MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman 

SAM FARR, California 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

JOHN CARTER, Texas 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

CAROL MURPHY, TIM PETERSON, WALTER HEARNE, DONNA SHAHBAZ, and MARY C. ARNOLD, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
Part 7—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman 

SAM FARR, California 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

JOHN CARTER, Texas 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

CAROL MURPHY, TIM PETERSON, WALTER HEARNE, DONNA SHAHBAZ, and MARY C. ARNOLD, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

( 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

42–754 WASHINGTON : 2008 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
C O N T E N TS 

Page 

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

Veterans Affairs ....................................................................................................... 105 

American Battle Monuments Commission ............................................................ 169 

Arlington National Cemetery and United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home 

National Cemetery ............................................................................................... 182 

Armed Forces Retirement Home ............................................................................ 197 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ........................................... 218 

Inspector General .................................................................................................... 235 

Central Command .................................................................................................... 349 

VA Medical Care ...................................................................................................... 389 

Navy .......................................................................................................................... 445 

Pacific Command ..................................................................................................... 515 

Air Force ................................................................................................................... 587 

Outside Witnesses ................................................................................................... 651 

Veterans Affairs Information Technology .............................................................. 895 

DoD Overview .......................................................................................................... 949 

Army ......................................................................................................................... 1035 

European Command ................................................................................................ 1083 

Southern Command ................................................................................................. 1139 

Special Operations Command ................................................................................. 1169 

Testimony submitted for the record ....................................................................... 1205 

(III) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
(1) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

————— 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

WITNESS 

KENNETH O. PRESTON, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Let me officially open the new year for 

our subcommittee. I want to welcome the witnesses and everyone 

here today. 

I am Congressman Chet Edwards, and this is my second year as 

the subcommittee chairman of Military Construction and Veterans 

Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a real pleasure for me 

to welcome back to our subcommittee Congressman Zach Wamp, 

who is a personal friend of mine. Zach and I have served in the 

House together for a number of years, including on the Appropriations Committee. He is not a new face to this subcommittee, previously served on this subcommittee. He has also been a ranking 

member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations subcommittee. 

Zach, welcome here. It is just great to have you. I know of your 

long record of commitment to veterans and their families and our 

troops and their families. We are honored to have you with us. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you like make an opening statement right 

now? 

Mr. WAMP. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I will go when it is my 

turn. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Carter, welcome back. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good to have you. 

Let me also make some other introductions and make a few comments as we begin here, before we have the testimony. I want to 

introduce the staff that is so critical on this subcommittee. We 

thank them. I consider the staff to be without equal of the committee staffs in the Congress, and we are proud to have them as 

our partners. 

I want to mention that Martin Delgado is not new to the Appropriations Committee, but new to this Appropriations subcommittee. 

Martin, where are you? Welcome. It is great to have you here. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

I also welcome back Liz Dawson, and I want to welcome Kelly 

Shea, who will work on the minority side. But let me say that one 

of the proud traditions of this subcommittee, and I know Zach and 

I want to continue this, is our tradition of working on a bipartisan 

basis. When it comes to taking care of veterans and our troops and 

their families, there is not a Democratic or a Republican program. 

They are programs for the great men and women who are sacrificing so much for our country. 

On the majority side, it is a true honor for me to work with critically experienced staff. Carol Murphy is our chief clerk. Carol? And 

we have Mary Arnold, who for nearly 20 years had a view of the 

basement of the Rayburn Building. Her view is now out on the 

mall of the United States Capitol, so life has improved for Mary. 

She does an outstanding job of handling the administrative work 

of the subcommittee. 

Tim Peterson and Donna Shahbaz, both have done outstanding 

work on Veterans’ Affairs work. And then Walter Herne, who is by 

my side, who is just an experienced, talented, hardworking leader 

on military construction issues. So I know I speak for Zach and me, 

and he will comment later I am sure, but we consider it a real 

privilege to work with such a critical, professional, bipartisan staff. 

That is one of the real keys to the successes we have had in past 

years. 

In terms of our track record last year, let me just say for the 

record, we make this subcommittee by working together on a bipartisan basis. Truly, by any standard, we accomplished a great deal. 

First and foremost, we provided an additional $11.8 billion beginning with the fiscal year 2007, that continuing resolution, the Iraq 

war supplemental, and then the fiscal year 2008 appropriation bill. 

Together, we provided the largest single-year increase in the 

VA’s entire history, and made critically needed investments in 

healthcare facilities, research, and claims processing for veterans. 

Our bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 409–2, and 

we are going to try to work on those two this year and see if we 

can get that. But I think that vote is a reflection of the great tradition that we continued last year, with this committee working for 

the benefit of our veterans and our troops, not for partisan motivations. 

We have a great record to build on and we are going to keep 

fighting for veterans and the quality of life for servicemen andwomen and their great families. 

To our witnesses, let me say that it is not by happenstance that 

we asked you to honor us by being the first witnesses in the first 

hearing each year, because over the years we have found that our 

top noncommissioned officers have been the most effective voices 

for our servicemen and-women and their families. There are probably times where you have the right to wonder when you leave this 

room, well, did anybody hear me or not? Let me just tell you tangibly that many of the accomplishments for military construction 

and our troops were the result of your previous testimony. 

Specifically, very specifically, it was your testimony over the last 

2 years that convinced this subcommittee to make a new initiative, 

the Military Family Initiative, where you told us that one of the 

top quality of life challenges was finding affordable, accessible 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

healthcare for families that are sacrificing an awful lot with the 

kind of op-tempo we are facing. As a result of your testimony, we 

put together $130 million for 16 new childcare centers. Three of 

those were in the administration request, and 13 of those were 

added by this subcommittee. So we do listen to you. Your testimony 

is very important and that is why we are so glad to have you here 

today. 

Before we proceed in terms of introductions of our witnesses, let 

me offer the floor and room to my colleague, Mr. Wamp. Again, 

welcome to this great subcommittee. Welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to put in words the emotion 

that I felt yesterday and today as I met these four great Americans 

one-on-one in my office and listened to their stories and asked 

about their lives, and realized that they represent so many that are 

willing to lay it on the line for our country and our freedoms and 

the principles that we hold so dear. Their faces and their eyes and 

their ears, and just listening to your lives, and each of you with a 

30-plus year commitment to the service that you are in, at the 

ground level. It is just an inspiration. 

So I want to open by thanking you for your service and every single person that you represent for their service, saying that in my 

professional life outside of my wife and kids, this is the highest 

honor and the greatest privilege that I have ever had to be associated with this committee and the work that it is tasked to do, to 

serve those who serve our country. 

It reminds me of William Wilberforce when they asked him about 

the leadership role he wanted to take in the Parliament in Great 

Britain, and he basically said he wanted to be the man who served 

the men who influenced the nation, and not necessarily the man 

who influenced the nation, but the man who served the men who 

influenced the nation. That is the role that I feel like I can play. 

Chairman Edwards is exactly the right guy for his party to put 

in this chair at this moment in history because he is a patriotic 

blue dog Texas Democrat who appreciates the military and their 

role every minute of every day. I am just so honored to be at his 

side in a minority role to support the bipartisan work of this committee. 

I was born at Fort Benning, Georgia when my dad was on active duty, and my older brother cost $8 to be born and I cost $12 to be 

born. [Laughter.] 

My parents often joke if they got their money’s worth. [Laughter.] 

My nephew is at Camp Bucca outside Baghdad right now with 

the First Field Artillery Brigade of the Tennessee National Guard. 

My other nephew will graduate boot camp at Parris Island 3 weeks 

from tomorrow. That makes this close to home. It is an honor. It 

is a high privilege. This is such an important time. I want to commend Mr. Wicker, who is now a senator, and certainly the chairman, and this new majority, for the commitment that they made 

to these priorities last year, because I think that helped us bring 

the Congress together so that we could speak with one voice standing behind the men and women in uniform. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

When I heard these four leaders yesterday give personal examples and stories of what these dollars are doing for the quality of 

life, and how much better housing is today than when I served on 

this committee in 1997 and 1998, how many more Job Corps centers there are, and how many things that were absolutely unacceptable that are much better today, even though we have so many 

more needs and we are stretched so thin, and we are experiencing 

the pain of multiple long-term deployments. Yet, the quality of life 

is improving so that we can retain and recruit the best Americans 

in this all-volunteer force. 

It bodes well. We have a lot of work to do. I am committed to 

partnering with you. I understand going in that I am joining the 

best staff front office on Capitol Hill, either side, any committee, 

with this committee here. And man, it is a great opportunity to 

serve. 

Mr. Carter, Ms. Granger, Mr. Young, Mr. Crenshaw and I, this 

is a pretty good minority team we have over here, Mr. Chairman. 

So we look forward to working with you and the majority team in 

getting this work done. What a pleasure. I couldn’t ask for more. 

I am grateful for the opportunity—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Very eloquent statement. Let me add to what he 

said about Mr. Wicker. We will miss Mr. Wicker, but he left an indelible mark for our veterans and our service-members and their 

families by his great leadership. I know he will continue that commitment in the Senate. Thank you for saluting him. 

At this point, let me go through some brief introductions. Understandably, if I were to give each of the witnesses the entire biography, we would be here most of the afternoon, because they would 

not have the positions they had it not been for an unbelievable distinguished record of accomplishment and service. I will introduce 

all four of you and then we will go to the opening statements. 

The first witness I would like to introduce is the sergeant major 

of the Army, Sergeant Major Ken Preston. He is a returning witness, and was sworn into his present position on January 15, 2004. 

He has over 32 years of service in the Army. Thank you for those 

32 years, sergeant major. He served with the First Cavalry Division at Fort Hood; was command sergeant major for the Combined 

Joint Task Force 7 in Baghdad prior to becoming sergeant major 

of the Army. 

I anticipate Sergeant Major Preston will introduce them formally, but let me also note that there are others that are here that 

I want to recognize. Please excuse me up front, but I do want to 

note and salute their service, and thank them for being here: Command Sergeant Major John Gipe from the National Guard; and 

Command Sergeant Major Leon Caffie from the Army Reserve. 

Thank you both. We know this is a total Army today, and thank 

you for your tremendous leadership, for being here. 

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent. Sergeant 

Major Kent is a new witness. We hope you will choose to come back 

again. 

Sergeant Major KENT. I will do that, sir. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. You are in a friendly environment here, sergeant 

major. He became sergeant major of the Marine Corps on April 25, 

2007. Congratulations to you for that distinct honor. He has over 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

31 years of service in the Marines. He served as sergeant major of 

the Marine Forces Europe and the First Marine Expeditionary 

Force at Camp Pendleton prior to his current position. Welcome. 

Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Joe Campa, Jr. We are 

sorry that your son could not be with us again this year, but you 

tell him we are thinking about him today. It was great having him 

here—— 

Master Chief CAMPA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. At your testimony last year. The master chief’s wife, Mrs. Campa, is here. Mrs. Campa, where are you? 

