible risk.

Ms. JOHNSON. Exactly. Those are the things that you have to try

to deal with.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Let me ask you a question. In light of that, the

comparability of trauma exposure, when folks come home in the civilian work force, should they have available to them Veterans Affairs medical care? Should the VA be open to previously deployed

Federal civilian employees?

Dr. SHAY. It appears to me that the VA or the vet centers were—

as I have heard about for the first time today, I was unaware of

this or the military treatment facilities. This is an obvious opportunity for Congress, should it wish to by legislation, to create that

eligibility. That is sort of an obvious avenue for the Congress.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Johnson, any opinion on that matter.

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, I think that having options generally, you

know, increases the ability to handle whatever issues that you are

facing. So I think it is good, to the extent that we are facing a very

complex, difficult problem and, to a certain degree, some uncharted

territory. So my instincts tell me that, in those cases, having options are better than not having them.

Dr. SHAY. And, as I mentioned in another option for Congress,

some entity like the GAO could do a study of what kind of expertise is out there outside of the normal places to find it—the VA,

the vet centers, the military medicine establishment—and where

these people are. I am not suggesting that they create a directory,

but I think it is important, given the need, that these data be gathered and analyzed so that we know what the resources are.

Mr. CONNOLLY. You both heard the previous discussion with your

previous panel members, and I wonder what your take is. I mean,

some of the resident expertise in the world on, for example, brain

injuries is at Bethesda.

Dr. SHAY. That is correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Some of the resident expertise in the world on

fitting of prosthetic devices, dealing with amputations and rehabilitation related to that, including the emotional management of both,

is at Walter Reed.

Dr. SHAY. Brooke Army Medical Center.

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is right, or the Army Medical Center, exactly.

So someone comes back from the State Department similarly injured with similar needs. He or she is, in theory, shepherded to the

civilian side of medicine where comparable expertise does simply

not exist.

And, as you heard, the State Department and the Department of

Agriculture who were at this table weren’t aware, actually were not

aware, of the fact that DOD had opened its door in these circumstances on a case-by-case basis at their acceptance—my words,

not theirs—and they have been good about it.

But if you don’t know about it, you are not going to get the highquality care available to your military counterpart who comes back

90

a wounded warrior and veteran. I wonder what your observations

would be about that situation.

Dr. SHAY. Well, it is something that one becomes very familiar

with when dealing with combat veterans, and that is that it is a

matter of luck and can be very capricious as to whether the injured

veteran and the resources get together smoothly and quickly and

effectively, or they pass each other like ships in the night, or they

collide in some terribly messy crash and everybody gets hurt.

So finding ways that this wonderful phrase, ‘‘seamless transition’’—that is a great line of public prayer. The hard part is making it actually happen and happen reliably.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. I think it is excellent that the committee is focusing on some of these, I would say, over the horizon, but actually

they are closer than that now. We are increasingly seeing civilians

deployed in what we are calling, I guess, zones of armed conflict.

It is inevitable, sadly, that more of them are going to be suffering

various types of injuries, whether physical or psychological, moral,

emotional.

I think we need to be looking at what is the sensible and effective way to provide, you know, fair and equivalent treatment. I

don’t know if it is the same. As Dr. Shay said, maybe this would

be a very suitable topic for, you know, a study to take a look at

it and see what is the best solution.

But the civilian side needs to be looking at what are we going

to do to support our civilians who are serving in zones of armed

conflict along with their military counterparts.

Mr. CONNOLLY. You all, AFSA, published its third annual poll

about a year and a half ago now. Did you pick up anything in that

poll in terms of attitudes of your members with respect to compensation and benefits while deployed in either Iraq or Afghanistan, on the quality of each?

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, if I could quickly summarize sort of the main

results of that poll—and I hope that we will have a chance to do

a followup one in the not-too-far future—certainly the pay disparity

and the locality pay and the canceling out of hardship and danger

pay was a top priority.

Iraq and Afghanistan staffing concerns of a broad variety came

a close second.