I want to especially thank you. In my book, military spouses and 

children are the unsung heroes and heroines of our nation’s defense, and we don’t often enough thank you. While you may not 

wear the nation’s military uniform, you serve and sacrifice every 

day. Thank you to you and your children for their contributions to 

our defense. In thanking you, we want to share that respect for 

every other military spouse here, or anywhere in our country. 

Thank you, Mrs. Campa, for being with us today. 

Master Chief Campa has 27 years of service in the Navy. He 

served as command master chief for the USS Curtis Wilbur and the 

USS Frank Cable, and command master chief of Joint Taskforce 

Guantanamo, and is a graduate of the Naval War College. Welcome 

back again. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney 

McKinley is a returning witness. Welcome back to the subcommittee. He was appointed on June 30, 2006 to his present position, and now has 28 years of service in the Air Force. He has 

served as command chief master sergeant at major wing command 

levels, and was deployed to Southwest Asia in support of OEF and 

OIF. Thank you for that, as well as your distinguished service as 

well. 

Thank you all for being here. Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted for the record. I would like to begin now 

and recognize you. If you could keep your testimony to approximate 

5 minutes we will then turn it over to members for questions and 

discussion. 

Sergeant Major Preston. 

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT MAJOR KENNETH O. PRESTON

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, 

committee members, thanks very much for the opportunity to sit 

before you today and represent the men and women of America’s 

Army. Your support this past year has continued to support us. 

Your support today has had a tremendous impact on the Army. On 

behalf of the soldiers and their families and Army civilians, I want 

to start by saying thank you for what this committee has done for 

all of them out there, not only over the time that I have been up 

here and testified, but for all the years before this, so thanks very 

much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. I have with me today, sir, you have introduced the command sergeant major of the Army National 

Guard, Command Sergeant Major John Gipe. He is the senior enVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 

listed adviser for Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, Director Army 

National Guard. And I have, of course, Command Sergeant Major 

Leon Caffie, who is the senior enlisted adviser for Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Chief, for the Army Reserve. 

Both of them represent our citizen soldiers, and they represent 

50 percent of America’s Army. They play a vital role in defending 

our nation. Your Army today has more than 250,000 soldiers forward-deployed to 80 countries around the world. We have more 

than 142,000 soldiers currently deployed in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. 

General Casey early in his tenure as the Army chief of staff 

searched for a way to describe the state of the Army, and he used 

the term ‘‘out of balance.’’ We are not broken or hollow, but the 

conditions of persistent conflict have strained our Army resources. 

Those resources are our soldiers, our families and our equipment. 

These resources are strained to a point where we are consumed by 

the demands of the current conflict and cannot do all the things we 

need to do to sustain the force and prepare for the future. 

With your continued support, we intend to restore balance to the 

Army. Our recruiting and retention programs are a success. Last 

year, we recruited over 170,000 men and women, and reenlisted 

more than 127,000 soldiers. We appreciate your continued support 

to our efforts, as they allow us to sustain the quality of the all-volunteer force. 

We are seeing indicators of stress on the force as we enter the 

7th year of the Global War on Terror. Increases in suicides and 

post-traumatic stress disorder cases are two of these indicators. 

Our Army soldier and family programs mitigate these stresses, and 

we continue to resource and support these critical programs and 

initiatives. Last year, sir, Congress funded $900 million toward 

traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. I want 

to say thank you up front for that support. 

Your support has provided improvements to the equipment, soldier and family housing, soldier barracks, child and youth programs, pay gains, and a host of other important quality of life initiatives. I ask your support for one more critical quality of life 

issue, medical care. Soldiers and families routinely identify access 

to quality medical care as a priority for them, and a primary reason they opt to stay with the Army team. 

We have invested heavily this past year in caring for our wounded warriors returning from combat. The medical challenges we 

faced a year ago were not limited to Walter Reed. We cannot have 

consistent world-class healing environments without proper investment in medical facilities and improved quality and access to care. 

Our medical facilities are well maintained and operated, but they 

are old and not configured or constructed to provide the full range 

of treatments available in modern medical facilities. Our soldiers 

and families deserve the best access and quality of care that we 

can provide, and I ask your support in achieving this goal. 

Over the last 4 years, one of the top five recommendations from 

our soldiers has been the transfer by soldiers of their GI bill benefits to their families. The 2002 National Defense Authorization Act 

gave the services the authority to allow service-members the ability 

to transfer Montgomery GI bill benefits to their spouses and chilVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
7 

dren. This act allows spouses to begin using benefits immediately, 

while children have to wait until the soldier has completed 10 

years of service. 

I ask for your support in amending the law to allow the transfer 

of benefits to eligible children when needed, without the prior 10– 

year waiting period, and your consideration of providing funding 

for this initiative. We would also at a minimum like this law to immediately apply to the spouses and children of fallen soldiers. That 

is really where we see the emphasis in order to help. 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O. Preston follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 42754A.001
9 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 42754A.002
10 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 42754A.003
11 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 42754A.004
12 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 42754A.005
13 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 42754A.006
14 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 42754A.007
15 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 42754A.008
16 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 42754A.009
17 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 42754A.010
18 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 42754A.011
19 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 42754A.012
20 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 42754A.013
21 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 42754A.014
22 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 42754A.015
23 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 42754A.016
24 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sergeant Major. 

Sergeant Major Kent. 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

WITNESS 

CARLTON W. KENT, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS 

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT MAJOR CARLTON W. KENT

Sergeant Major KENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Wamp, and all the members for what you do for our service-members today. 

At the Marine Corps, we are focused on taking care of our warriors and their families. That is the key for us, especially in operational tempo that stresses the force that equates to stress on the 

families. With their contribution to the mission, comes great sacrifice, and our families can be the most brittle part of the deployment equation. 

It is our moral obligation as a Marine Corps to ensure that their 

needs are provided for. I am pleased to report that the Marine 

Corps continues to make positive changes for Marines and their 

families that will benefit them for generations to come. We are 

making investments in our quality of life, and particularly our family support programs. Actions are underway to broadly refresh, enhance and improve installation infrastructure and support mechanisms. 

Additionally, housing and infrastructure are key quality of life 

components. Marines and their families are grateful for your continued support and attention to the condition and states of our 

housing, our barracks, our childcare centers, dining facilities, and 

fitness centers. Particularly, we are most appreciative of your attention to the barracks and your support of the commandant’s 

bachelor quarters. Barracks are a critical element in supporting 

our warfighters. Providing appropriate and comfortable living conditions positively impacts the morale and the development of these 

dedicated young men and women. 

On behalf of your Marines and their families, I thank you for 

being such strong quality of life advocates. Your unwavering support and interest in the welfare of Marine families continues to be 

vital to our mission accomplishment. I have submitted my written 

statement for the record, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
25 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 42754A.017
26 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 42754A.018
27 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 42754A.019
28 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 42754A.020
29 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 42754A.021
30 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 42754A.022
31 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 42754A.023
32 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 42754A.024
33 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 42754A.025
34 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 42754A.026
35 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 42754A.027
36 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 42754A.028
37 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 42754A.029
38 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 42754A.030
39 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 42754A.031
40 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 42754A.032
41 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 42754A.033
42 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 42754A.034
43 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 42754A.035
44 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 42754A.036
45 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major. 

Master Chief Campa. 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. 

UNITED STATES NAVY 

WITNESS 

JOE R. CAMPA, JR., MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY 

STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOE R. CAMPA, JR. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. It 

is with great pride that I come before you on behalf of our Sailors 

and their families. Joining me is my wife, Diana. In addition to 

being my wife and the mother of my children, she serves as the 

Ombudsman-At-Large for our Navy, representing over 223,000 

Navy families. Also joining me is the Force Master Chief of our 

great Navy Reserve, Master Chief Dave Pennington. 

From combat operations to humanitarian relief efforts, our Sailors continue to meet the high expectations the American people 

have of them in defense of our great nation. I wish to express their 

gratitude for the hard work of Congress in supporting the many 

initiatives over the last year that have directly improved their 

quality of life. Our Navy has moved beyond the blue waters of our 

oceans, and as of January this year has contributed over 63,000 individual augmentees since the beginning of ground operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Due to the high demand of our maritime forces and with the continued role of these non-traditional ground support missions, pillars of support such as healthcare, childcare and housing are more 

critical than ever. My wife Diana and I have seen firsthand the impact on family stability and peace of mind that these traditional 

pillars of support provide when a Sailor is deployed. 

Navy families are strong, resilient and proud of their contributions during this critical time in our nation’s history. Surge deployments, individual augmentation, and duty in places our Navy has 

never been has resulted in the need for strong family support. The 

programs and initiatives we presently have in place to support our 

families must continue to evolve as the needs of our families 

change. 

In my travels throughout the fleet, I continue to be inspired by 

the dedicated efforts and the patriotism of all our men and women. 

They are succeeding because they believe in who they are and in 

what they do. Our total force of active duty and Reserve Sailors 

continues to rise to the challenges of world events, as they always 

have. They do this because they are keenly aware of the trust, confidence and responsibility that the American people have in them, 

and because they believe in the rich tradition of our Naval service. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
46 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am honored for the opportunity to speak here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R. Campa, 

Jr. follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
47 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 42754A.037
48 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 42754A.038
49 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 42754A.039
50 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 42754A.040
51 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 42754A.041
52 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 42754A.042
53 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 42754A.043
54 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 42754A.044
55 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 42754A.045
56 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 42754A.046
57 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 42754A.047
58 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Master Chief. 

Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

WITNESS 

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

STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT RODNEY J. MCKINLEY

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I am honored to speak to you on behalf of the 685,000 Airmen proudly serving our nation. They are active, Guard and Reserve, officers and enlisted and civilians. I am 

honored to collaborate with my fellow warriors on quality of life 

issues impacting all our military members and their families. 

Sir, I want to thank you and this committee for your invaluable 

support. Thank you for supporting pay raises and continuing reenlistment bonuses. We are having successes with our privatized 

housing efforts, and we appreciate the authority you gave us to 

pursue this new avenue to better house our Airmen and their families. Thank you for visiting our wounded warriors and their families, and thank you especially for taking time and effort to visit our 

deployed Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen. 

Your efforts pay huge dividends for all military personnel and 

their families. Because we are an all-volunteer force and because 

the Air Force mission especially depends on highly educated, 

trained and focused and experienced Airmen, your support has a 

direct impact on our recruiting, retention and overall combat readiness. America’s Airmen are in the fight. 

Our Airmen have been continuously and globally engaged in 

combat and contingency operations for over 17 years, from Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, throughout the 1990s, to 

ongoing engagements in the Global War on Terror. In total at any 

given moment, over 208,000 active duty Guard and Reserve Airmen directly contribute to combatant commands, contingency operations, humanitarian efforts, and joint and coalition combat operations around the world. 

Spreading their wings over America following 9/11, Airmen of 

Operation Noble Eagle continue to protect our nation’s air corridors 

and maritime approaches, having flown more than 51,000 missions. 

Nearly 7,000 Airmen continue to serve in lieu of ground component 

personnel in Iraq, in addition to the 27,000 Airmen deployed to 112 

worldwide locations to fight in the Global War on Terror. 