Other things relate more to internal State Department procedures: unfair assignment and promotion policies. And one thing

that maybe relates to this is a perception that the workplace in the

foreign service is one of diminishing family friendliness and becoming more and more difficult to, you know, sustain or maintain family units and putting more and more stress on them, not just the

members, the direct employees, but their dependants and their

family.

I don’t believe that it addressed directly the question that you

asked, but that could be something we could look at in the future.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. On the family friendly thing, I earlier this

year was on a trip to a country I won’t name, whose Ambassador,

U.S. Ambassador, was married to another U.S. Ambassador who

was in a very different country in a very different part of the world.

And it made you wonder. I am sure that is a good thing; I am glad

91

we are tapping into their talent. But it has to be a strain on their

marriage and their family.

OK, Dr. Shay, I have to give you this opportunity. You have written two wonderful books. And if you were to write a third, ‘‘From

Achilles to Odysseus,’’ how would you compare the experience you

document on Vietnam? I mean, what are the differences and similarities with the experience we are now experiencing in Iraq and

Afghanistan compared to Vietnam?

Dr. SHAY. Well——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Don’t write the third book here, but give us sort

of a preview.

Dr. SHAY. I have a third book that is really for military professionals and policymakers called ‘‘Trust Within Fighting Forces’’

that has been hanging around my neck like an albatross, and I am

trying to get it off its bottom.

But I am the guy that said war is war is war is war, and it

hasn’t changed in 3,000 years as far as what matters in the heart

of the soldier. And the obstacles to returning to civilian life, many

of those haven’t changed in 3,000 years. As long as humans pursue

this hideous practice of war, it is going to hurt people, physically

and psychologically. And we have to protect them as best we can

and heal them as best we can when they do get hurt.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Anything in particular strike you as either absolutely similar to or absolutely different from the previous experience in Vietnam when you are looking at it?

Dr. SHAY. The climate in Vietnam is very different than the climate in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least most parts of it. I think

there are some quite tropical parts of Iraq. But, honestly, not much

strikes me. I don’t know of anybody who talked about the dust

storms in Vietnam.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I guess I was getting at not so much the difference in climate and geography as the similarities or differences

in trauma or injuries suffered by our——

Dr. SHAY. Well, insurgencies are wicked hard on the combatants,

in that the enemy is intentionally blurring the distinction between

armed combatant and, ‘‘legitimate’’ targets, necessary targets, and

protected persons, to use the terminology of the law of warfare.

I think it is clear in this conflict, as it was in Vietnam, that the

distinction between a legitimate target and a protected person

means everything for the future mental health and moral integrity

of the person who has been in war. And those people who glibly

say, ‘‘Oh, there are no rules in war,’’ don’t understand the heart of

the soldier. They don’t want to know themselves to be murderers.

And I know for a fact that this is the point of view of our military

leadership today. I just, a couple weeks ago, spoke to the commanders’ conference at the 101st Airborne. And they made it very clear

that the moral dimension of what they do is critically important to

them. And I, for one, stand up and cheer, because it is what will

protect their mind and spirit.

If I can just make one comment about what we have heard in

the previous panel, I got a clarification on the fly about this 41,000

civilians number. And I am told that is 41,000 Department of Defense civilians. So this number does not include any other Federal

employees, No. 1. And, No. 2, it totally leaves out Federal contracVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:08 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\55103.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
92

tors who are working either directly under Federal contracts or are

working for subcontractors.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. And that number could be in the hundreds

of thousands.

Dr. SHAY. So the population that we are talking about is not

41,000; it is much larger.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Very good point. Because we know that there are

AID folks and contractors associated with that. We know that there

are Department of Agriculture people, Department of Labor people,

so forth and so on. So there are lots more than just the 41,000 that

serve with DOD.

I want to thank you both so much for sharing today and your

thoughts. If you have additional material you want to submit into

the record, we would be delighted to have it.

And I want to thank you again for your forbearance with our

schedule today. It is very helpful to this committee and to the subcommittee.

We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Æ