They are taking the fight to the bad guys. Over the past 12 

months, Air Force strike missions against enemy locations and 

forces have increased 171 percent in Iraq and 22 percent in Afghanistan, proving their effectiveness in counterinsurgency operations. But we also believe the maxim: Where there are roads, 

there is progress. Therefore, your Airmen have directly taken on 

projects to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, building schools, digging 

wells, building roads, rebuilding lives, winning trust, and forging 

enduring relations. Our Airmen interact daily with allies in host 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
59 

nations, and they showcase America’s image of strength, freedom 

and hope. 

Quality of life is key to success. Our Airmen deserve the best 

support available, and we are committed to providing the highest 

quality of life standards possible, a commitment that points to our 

recruiting and retention successes. Our recruiting standards remain high. We have achieved tremendous recruiting success and 

continue to select airmen from among the most educated, motivated and highly qualified volunteers. Knowledge and innovation 

are hallmarks of Air Force heritage and service culture. We are 

particularly focused on training, education and professional development. Our Airmen are the most highly educated in our nation’s 

history. We firmly believe this is an indicator of future mission success. 

America’s Airmen now receive core and expeditionary knowledge 

and skills training throughout every phase of their career. We are 

also offering more numerous and specialized educational opportunities along the way. We are emphasizing post-deployment, support, 

and in assisting Airmen as they reunite with their families and return to their communities. 

We have had considerable success in providing care and assistance to severely injured Airmen and their families. We want to 

build upon those successes with more job placement, education and 

training opportunities for these great Americans. The civilian job 

market actively seeks our trained and technically qualified Airmen. 

We must continue to offer viable and competitive reenlistment bonuses and special duty pay in our critical job areas to retain our 

qualified Airmen. 

We appreciate continued congressional support as we work to 

meet our retention goals and resolve shortages we have in some 

critical Air Force specialties. Additionally, every Air Force leader 

understands we recruit Airmen, but we retain families. Airmen retention in the Air Force and effectiveness in executing their mission and professionalism representing America to the world directly 

reflects how well we support them and their families. 

We strongly advocate education and employment initiatives specifically targeted to mitigate some of the economic challenges our 

military families currently face. Nearly half of all service-members 

are married and have children. And of course, these families move 

frequently, this means things such as transfer of school credits, instate tuition eligibility, and professional credentials for military dependents can become particularly difficult for military families and 

can easily affect a service-member’s decision to continue serving. 

We are eager to work with Congress and the states to find solutions. Our Airmen and fellow service-members should never have 

to choose between caring for their family and serving their country. 

Mr. Chairman, we are working hard to continually improve how 

we develop and care for our Airmen and their families, with emphasis on families. Our base commanders and their local service 

providers are, of course, on the frontlines of our efforts to maintain 

and improve services to our Airmen, their families, veterans and 

retirees. Local control of real property and resources, combined 

with the natural responsiveness of direct customer feedback, has 

proven to be the most effective, efficient way for service providers 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
60 

to respond to customers’ needs, prioritize projects, and tailor services. 

We are preparing for tomorrow’s challenges. We must set conditions today to realize future victories. Nearly 17 years of continuous global operations have put extreme stress on our people and 

equipment. It has become exceedingly difficult, costly and time consuming to maintain aircraft and equipment of declining military 

utility. These are frustrations I hear and see every day, especially 

from our deployed airmen. Quality equipment and work environment have a lot to do with job satisfaction, and therefore impact 

morale and retention. 

To successfully meet future challenges, maintain our advantages, 

and maximize results, we must keep pace with the talent of our 

21st century Airmen and ensure they have the best equipment, facilities, and resources available. With your continued support, we 

will maintain and sharpen our nation’s global vigilance, global 

reach and global power advantages, America’s edge. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee again for the outstanding support you extend to all servicemembers and their families. We fully recognize the link between 

readiness and the issues that extend from our Airmens’ quality of 

life, to their duties around the world, on the flightline, in the operations centers, and on the battlefield. America’s Airmen, your Airmen, stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow American warriors defending this great nation and our way of life. 

A new generation of America’s Airmen continues to do what our 

Airmen have always done in peace, conflict, crisis and war. They 

set conditions for success across the entire spectrum of military operations. It has been more than a half-century since an American 

service-member has been attacked from the sky. Today, the airspace is secure. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear with my fellow 

warriors and represent America’s Airmen before you today. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J. McKinley follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
61 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 42754A.048
62 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 42754A.049
63 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 42754A.050
64 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 42754A.051
65 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 42754A.052
66 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 42754A.053
67 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 42754A.054
68 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 42754A.055
69 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 42754A.056
70 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 42754A.057
71 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 42754A.058
72 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 42754A.059
73 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 42754A.060
74 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 42754A.061
75 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 42754A.062
76 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 42754A.063
77 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 42754A.064
78 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 42754A.065
79 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your excellent statements, and even more importantly, for your lifetime of service to our country. 

Chief Master Sergeant McKinley, to test the effectiveness of your 

testimony today, while you were speaking about the need to try to 

guarantee in-state tuition, an amendment that Ms. Boyda and I 

had cosponsored on the Higher Education Reauthorization Act 

passed while you were speaking, that will say if your son or daughter has started college with in-state tuition, and then our country 

has asked your family to move to another state, your child will be 

able to continue in-state tuition at that college. Or if you are living 

at a post or serving at a military installation in any state in the 

country, you will qualify for in-state tuition. There are five states 

that don’t even allow you to get in-state tuition even if you are living in that state as a result of your military service, so very effective testimony. [Laughter.] 

Thank you for mentioning that. 

Let me welcome Mr. Crenshaw and Mr. Young and Mr. Bishop. 

Before I make a few administrative comments, Chairman Young, 

we are so honored that you are on this subcommittee again this 

year. There is no member of this House, Democrat or Republican, 

who has done more for military families than you have as chairman of the full committee, and as ranking member. I would like 

to recognize you if you would like to make any comments before we 

start our 5-minute round. 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. I will wait my turn. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. A humble servant of our military. Thank 

you for being here, and thank you all for being here. 

Just a couple of administrative things, if I could, since this is our 

first hearing of the year. Everyone knows the process. We are going 

to begin every subcommittee hearing on time out of respect to the 

witnesses’ time and schedules, and respect to other members’ 

schedules. 

In terms of the questions, we are going to recognize members 

after the ranking member is recognized. We will go through questions based on seniority, based on whether you were here at the 

start of the meeting, and if you weren’t here when we started the 

meeting, your order of questioning will be based on the order in 

which you came into the room. 

The only other administrative point I wanted to mention, out of 

respect, again, to everybody’s time, is that we have invested in high 

technology this year. This is our 5-minute clock. What I am going 

to do is just do a light tap when a member’s time is down to 1 

minute left, and I will do a total tap when there are 5 minutes. I 

will ask each member if they can finish that thought or sentence 

quickly. 

At this point, I think it would be appropriate to start the first 

questions of this committee year with our ranking member, Mr. 

Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. You are too gracious. One thing that I observed yesterday meeting with you, and then listening today, is that in the 

10 years since I last served on this subcommittee, two things I 

think are profound. I may be wrong, but I think that these 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
80 

branches of our armed forces cooperate more today than they did 

10 years ago. 

I was taken back 10 years ago to how much competition there 

was, and frankly sometimes that was pointed-elbow kind of competition. It sure does seem to me, and there are issues we will talk 

about today and in the future where you cooperate a whole lot 

more and are sharing a whole lot more, and more like a combined 

force team. I know war has a way of bringing people together, but 

it is noticeable. 

FAMILY HOUSING

The second thing is that the whole concept of privatizing housing 

and improving the housing on-base and off-base, off-post, dramatically has changed. This was just beginning to start in 1997 and 

1998 when I was on the subcommittee. 

So I want to start on that front and let each of you, say what 

is happening with housing and how important it is. I know Sergeant Major Kent, you told me a story yesterday about Camp 

Lejeune, I think. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. And the radical transformation just in the last few 

years of housing, and what a difference it makes either retention 

or recruitment in knowing where you are going to live and where 

your wife and children or husband and children may be when you 

are away. 

Do you want to start? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. I will tell you, you know, I mentioned a story yesterday to the congressman. I mentioned I was 

stationed at a place called Camp Lejeune. It was Midway Park, 

back in the early 1980s. If you had seen that housing back then, 

I will tell you. That housing was some housing that no one wanted 

to live in. And just about a month ago I went past that same housing and that housing was torn down and brand new housing is up. 

If you asked the average Marine what do you think about housing 

today, they will tell you that it is the best of the best. 

We have our junior Marines living in housing today that would 

not touch the housing anywhere else. I will also tell you that the 

family members are very honored to live in the housing, and it is 

because of the members sitting here today, that the Marines and 

their families are able to live in such great housing. I would like 

to personally thank you for that. But we still have some work to 

do, so we are looking forward to it, but I will tell you today’s housing is right on the mark. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, if I might? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have met with the chiefs of the enlisted ranks prior 

to the meeting. We are meeting with the surgeon generals on the 

very important subject of PTSD, so I am going to go over to the 

other subcommittee and may have a few questions for them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, are there any questions you would 

like to ask? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am advised that the surgeon generals have already 

begun their testimony. I am sorry. I want to welcome these guys 

here. They are good. I had a chance to visit with them in the office 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
81 

personally. My wife can tell you some stories about a couple of 

them. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, then moving beyond housing, we may come 

back to that, but let me also ask, and I want to start, again, with 

you Sergeant Major Kent, because you have to grow your force rapidly. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

Mr. WAMP. And I know we are not going to get into specifics of 

the president’s budget request, but I was fascinated studying it on 

the dollars that go with this rapid increase here, and there are 

changes across the board. I want to get to the Air Force and the 

reductions in the president’s budget request may be in the second 

or third round. 

But Sergeant Major Preston has had a challenge maintaining 

high school graduation rates in the Army, so that we can keep the 

quality as we meet the needs and face the challenges. So for both 

of you all, how do you ramp up that quickly and maintain that 

level of proficiency? And then how are you doing, Sergeant Major 

Preston, at continuing to improve that level of high school graduation rates among the people you enlist? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Sir, I would love to start. First of all, on 

the recruiting piece, we are doing really, really well. We are maintaining the standard. We have 96 percent high school grads, close 

to 96 percent. That says a lot about our force out there that is finding these young individuals and bringing them in. And we have 

some great individuals out there that actually want to join the Marine Corps. 

We are giving some type of bonuses to individuals in critical jobs 

just to get them in, but it is not a vast amount of money. I will 

tell you, our recruiters are selling a title, not the money. They are 

saying, okay, if you want to earn the title, you join the Marine 

Corps. I can tell you, last fiscal year which ended September 30, 

our goal was to increase by 5,000, which would have put us at 

184,000 Marines. But our recruiting force did better than that. 

They got us at 186,000 Marines in the Marine Corps. So we are 

ahead by 2,000 Marines right now. 

And we are not low on quality, gentlemen. I can guarantee you 

that. Our commandant has made his focus at not lowering the 

quality in the Corps. 

Mr. WAMP. Sergeant Major Preston. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, last year we recruited as an Army: 

active, Guard, and Reserve; 170,000 soldiers. Specifically, when you 

look at the active duty Army, 80,000 soldiers, and 79 percent were 

high school graduates. The rest were GED equivalents. So as far 

as the standards for coming in, the quality that is there, they all 

met the DoD standard that is established. They all have to have 

a high school diploma graduate or the equivalent to come into the 

force. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
82 

In the past, our benchmark has been 90 percent high school 

graduates, with 10 percent GED equivalents. As I said, we dropped 

to 79 percent that were high school graduates last year. But when 

you look across the force, there are five categories—category one 

through category five. We take no one from of category five. Historically, we have always limited ourselves to 4 percent or less in 

category four, and everybody else comes from category one through 

three. We are still on that benchmark. 

The only thing that we missed this last year was the drop in the 

high school graduates versus the GED equivalent. There are a lot 

more initiatives out there. We have a lot of recruiting programs 

that we put into place. We are now partnering with the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. There are a couple of programs out there I will just talk about very quickly. 

When you look at the number of noncommissioned officers we 

have out there today that are recruiting, we have almost 7,000 recruiters out there for the active duty Army. There are about 5,100 

for the Army National Guard, and about 1,800 for the Army Reserve. We are going to partner with those Army National Guard 

and Army Reserve recruiters. Under the Active First program, we 

are offering bonuses for young men and women to come in to serve 

anywhere from 2, 3, or 4 years in the active duty Army, and then 

once they finish that commitment, to transfer into the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. So there are a lot of programs 

out there that we are working. 

Mr. WAMP. I need to go over my time by a few seconds. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The ranking member has that right, so very good. 

Take whatever time you need. 

Mr. Bishop. 

PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your appearance. I, too, have an obligation across the hall at the other hearing with the surgeons general, but the testimony here is somewhat similar. 

The first thing I would like to get to, though, is on the Marine 

Corps particularly, but it will affect all of you gentlemen, I think, 

the recent murder of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, with the 

investigators stating that the base authorities didn’t consider Corporal Laurean, who was suspected of murdering her, and also accused of raping her at Camp Lejeune base. 

Can you explain once the services have someone accused of a sexual assault or domestic violence-type offense, what the military 

does to protect the victim? And is there a general policy for a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence? What kind of rights do 

they have? Do you have specific programs? 

Obviously, I assume that you have medical care, but if you could 

comment on that. And how do you deal with sexual assaults in 

combat zones? And what are the command responsibilities under 

those circumstances? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Thank you, sir. 

First of all, sir, that was a tragedy that happened to Corporal 

Lauterbach. But I will also tell you, sir, that we have some things 

in place starting with the leadership. If someone is accused of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
83 

doing something that is sexual assault to an individual in the Marine Corps, first of all, the command, they will start and they will 

separate the individuals. Then from there, it is an investigation 

that will be started. From that investigation, it comes out, sir, then 

they decide if they put what we call a military order on this individual to ensure that this individual does not go up to the victim 

or anywhere close to the victim. 

I cannot really talk about this case because it is still in the legal 

process right now, but I can tell you, sir, there were things in place 

to actually protect the corporal. But I will also tell you that we are 

on top of this thing right now, and also with the state officials and 

federal officials. Legally, you know, I just don’t want to touch on 

the process because there are a lot of legal things going on, sir. But 

I will also tell you that if a victim is accused of doing something, 

well, if someone is accused of doing something to the victim, then 

that person is separated from that victim, and then we start the 

legal process. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does that pertain to the other services also? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Yes, sir. Sir, just to add to what Sergeant Major Kent said, we have trained advocates in all of our 

units, to specifically handle and work with a victim of sexual assault. We also have victim assault coordinators on our posts and 

installations. There are many different assets available to victims. 

And of course, to be able to sit down with a victim and to talk 

about confidentiality, or to open an investigation, the victim coordinator walks the individual through that whole process. We have 

had a lot of success over the last year since putting those programs 

into place. 

Master Chief CAMPA. For the Navy, sir, we have a similar process. Of course, you want to protect the victim. One of the things 

that is often put in place is a Military Protective Order that is 

issued by the Commanding Officer that directs the person that has 

been accused to stay away from the victim. On similar things, a 

command investigation is initiated, but like the Army, we have sexual assault victim advocates that work with the victim and help 

take them through the process. Those sexual assault victim advocates are members of the command, but we also have further resources at our Fleet and Family Support Centers that support that 

whole process. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, in the Air Force, we have 

sexual assault response coordinators. If there is a sexual assault or 

sexual whatever, the member gets a person appointed to them, and 

we follow up with that person to make sure that they have someone they can continually talk to. Every Airman in the Air Force 

gets sexual assault prevention training every single year. We make 

sure this is a focus item on all commanders’ calls. We have hotlines 

for anybody to call to have someone talk to them at any time. So 

we take this very seriously, and I think we are doing a good job 

on this right now. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Is my time up? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
84 

Judge Carter. 

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last year, we talked a lot about PTSD. We talked about health 

services for our military, the very sad story about the Marine who 

committed suicide while waiting in line to get treated. I think we 

all reacted very positively and attempted to try and do something 

about that. 

With the 15-month deployments and the other stresses that are 

being placed upon our military, I would like to know how you feel 

about this mental health component. Are we making progress on 

the things we talked about last year, and I would like to hear from 

you about that. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I will start. We started this last 

year specifically for post-traumatic stress disorder and mild traumatic brain injuries. We did a chain teaching program across the 

Army. It ran from July to October of 2007. Specifically, we started 

with the senior leadership, leaders taking their soldiers, their subordinate leaders, and that was driven all the way down to the lowest levels of command, down at the company and platoon levels. 

But the intent was to get leadership talking about the symptoms 

of mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder. But more importantly, what that chain-teach does is open the doors for soldiers 

within those commands to understand that their leadership supports the program. It helps break that stigma and the fear for a 

soldier to go and ask for help. 

We still see some stigma out there to seek help coming back for 

post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is a stigma that is two-sided. 

It is from an individual perspective, where an individual perceives 

that if he or she asks for help, they are seen as being weak, or that 

they are not effective as a soldier. And likewise, there is still a stigmatism out there where the individual perceives that their leadership would think less of them as a soldier, and potentially impact 

them for assignments and promotions. 

But we have a number of programs out there. The chain-teach 

was very effective last year to really drive that down to the lowest 

levels. You are a help, this committee, and the investment that has 

been put into hiring those healthcare professionals has also been 

a big help. 

Sergeant Major KENT. On PTSD, sir, I will tell you. The Sergeant 

Major hit it right on the head. It has to start from the top, the 

leadership. Our Commandant has focused on telling Marines it is 

okay to come forward. It is okay to come forward with your families. I will tell you, that message is throughout the Marine Corps. 

It used to be a stigma out there, and I can tell you, if you were 

to ask me back in 2001, sir, I would tell you that it was not good 

to come forward because it was a sign of weakness. 

Now, I would tell you, I know senior leaders in the Corps that 

have come forward and said ‘‘I have PTSD.’’ So it is really a positive change. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Sir, we work very closely with our Navy 

and Marine Corps team, starting with our Navy Corpsmen that receive training in how to identify these things. In the Marine Corps, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
85 

they have units embedded at the battalion level that work with 

Marines in early identification. 

We, this last fiscal year, have put 13 post-deployment Healthcare 

Clinics in fleet concentration areas and Marine bases. But in addition to that, it is the education piece, in educating the senior enlisted, our officer community, and in our troops in general, in 

changing how it is viewed, and changing that culture. That is probably the most challenging piece. We could throw all the money and 

resources that we have at it, but until we change that culture, we 

are not going to get very far. But having said that, I think we are 

on the path to doing that. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, I would like to add, I 

think the committee does a lot in helping with this PTSD, and we 

have come a long way. We can’t rest on our laurels. We don’t really 

know the effects down the road of how many troops are going to 

have PTSD. We are doing some great things. I know at Ramstein 

Air Base, Germany, the staging facility there, as many of our 

wounded are coming back, you know, we try to do surveys to find 

out PTSD from the beginning, but we also have to follow it. We 

have to keep investing and researching on PTSD. 

Also, we need to invest and go out and recruit and properly train 

mental health professionals. That is a key to make sure we have 

those professionals out there in our units to be there for counseling. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I think that is good news. The (INAUDIBLE) 

that came up last year, (INAUDIBLE). Right now, we ask them to 

come back and give us a statement. The one we heard was check, 

check, check, check, and go home. And the suggestion was that 

maybe in-theater, with their direct superiors. They also might be 

inquired of before they come back home. Is there any of that going 

on or is that being worked also? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, in-theater, several things happen. 

One is the training to help soldiers over there that are redeploying 

back to home station really understand the dynamics of what they 

are going to come through. I mean, out of a combat zone, being forward-deployed, coming back home again, and re-integrating back 

with the family and back with their post, camp, or station. 

But then it is also the re-integration assessment. There is a 

health assessment. Specifically, they sit down and they have a 

chance to talk with a healthcare provider before coming back. And 

then we are also doing reassessment 90 to 120 days once they get 

back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Judge Carter. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, thank you all for being back. Good to see you again. 

Just to follow up on the question about PTSD, it is my understanding that not only you encourage people to talk, to kind of talk 

about it, but are we doing what we should be doing in kind of making everyone aware? It is almost like treatment is one thing, but 

finding out early, kind of self-diagnosis, or just understanding what 

it is. I imagine a lot of people, you can ask a lot of questions, and 

they don’t know exactly what you are getting at. 

Is it something we ought to be looking at in terms of just some 

of the basic training in all the new age of terrorism, all the new 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
86 

things we are doing in the various services? Is that something? Are 

we doing enough to kind of help people understand what it is on 

the front end, so that maybe they recognize it in themselves? Not 

just not be afraid to stand up and say ‘‘here is the way I feel,’’ but 

maybe even help him understand where he is on the front end, to 

see it is common and it is all part of that being able to come forward. Are we doing enough there, do you think? 

It sounds like we are recognizing the problem. I just want to 

make sure that we kind of can catch it on the front end maybe, as 

opposed to waiting until everything is over and somebody comes 

home and so many questions they are asking, and you realize, good 

grief, this stuff has been building up. Can you touch on that? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Well, we actually educate them through 

the chaplains, medical and the leadership, sir. I mean, down at the 

lowest level, to the squad leader level, it is education all the time. 

I will tell you, even family members, we bring them in and we educate them. And people are getting a full understanding of this 

PTSD. So I am confident. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is good to hear. You know, I imagine we 

start out that you didn’t recognize it, and then all of a sudden 20 

years later, somebody—it sounds like we are really, because I know 

that is on the forefront of a lot of the members and has been for 

the last couple of years, so I think that is wonderful. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, one of the things that we are doing 

is we have introduced what we call Battlemind training. It starts 

in basic training for new soldiers coming in the Army. It is done 

for those soldiers as part of the unit organization prior to them deploying. It also is done, too, for the post-deployment, coming back 

from the deployment. It really helps soldiers, not necessarily telling 

them what to think, but how to think, and how to understand the 

dynamics of what is going on, the anxiety, and what they are feeling inside and how to overcome that and work through it. That has 

been very successful the last 2 years since it was introduced. It has 

continued to grow and we have expanded on those programs. 

Master Chief CAMPA. The education—Sergeant Major brought up 

a good point in educating the family members to recognize those 

things also. One of the things that we have tried and I think we 

need to strengthen in this area is our Reserve Force, because those 

folks, instead of coming back to a fleet concentration area where 

they are around those great networks of support, they go back oftentimes to the heartland of America, and we don’t see them as 

often. So there is follow-up with them, but that is an area that we 

still need to strengthen our connection with those folks as they reintegrate back into the society and go back into their civilian jobs. 

QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. Let me ask you a quick question about 

just healthcare in general. Everybody touched on it. It is something 

that everybody knows and understands. I know that along with our 

DoD colleagues, we have done a lot in the past few years just to 

improve the quality of the healthcare that folks get in the military. 

When I talk to the senior civilians and officers, they seem to agree. 

I certainly see that, but I don’t get to always talk to the enlisted 

guys that you talk to every day. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
87 

I would like to hear what you all have to say, because it is interesting to me not only because I am on this committee, but I come 

from Jacksonville, Florida, where we have a military hospital and 

there have been some big high profile medical malpractice situations. So it is on people’s minds in terms of what is the quality of 

healthcare. 

So talk a little bit about it, and maybe mention your overall assessment, what maybe one or two things you think you are doing 

well, that you hear you are doing well, and maybe one or two 

things that maybe from time to time you hear a guy saying maybe 

I wish they did better. I know they are talking about OB/GYN, 

having babies, but apart from that, just the general quality of 

healthcare, give me your general assessment and where you think 

we are doing good and where you think we can do better. 

Sergeant Major KENT. I will speak on the positive first, sir, and 

that is the wounded warriors. I will tell you, our wounded warriors 

are getting great healthcare. As we visit them, even family members, they say this is the best healthcare in the world. And that 

is the positive. 

A negative is the family, as far as them getting in, and they need 

appointments, it could take a long time for them to get an appointment on a military installation, so they have to go outside most of 

the time, because we have a shortage of doctors, and that is the 

issue, sir. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, healthcare is the number one concern when you talk to family members. It is accessibility and the 

quality of the care. A lot of the facilities on-post, not necessarily the 

doctors, but also the facilities are conditioned to providing the care 

that they need, so of course you push them off to civilian communities. One of the things as I look at it, we have 25 major hospitals 

or medical centers in the Army, and of the 25, 8 of the 25 are now 

over 50 years old, and another 11 are somewhere between 25 and 

50 years old. So there are aging medical facilities. 

On the good side, the Army medical action plan, what we have 

done over the past years to take care of the wounded warriors and 

to get the care, to rehabilitate, get more of them back on duty, or 

to help them with their transition, has been very positive. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, I would like to just briefly 

talk about the great job the medical community is doing in taking 

care of the wounded warriors. If we get the wounded to a medical 

treatment facility, they now have a 97 percent chance to survive, 

which is unbelievable. We have Critical Care air transport teams 

that get them back stateside very quickly. 

I have flown on those missions and I have seen the capabilities 

of what they do. It is absolutely incredible, from the battlefield to 

the time that we now can get them stateside for medical treatment 

is about three days, versus in the Vietnam era, it was about three 

weeks. They are doing a fantastic job on the medical side. 

One area in the Air Force where we do need some help is, once 

again it goes back to equipment. Our equipment is aging. We need 

to update all of that. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Sir, I will just add something real quick. 

I don’t hear very many complaints on the quality of care within our 

military treatment facilities. I don’t. I know the cases you are 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
88 

speaking of that might have blocked out a lot of press attention. 

What I do hear complaints about is the access to care when a family member cannot get into that military treatment facility, understanding the process outside of that. 

There is frustration at times with understanding that. So what 

do they do? They go into the emergency room, and then that creates a whole other problem. So the education piece, and maybe improving how we do that is something that is a consistent theme 

that I hear. My wife and I recently had some calls with the family 

members, and that was one of the big frustrations—accessing the 

care. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

TOP QUALITY OF LIFE PRIORITIES

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Let me follow up on that. Sergeant Major Preston, you already 

mentioned healthcare as the number one concern. The question I 

would like to ask each of you, and I would ask again now, is if you 

think of the quality of life concerns that you hear from the men 

and women you represent and their families, aside from pay and 

time away from family—we know how important pay is and we 

know you can’t put a price tag on the time away from family—but 

on the quality of life issue we can have a great impact in this committee, and the Defense Appropriations committee. We have a lot 

of members on this committee that also serve on Defense Appropriations. 

Let me ask you, among the choices of healthcare, housing, 

daycare and education—those four—which would you rank as your 

top three? Healthcare, housing, daycare and education? And if 

there is another one you would put in the top three that I didn’t 

mention, please feel free to do that. 

Sergeant Major Preston, we will start with you, and then just go 

down the line. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Well, probably the one, sir, that I 

would say now is healthcare, waiting to get into it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I heard that at Fort Riley. Okay. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Childcare is number two, and we have 

been working that very hard this past year. And education has always been an issue. We specifically look at soldiers and families, 

and education is a big priority. It is continuing education for the 

soldiers. It is also education for the children. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. How about, do you know how many soldiers 

are living in barracks today that don’t meet Army standards for 

barracks? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Right now, today, for permanent party, 

35,400. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So there are 35,000 soldiers. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. About 35,000 soldiers. 

Mr. EDWARDS. About 35,400 that are not living in barracks that 

meet the Army 1-plus-1 standard? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Major Kent. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
89 

Sergeant Major KENT. Sir, I would first of all say housing is 

number one. The reason housing is number one, when I speak of 

housing, sir, I am talking about the single Marine barracks. We 

need to really focus on the single Marine barracks. I spoke with 

you about some barracks up at Camp Pendleton that a Marine 

made a comment, ‘‘I would rather be over in Iraq than to be living 

in the barracks here,’’ which is a flat-top single barracks. So our 

focus is taking care of the single Marine barracks. That would be 

number one. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you happen to know the number, and it is 

okay if you don’t, that are inadequate? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Inadequate? It would probably be about 

3,300, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. About 3,300. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

And then the second one would be healthcare. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Because of the waiting lines? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Not the quality so much as the waiting. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Major KENT. And then third would be childcare, building more childcare facilities, and then the last one would be education, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And not to downplay education. We know 

anything less than third or fourth ranking, our military troops and 

families ought to get quality services in all four of these areas, but 

this does help get a sense of priorities. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Yes, sir. I would have to say that number 

one would be childcare consistently just about everywhere, especially in our fleet concentration areas. Number two, I would say access to health care. And number three would be our single Sailors 

that live onboard ship. We have a program called Homeport 

Ashore. We still have 9,000 Sailors across our Navy that still live 

onboard ship, junior Sailors, when that ship is in port. 

Congressman Wamp asked me the other day, we talked about 

the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN. I talked to the Command Master 

Chief this morning. They are at sea, and I asked him, out of your 

E4 and below that would qualify to live in single Sailor barracks, 

how many do you have living there. He has none, because that program hasn’t affected that command yet. We have plans to do that, 

but he cites that as his number one quality of life issue. They remember your visit. So he has about 600 that would benefit from 

that program. So those USS HARRY S. TRUMAN Sailors when 

they get back from their deployment, those that live onboard the 

ship will continue to live there when they get back in home port. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you happen to have a number, an estimate 

of the number of sailors living in housing that doesn’t meet the 

standard set by the Navy? 

Master Chief CAMPA. The DoD standard is 90 square feet. We 

have a hard time meeting that standard because we typically put 

two and sometimes three in a barracks room, but it far surpasses 

the quality of life of having to live onboard that ship, but I could 

get you some numbers. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
90 

[The information follows:] 

The number of shipboard unaccompanied Sailors currently living in inadequate 

BEQ conditions, as defined by either two or more per room or less than 90 square 

feet per sailor, is approximately 4,700. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, if you could. We do appreciate it. 

Chief Master Sergeant. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Yes, sir. Without question, I 

would put number one as childcare. From base to base that I visit, 

that is the number one thing that always pops up. There are not 

enough spaces available. As I said earlier, with so many military 

working together on active duty in the Air Force, and also spouses 

having to work, not having the spaces available on base, it makes 

them go downtown, and some of the costs are just enormous. That 

would be number one. 

Number two, I would continue on with healthcare. Our focus is 

always taking care of the wounded and so forth, and making sure 

that we are taking care of PTSD, traumatic brain injury, securing 

a good future for the wounded after their injuries and so forth, but 

also making sure that we update our facilities as we go. We can 

go out and hire the healthcare professionals, but we do have some 

intruding issues with getting the doctors and dentists and so forth. 

So I think that would be number two. 

And number three is, education. I think that that probably might 

fly down the list a little bit after the good news that you gave us 

today, but continue to make sure that we go and we take care of 

students as they transfer from state to state, that they don’t drop 

a grade lower because they didn’t transfer. And also the possibility 

of the Montgomery GI bill that we can pass on to spouses and family members, that would be a great benefit to all Airmen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. By the way, there are 17 states that will 

start charging out-of-state tuition if your son or daughter started 

college at a state university in that state, and then you were restationed in another state. In fact, I got some very powerful letters 

from some servicemen and -women whose children had to drop out 

of the college of their choice for the reason that our country asked 

their family to move to another place in service to all. 

Thank you all for that testimony. 

I would like to go to Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, two quick points, and two quick questions. One 

thing I will tell the master chief of the Navy is that they don’t have 

enough space to live in, but they sure do eat well. [Laughter.] 

Master Chief CAMPA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. It doesn’t matter how far out to sea they are, they 

eat really well. 

GUARD AND RESERVE

Also, I want to make a point, looking at the 2009 budget request, 

of how grateful I am that the president recognizes these needs, and 

that he also recognized that the increases that the new majority 

put in last year become the new baseline, and that we don’t retreat 

from where we got to. That hasn’t been discussed, but I want to 

lay that out and compliment him, while he doesn’t get many compliments much from some people, but I want to point that out. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
91 

Because we are starting from a good place, because he recognized 

that what was done here last year was necessary, and then goes 

forward above that in his budget request does go forward. There 

are a few areas that Chairman Edwards has already brought to my 

attention that we are going to need to look at hard, to adjust, but 

overall I am pleased to be starting at that point. 

The third big area that has changed in 10 years for me is that 

10 years ago the Guard and Reserve forces were not partnered with 

our active duty men and women, and today they are, big time. I 

heard that all day yesterday from you all. I just want to ask you 

in general, what are you doing? Sergeant Major Preston introduced 

the command sergeant major specifically with the National Guard, 

but what ways do you make sure that the Guard and Reserve know 

that the focus is not just on the active duty and this really is a 

partnership, and that everybody frankly is pulling the same wagon 

with the same string? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Sir, I can start off. 

Mr. WAMP. Sure. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Sir, first of all, it actually starts in boot 

camp. Every Marine is a Marine. Once they graduate, there is no 

separation between the Reserve and Active. And that is the focus 

coming out of boot camp. You are a United States Marine. 

From that, I mean, they go through the same training. Once they 

get called back on active duty, they go through the same training, 

and they get trained up to go forth. So we just let them know that 

they are a Marine first. We don’t separate them at all, sir, and that 

is where we keep the focus. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, same thing. All of our soldiers are 

all treated the same, and of course now with the Global War on 

Terror and with the way we are using the Guard and Reserve, it 

is really going in there and expanding on all the family programs 

and the services that are available for the Guard and Reserve to 

make it the same. It is one team. It is one fight. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Yes, sir, we could not do our mission if it 

wasn’t for our Navy Reserve. When I go out and visit Sailors intheater, onboard ships, you can’t tell the difference between an active duty Sailor and a reserve Sailor. They provide that same quality-level of service across the board. 

But we take a different approach to our reserves over the last 

few years in how we train them. Gone are the days where they 

come to a reserve center and sit around and just give classes. They 

are out there doing meaningful training, mission-specific training, 

and it is paying off tremendously as we integrate them into the 

total force. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, I said it from the beginning. I represent all Airmen—active, guard and reserve. The Air 

Force is committed to total force integration. If you are flying a C– 

17 airlift, whatever, you don’t know if that is a guard, reserve or 

active duty person on there flying that plane, and you really don’t 

care because they are out there doing a mission. They are fully integrated and fully trained. We could not survive without total force 

integration. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
92 

JOINT BASING

Mr. WAMP. Chief Master Sergeant McKinley, there may not be 

time to finish this question, but maybe on the third round you 

could continue, but I want to go ahead and start. I talked about 

the cooperation but there is one big issue that I don’t think we 

have total agreement on, and that is joint basing. I know that it 

certainly affects the Air Force in a big powerful way. 

Can you just share a little bit without getting yourself in trouble 

what you shared with me yesterday? [Laughter.] 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Thank you, sir. [Laughter.] 

You know, we as the Air Force are fully committed to joint basing. Anytime that we can get together in bringing all four branches 

of service together, to find ways to be more efficient, to spend the 

taxpayers’ dollars more wisely, we are all for that. But I would also 

like to say that for the Air Force, one of the great recruiting and 

retention tools that we have is the quality of life, the standards 

that we have had on bases for a long period of time. And this didn’t 

happen overnight. 

We have invested in the quality and standards of our bases for 

decades, and we just want to be able to maintain those same standards, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. And point out that you fight from those bases. You 

operate from those bases. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Yes, sir. That is where we 

train. That is where we get ready to go to war. That is why we 

need to make sure that that base is ready and fully capable. And 

we put a lot of money, a lot of emphasis, in taking care of those 

individual bases. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Judge Carter. 

INTEGRATED FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Getting back to some of the challenges, I would encourage everybody that you talk to, my wife has a saying in Dutch that says it’s 

not the mountain that you have to climb that gets you, it is the 

grain of sand in your shoe. 

It is the little things that can make families irritable, make soldiers and Marines and airmen worried about what is going on back 

home. And all of those little things are not that hard to fix. For 

example, I have a bill right now that we discovered that spouses 

have a hard time getting jobs—a pretty simple little thing we put 

in already for convicted felons when they get out of prison, is we 

give a one-time tax benefit to the employer who will hire that convicted felon. Well, if they can do it for convicted felons, I certainly 

think they ought to be able to it for our military personnel. Give 

a one-time tax benefit to the employer who hires them. I think that 

allows more jobs—— 

I got that. So I got the wife of a soldier telling me that when her 

husband transfers, he gets to claim Fort Hood as his home base, 

so he is taxed under Texas law. This means he doesn’t have an income tax. But when they get transferred to Virginia, she pays the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
93 

income tax, and he doesn’t, because he gets to claim Texas as his 

home and home base. To me, that seems fairly easy to fix, to allow 

the spouses also to claim the home base of the soldier. 

Soldiers are making good economic decisions on their future by 

doing that. These are little things. So if you have those little 

things, I would sure like to hear about some of them that can 

help—the tuition issues. Another one, General Taylor tells me all 

the time, is the students that are halfway through high school in 

North Carolina and then they get transferred to Texas, and they 

have all these things they lose, and their high school friends. We 

need to work out a uniformity for our military personnel on that, 

and I would like to hear anything you have to say about those kind 

of things. I am just looking for more avenues to help. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I will just talk a little bit about 

the new rolling out this year of our Army’s integrated family support network. One of the things that families of soldiers told General Casey and Mrs. Casey as they came on as the chief of staff 

is that the Army has a lot of great programs. Instead of adding 

more programs, fund the programs we have. There are a lot of programs out there that in the past were funded at 100 percent, and 

we have talked about childcare, and we have talked about housing 

and barracks. 

Of course, there is a lot of investment now going in this year to 

bring that up to the levels that we want to achieve. But the Army’s 

integrated family support is really a star-gate portal to pull together all the quality of life issues out there, and really push that 

information out to families. 

You specifically talked about spouse employment. We have 

partnered now with 31 different companies out there. These are 

Fortune 500 companies that are giving spouses preference for hiring. One of the companies out there that I am very proud of is the 

Army-Air Force Exchange which gives preferential hiring to military spouses, and that is on-base, as well as those Fortune 500 

companies that you find off-base, like Home Depot and Sprint and 

those kind of things. 

So there are a number of those programs out there working very 

hard. You listen to what soldiers and families out there want, and 

then you try to put those programs in place, but the Army integrated family support network, it’s really getting the information 

that is available out to the families. That is one of the things now 

that we are going to work at pushing that information out there 

to make more awareness. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Spousal preference, sir, as far as a federal 

job. When a spouse leaves from one duty station to go to another, 

and she is a GS worker, most of the time that spouse has to start 

all over again. You know, continuing moving up the ladder, they 

have to start from scratch. We have gotten a lot of feedback from 

spouses in reference to how can we fix that. 

Mr. CARTER. (OFF MIKE) 

Sergeant Major KENT. Yes, sir. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Military spouses on average earn $3 less an 

hour when they are employed, and they are also three times more 

likely to be unemployed, because of the fact that they move around. 

A lot of time they cannot take advantage of state-funded programs 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
94 

with job placement or job training because they are not a resident 

of that state. That is an area I think we can make a difference in 

also. 

The spousal preference in hiring is an initiative, but I think we 

need to make beyond the lifelines of DoD or the federal government 

and just create a greater awareness out there in the community 

about the talents that they have. There is a program that started 

this year. It is called Career Advancement Accounts. It started in 

eight states, 18 different military installations, which will give a 

military spouse $3,000 a year for education or vocational education. 

If they come back a second year, they can request to get a second 

year of funding. 

Now, from what I understand, it is supposed to be a 3-year pilot 

program, but the initial success of this program, the number of 

spouses going toward that, is very encouraging. It is focused to our 

spouses that are from E1 through E5, and I believe it is O1 

through O3—a very great initiative. I think more publicity about 

that and programs like that would certainly help our military 

spouses. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, I would like to echo what 

my peers have said. I would like to publicly thank all spouses for 

what they do to serve this great country of ours. They have sacrificed much and they do it silently. We have Permanent Change 

of Station (PCS) and travel so much, and many of them have 

passed on the opportunity to have a career because they know 

what we do is good for the country. We don’t do enough for them. 

We need to find opportunities to employ them and thank them for 

the great service they give. 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. I agree. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Before I recognize Mr. Crenshaw for his next round of questions, 

let me follow up on Mr. Wamp’s comments about the president’s request for daycare centers. For the record, compared to a 2008 request of $25 million to $26 million, the president for the 2009 

budget has requested $168 million for daycare centers. So I don’t 

know when you guys got into the Oval Office, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

The president and the DoD leadership heard the daycare concerns that you mentioned. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On that point, in terms of childcare, we spent more money and 

now we are getting ready to spend even more money, but we are 

still not at a zero waiting list time. I just wonder, do we ever in 

localities where there is a long waiting list, do we ever outsource? 

Do we ever use some of the local daycare centers that are in the 

communities? And if we do that, I think that is appropriate, but 

how do we make sure that we have the same quality of care? 

And then maybe as you answer that question, what are some 

other options until we get, in terms of all the military construction 

we need, which is probably going to be—you know, it is always 

going to continue to grow and we may never get to the place where 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
95 

you don’t have to wait. But if we are doing any outsourcing, are 

we making sure we have the same quality? And are there other options that we are looking at? I heard every one of you say you 

would rank it in the top two or three of issues. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? We know it is a problem, 

and appreciate that, and we are dealing with the construction side, 

but are there other things we can be doing? 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, I will start off. I know in 

the Air Force one of the things that we do is we kind of outsource 

to some spouses. We go out and we license them to make sure that 

they are ready to have a daycare set up in a room in a house for 

five or six children, whatever. We follow up and make sure they 

are educated and make sure this is a good home environment. So 

if someone cannot get on base, there are some opportunities that 

they can use some of these daycare spouses outside the gates. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Sir, in the Navy we have about 3,000 home 

daycare homes set up, and that has been a successful program. But 

your comments about looking to the community, and this is something that I have asked about. Our standards for our daycare are 

very high. So as we go to look to the community to see that they 

have to meet state requirements, we have federal requirements 

that are higher. 

So when looking at this, we are looking for the options in trying 

to partner and leverage some of that that is out there, but some 

of the challenges are those higher standards that our daycares hold 

themselves to. 

Sergeant Major KENT. And that is the issue here, too, sir. We 

have a lot of home childcare, and it is working great in the Marine 

Corps. It really is. But the thing is just sourcing outside the base. 

Most of the spouses, they actually do the home, and it is working 

fine, but the issue is finding a great place outside the military installation. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw, if I slow down the clock, would you 

mind if I piggybacked with you on that? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No, sir. Please. 

Mr. EDWARDS. On a recent trip to Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth—and I need to check my facts on this—I was given the impression that the costs of childcare on a post come out of the MWR 

program. Is that correct? In effect, they have to pay for themselves. 

I may be mistaken there, but you know, we don’t ask our military 

families to pay for 100 percent of the cost of their healthcare. At 

a time when we are asking our soldiers, sailors, Air Force and Marines to spend so much time away from family in Iraq and Afghanistan, it just doesn’t make sense. 

If I am correct, if we are asking them to pay for in effect 100 percent of the cost of childcare other than maybe the construction 

costs that we pay for up front, that seems somewhat unfair. Maybe 

we need to talk to our defense appropriators about subsidizing 

that, because even where we have childcare, apparently it can be 

very, very expensive. So we are trying to address the accessibility 

issue through this subcommittee in the president’s budget request, 

but there is still the affordability issue. Can you shed any light on 

that? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
96 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Just from as far as on-post and offpost, we have for the married soldiers—67 percent of our married 

soldiers and their families live off the post. So naturally, you 

wouldn’t want all your childcare centers on the installation. So we 

partner with those childcare centers that are off the installations. 

There is an accreditation process they go through to make sure 

that they meet the high standards. Of course we subsidize that, so 

what you would pay for childcare living on Fort Riley would be the 

same thing that someone would pay living off-post. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We purposely met with enlisted spouses, and 

many of these were first sergeant spouses, and they were having 

to pay $500 a month for childcare. On a sergeant’s salary, that has 

got to be a pretty big hit. I hope that is something we could follow 

up on. 

Mr. Crenshaw, thank you for letting me in. You still have several 

minutes left. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay, good. [Laughter.] 

FINANCIAL COUNSELING

Let me ask on kind of a related issue dealing with finance. You 

know, when you ask the question, what are some of the issues— 

housing, healthcare, childcare—I don’t know. You hear people say, 

well, one of the problems is just overall financing, and then it gets 

into this whole issue that we face in terms of payday loans. We finally, I think, got a handle on it to say, look, we are going to limit 

that to 36 percent. That is still pretty high, but before that it was 

a whole lot higher. If you ask them what the interest rate is and 

they say it is only 4 percent, and then they tell you that is 4 percent a week, and it is just astronomical. 

So I know that is brand new law and it has just kind of been 

put in place, but can you talk about now that we have that, are 

we trying to kind of offer financial counseling to some of these enlisted guys who probably aren’t as savvy as they could be about finances. Now, they have some protection, but also like how we can 

deal with that alternatively within the services. 

But also, do we have any information yet on how it is working? 

I can envision a lender saying, well, I am not going to lend it to 

you because they capped me at 36 percent; I would rather go gouge 

somebody else; I can’t gouge members of the military. And then you 

might envision some guy in the military saying, well, I really need 

to borrow the money, so I am not going to tell him I am in the military because then they won’t lend me the money. 

Are we looking at ways to deal with that? We have that law in 

place, but it seems like we have a ways to go in terms of really 

helping folks understand this picture of finances. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, it is education. It really starts 

from day one when we bring a soldier in going through basic training and advanced individual training. It is financial counseling. 

One of the things that I use as a yardstick to help gauge the successfulness of that training is the thrift savings program. 

We have had a very high success now with those soldiers that 

sit through the training that are investing in the thrift savings program. It is up to about 90 percent of those now investing. That has 

been a very successful program. Of course, we do financial counVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
97 

seling and training in all of our units and organizations. We also 

push that out and make it available for families as well. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Has anybody—can you comment—has anybody 

found any issues with now that we have the new payday loan cap? 

I mean, would it ever be too much of a reach for us to say in geographic areas, you hear about people that are members of the military, and when they go in, then you know they are members of the 

military and they know they can’t be charged more. And if they try 

to get a loan by saying they are not in the military, can they kind 

of get around it on either side? Is there something we ought to be 

doing there, or is it too new to really know? Can you talk about 

that along the way? 

Sergeant Major KENT. It is actually new right now, sir. I know 

California is a high-cost place. It is actually working out there, because I will tell you a lot of those payday lenders outside of Camp 

Pendleton, they are feeling the pain. So thank you very much, gentlemen. 

But I will also tell you that it is the education process. It starts 

from day one. So that is the key, sir, is the education. 

Master Chief CAMPA. We are still assessing the impact that the 

law has had. I think it will take a little bit of time to see what the 

full impact is. I think if we start to see less of those institutions 

around our bases, maybe that will be an indicator, because if you 

go into Norfolk or one of the fleet concentration areas, you see 

those places. They are all around. So maybe as we see them disappear, that may be an indicator. 

But education—but an alternative for the Sailor also, and maybe 

the lending institutions that are on-base and looking at the ways 

that they lend to our Sailors, to provide an alternative instead of 

seeking those places outside the gate. Our Navy-Marine Corps relief has just started some quick assistance loans that are a lot easier to get than the loans that we traditionally give them. We typically make them go through counseling and try to get to the root 

of the problem. These quick-assistance loans are meant as a quick 

alternative, because you go into those places and you could walk 

out of there with money pretty fast. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, the same in the Air Force. 

It is about education. We start it in basic training, technical school. 

They get to their first duty station, and the first term, Airmen center, we get them financial counseling from the very beginning. 

When the Airman moves into the dorms, the last thing we want 

him to do is go out and buy a 42-inch plasma TV in the dorm room 

and a brand new car with $350 a month car insurance. 

So we try to educate them on making wise choices, having a 

budget, setting up a savings plan and save for the future and not 

live for the moment. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

EFFECTS OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Can I ask you about the challenge of BRAC on top of going forth, 

particularly going forth as it affects Marines and the Army? And 

then global repositioning, added to the fact that we have inflation 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
98 

factors for military construction projects that are far beyond the 2.4 

percent inflation that the OMB bureaucrats dictate that we follow. 

Can you comment on whether there is a pattern of real shortages? If so, in what areas? Is it housing barracks particularly, as 

those installations that are growing as a result of BRAC and growthe-force and global repositioning? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, as you know, one of the biggest installations that is growing, that has seen a influx of soldiers and 

families is Fort Bliss, Texas. That will be the future home of the 

First Armored Division, and there will be six brigade combat teams 

going there. 

I sit down and I talk to the BRAC folks. Everything is online. 

When you go out there onto the airfield, behind the Sergeant Major 

Academy, that entire desert floor now is under construction. It is 

amazing to see the work that is going in. As for what is going on 

right now at Bliss construction-wise to take care of the brigade 

combat teams that are going to be based out of here, that is ontarget. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there a lot of temporary housing, though, as 

troops are coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, and being stationed out there and having to live in temporary housing? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Yes, sir. We have a brigade set of temporary barracks that we have used, and that is because military 

construction takes so long to get stood up. We are growing units 

quicker than we are building. 

I was just down at Fort Hood a couple of months ago and visited 

Third Brigade of the First Infantry Division. That brigade will be 

based out of Fort Knox, Kentucky. With the surge that went in last 

year, we knew that we needed that brigade a year sooner, which 

was originally planned to be stood up this year. 

The barracks and the facilities at Fort Knox are still under construction. We are standing that brigade up at Fort Hood, Texas, so 

that is where the brigade is going to be equipped, manned and 

trained. They will deploy, and then when they come back we will 

move that brigade to Fort Knox. So there is some of that transition 

that is going on out there. 

Money-wise, as I look at the BRAC moves, and it really involves 

Fort McPherson and Fort Gillem in Atlanta. I am told that is on 

track, but I have concerns because we are getting closer to 2011, 

and we haven’t started construction yet for those headquarters and 

those facilities that have to move. But right now as I sit down and 

talk with the BRAC people, they say we are still on track and everything is in line. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me follow up and ask if particular communities such as Fort Bliss and Fort Riley and Fort Carson that are 

going to receive such an influx, and maybe we haven’t seen all the 

largest numbers of influx yet, but have you seen or do you expect 

to see off-post housing rental rates and housing costs to go up dramatically? Is there any evidence of that? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. We have seen some of that at Fort 

Riley—off-post, some of the rental rates going up. Right now, Fort 

Bliss and the city of El Paso, have been phenomenal. They have 

been a great city and they have really embraced the soldiers and 

the moves that are now starting to come in. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
99 

I talked with some of the senior leadership there, the parentteachers organization, with the school districts in and around Fort 

Bliss. There was initially concern. They have put a lot of teachers 

into the schools to prepare for the influx of children that were coming in. Of course, when we stood up Fourth Brigade of the First 

Cav Division down there a year go, a lot of the soldiers that moved 

from Fort Hood or new soldiers that were coming in, because they 

knew that they were deploying within a year, they elected not to 

bring their families. 

So we have seen some of that transition, where families have 

stayed in place at previous duty stations because they were going 

to a unit that was getting ready to deploy, they didn’t elect to 

move. So that has kind of thrown some of the numbers off. In the 

case of El Paso and Fort Bliss, it has been a great partnership 

down there. At Fort Riley, we have seen some of the rental rates 

going up, but I know that the leadership has been working very 

closely with the city officials in and around the installation. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Wouldn’t you say that is one item we ought to 

watch in this subcommittee at these bases, at these installations 

that are receiving a huge influx of Marines or soldiers. Is it barracks or is it single family housing off-post that we need to watch? 

Or is it family housing? How much temporary housing for barracks 

or families? Is there one issue more than any other that you think 

we need to keep an eye on? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I would say single family housing. 

You know, we have some single senior noncommissioned officers 

that are living off-post. We are starting some pilot program: for privatization of single soldier quarters for senior noncommissioned officers on some installations. We have 67 percent of our married soldiers and their families that live off the base, so the concern is to 

make sure we take care of those families. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Major Kent, any comments? 

Sergeant Major KENT. We have a younger force, sir, so most of 

our force is single. But we have a lot of Marines married also, but 

most of the force is single. As we grow over the next four years, 

it is important for the growth, too, as you know sir, so we can get 

on a cycle as far as deployments going over. 

Right now, we have 1-to-1 for most of the unit—7 months over 

and 7 months back. The Commandant’s goal is to get them more 

dwell-time back in the states, which would give them 7 months forward and 14 months back. And we really want to get them more 

than that, but as we grow the force, the barracks are the main concern because we have a younger force, sir. So the shortage for us 

would be the single Marine barracks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Master Chief Campa of the Navy, in terms of 

BRAC? 

Master Chief CAMPA. Our numbers are continuing to go down in 

the Navy. We are more in shaping the force so we don’t have some 

of the challenges that the Army and the Marine Corps has as they 

grow their force in that infrastructure part of it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any installations where BRAC may be bringing 

them in, while your numbers are going down? Or at a particular 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
100 

installation where the numbers are going up? Any we ought to 

keep an eye on? 

Master Chief CAMPA. Not that I am aware of, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Chief master sergeant. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, BRAC is on track in the 

Air Force, but it is highly dependent on timely revenue flow. So we 

are looking to this committee to reinstate the full request of the 

amount in 2008 if possible. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And as you know, last year we did replace dollarfor-dollar the money we took out of BRAC, frankly, to fund other 

priority military construction needs, including daycare centers and 

our VA needs, knowing that in a supplemental we could go back 

and replace BRAC. So I can’t make any promises, I think we will 

see real bipartisan effort to replace the $933 million we had to 

frankly borrow out of BRAC to take care of 5.8 million veterans in 

the VA system and some of our other MILCON needs. But thank 

you for mentioning that. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, Mr. Chairman, my final question is kind of directed at all of you, but Master Chief Campa has Diana back there, 

and I have been watching her, and man she is radar for the families and spouses, and interested in all these issues. [Laughter.] 

I was just going to say that encourages me. I know you all have 

to be the radar for all the men and women that you represent here 

at this table today. How do you do that? I mean, you have your 

wife and she is here today, and that is one really great example, 

master chief, but how do the rest of you stay connected to all the 

people? I mean, you have to represent so many different needs, and 

you seem so in touch, but how do you do that? 

Sergeant Major KENT. That is easy, sir. We have to get out of 

the Pentagon and travel around the Marine Corps. My spouse actually travels with me constantly, and she talks to the spouses and 

families on family issues. The Commandant and his spouse constantly travel. As a matter of fact, the Commandant is out in California right now visiting families right now. I will join him tomorrow out in California so we can talk to Marines and their families, 

just to find out what the issues are, sir. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, Tuesday, myself, my wife, General 

Casey and Sheila Casey, were out at Fort Ladmore. We go out 

there each month. It is part of a pre-command course. He had all 

the new battalion brigade commanders and their spouses, and all 

the command sergeant majors and their spouses, that were out 

there for that course. We have a chance to go out there, and we 

do a joint seminar and we do separate sessions with them. Then, 

of course, with all the other travel to posts, camps, and stations. 

Master Chief CAMPA. Sir, I think we all operate very similarly 

in going out and seeing our troops, going out and seeing them as 

they operate, visiting families back in our fleet concentration areas 

and our bases. I think all our spouses play a pretty big role in 

keeping in touch with the families, because the families don’t hold 

back on what they tell us. Often, a Sailor may be a little reluctant 

to bring up an issue, but we find that when we engage with the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
101 

families, they are honest and forthright and they will let you know 

what their needs are. 

Mr. WAMP. Congressional families do that, too. [Laughter.] 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. We spend a lot of time on the 

road throughout the whole world, whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Pacific or Europe, and meet with a tremendous number 

of Airmen and their families on a regular basis. In my house, I am 

not the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. I am just a husband and she tells me to take the trash out and keeps me in line. 

Mr. WAMP. You all are an inspiration, I tell you. I feel good about 

our country sitting here listening to you and meeting with you. It 

has been a great 5 hours these last 2 days. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will finish just a couple of points. First, on the 

public-private housing partnership, we have heard over the last 

several years the positive things. I am thrilled to hear that this 

subcommittee, working with this administration and the previous 

administration, really worked hard to change the old way of building military family housing. 

Let me just ask, though, the question: Are you hearing any complaints about the housing itself or perhaps the maintenance of the 

housing? We want to be sure that not only good houses are being 

built—and I have looked at a lot of them and I have heard wonderful comments back—but we want to be sure that the developers 

have incentive financially to maintain them well. Are any of you 

hearing any periodic systematic complaints that is not just maybe 

a one-shot deal? Anything out there? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Nothing systematic. Sir, as an invitation to the committee, Fort Belvoir is very close, and Fort Meade, 

but I would offer you the invitation to go down if you really want 

to see what residential communities initiative is all about, and 

really see the quality of housing out there now that is being provided for soldiers and families. I offer that invitation anytime you 

would like to come, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Major Kent. 

Sergeant Major KENT. No, sir. 

Master Chief CAMPA. One of the greatest initiatives, as you said, 

sir—no. We have with some of our partners. When we start out 

with these relationships, there are things to be worked through, 

but we have found that they have been very responsive, not only 

in the construction phase, but in the maintaining and being responsive to the needs of our family members. 

Chief Master Sergeant MCKINLEY. Sir, we are not really getting 

any issues from the family members. I think privatization is a tremendous success. We have had some issues with some of the contractors, and we have to work through those. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. My final question, I don’t know how many 

protocol toes I will step on in doing this, but Mrs. Campa, you are 

an important voice for the families out there. I have found in my 

trips to military installations that I have learned an awful lot from 

listening to spouses. You have been kind enough to listen to all of 

us speak and talk today. 

Could I ask you if you wouldn’t mind responding to the question 

of what are the two or three most common concerns? If you don’t 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
102 

mind my asking, what concerns are you hearing? I probably need 

you to, if you wouldn’t mind coming forward. I apologize for doing 

this without notice, but I have found unscripted conversation with 

spouses have oftentimes been the best conversations I have had. 

And for the record, if you wouldn’t mind identifying yourself. 

Mrs. CAMPA. I am Diana Campa, and I am the Ombudsman At 

Large for the Navy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mrs. CAMPA. I guess I would say what Joe would have to say is 

that childcare is a big issue. I don’t know about the programs that 

the Army has that fund the additional costs of going to a civilian 

provider, but in talking with families in the Navy, we don’t see 

that, and that is one of the reasons why they will opt to not work 

because they can’t afford the childcare on-base. 

And also our deployment cycles for the Navy. Our families are 

really feeling that, with them going out longer, the surge, coming 

home and not spending as much time. That is taking a toll on our 

families. So that also is I believe a retention problem for our service. 

Then also the working, not being able to come into another area. 

Lots of times we are not here for 3 years. Sometimes we come in 

for one year, and we know we are coming in for a year and that 

is a hard sell for an employer. You know, if they ask you what 

brings you into the area, and I know they are not supposed to ask, 

but that is also difficult for somebody to come in and expect to get 

a really good job based on only being here for a year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right, right. 

Mrs. CAMPA. But overall, I think our families are resilient. We 

have a great program, our ombudsman program, that is all over 

the world wherever our Navy is at, and they really have a way of 

bringing the problems and addressing them at the regional levels, 

and then also as we go out and travel, being able to pick up on that 

in a town hall, and just sitting down with them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for those insights. 

For families of enlisted personnel that have two or three children, and the spouse is working, what are they doing on childcare? 

How can they afford it? Or do many of them just quit their job because they can’t make enough money in the job to just even pay 

for the childcare? 

Mrs. CAMPA. Well, it is difficult. I can speak for my family. I 

worked from the beginning when our kids were young, and sometimes I had to find somebody, and sometimes I would pay a lot 

more in childcare and bring home a lot less, but I knew it was part 

of the progression for me to be able to get the work experience. So 

we sacrificed in that way. 

Sometimes we looked at shortening our hours, things like that, 

and we would get creative with it. But for a lot of parents, and also 

there are some military that are having difficulty getting their children into the daycare because it is a priority for people that are 

deployed for their children to go to that daycare. So you have regular active duty that are on lists also, and when they are single 

parents, it is difficult for them also. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I hope we are going to make real progress 

between the money we put in the budget for the 2008 fiscal year, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
103 

and what the president has asked for in 2009, to see real progress. 

I know it won’t happen overnight. It will take a while to build the 

facilities. I want to further look into how we cost those out to our 

military families. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mrs. CAMPA. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You know, listening to you speak and thinking of 

your son coming here last year, I guess it is probably better not to 

do this in a formal hearing. We wouldn’t want to intimidate military children, but I think it would be important for members of our 

committee to sit down with some sons and daughters and ask them 

what the challenges are. I mean, they are such an important part 

of the sacrifice for our country. Maybe we can talk with some of 

you about arranging an opportunity to meet with some children of 

enlisted servicemen and -women. 

Mrs. CAMPA. He would have been here, but actually Hillary Clinton was going to be at their school today. So that is where he is. 

Mr. EDWARDS. He had to choose between Mr. Wamp and me and 

a presidential candidate. [Laughter.] 

Mrs. CAMPA. It wasn’t his turn to come, so he is educating himself. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, congratulate him. It is a great compliment 

to the two of you. Your children have done so well educationally. 

Thank you, Mrs. Campa, for that eloquent testimony on no notice 

at all. 

Mr. Wamp, I have no additional questions. I just echo what Mr. 

Wamp said. It is an honor for us to just be at the same table with 

each of you. Thank you for your service to the country and for all 

the great families you represent so eloquently here. Thank you 

very much. 

We stand in recess at the call of the chair. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(105) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008. 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

WITNESS 

JAMES PEAKE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Secretary Peake, good afternoon. Let 

me welcome you to your first formal testimony before this subcommittee. I want to congratulate you for having earned the tremendous honor of being Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I want to 

thank you, as well as your colleagues, for the lifetime of service to 

our veterans and military troops and families. It is an honor to 

have you here. 

As we have our first hearing on the budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs, on a personal note, a number of us 

this morning attended a very moving service for Congressman Tom 

Lantos. In the program, Mr. Lantos had a quote that was printed 

there, that said, ‘‘Only in America could a penniless survivor of the 

Holocaust come here, raise a family and be a member of Congress.’’ 

I think the tie-in to this is that today at this hearing we are honoring those who have made ours the kind of nation where a penniless Holocaust survivor could come to America, could be successful 

in every way—personal, family and public. 

And so that, to me, is the solemness of this subcommittee’s responsibility, and your duties and your position. It is a privilege to 

honor those who have made the sacrifices so we can have the Tom 

Lantos’s of this world truly live out the American dream. So for 

those reasons, I thank you, Secretary Peake for being here. I also 

want to thank Dr. Kussman, our Under Secretary for Health, for 

your presence here, and Admiral Daniel Cooper, Under Secretary 

for Benefits. Admiral, it is good to see you again. 

We also have the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Mr. William Tuerk. There you are, Mr. Secretary. We also have the Honorable Paul Hutter, general counsel of the VA; the Honorable Robert 

Henke, Assistant Secretary for Management; and then the Honorable Robert Howard, Assistant Secretary for Information Technology. Thank you all for being here. 

I think it is also appropriate to mention that this is National Salute the Hospitalized Veterans Week. One of the things that I am 

proud of is that this committee, working together on a bipartisan 

basis last year, showed our respect to veterans not just with our 

words, but with our deeds as well. It was a privilege for us to be 

a partner in that effort. Last year, we were able to increase funding for veterans by $7.8 billion. That is $5.5 billion more than was requested by the administration. It represents the largest funding increase in the 77-year 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
106 

history of the department. What does that mean to veterans? It 

means increased health services. It will mean our veterans will 

wait less time to receive the benefits they have earned and the doctors’ appointments they need. 

It will mean that Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans will be screened for PTSD and traumatic 

brain injury, including the non-visible forms of TBI. It will mean 

that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be able to address a 

significant backlog in facilities maintenance, and ensure that our 

veterans are cared for in a safe and healthy environment. 

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank our ranking 

member, now Senator Wicker, for all of his leadership in our work 

together last year. And again thank all the members of this subcommittee, both Democrat and Republican alike, who have worked 

on such a nonpartisan basis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 totals $44.7 billion in dis- cretionary spending, and an additional $46.2 billion in mandatory 

spending. On the discretionary side of the ledger, the amount requested represents an increase of $1.7 billion over the fiscal year 

2008 appropriations, when you consider the additional emergency 

funding that was included in the fiscal year 2008 bill. 

I want to salute the administration for requesting significant increases in medical services accounts, but I do have concerns about 

the very large cuts for VA research and VA construction, in both 

minor and major construction. I do have a number of questions. I 

am sure we all do. Some of those that I have include how the VA 

is dealing with what we are seeing across the country, whether it 

is in DOD or the private sector—high inflation rates for construction and how that is impacting our construction program and budgets; questions about whatever level of confidence the department 

has in its estimates in regard to the OEF/OIF population in our 

hospitals. 

I know that is not an exact science. It is always a difficult and 

challenging process to estimate; and inflation rates for the department in other areas such as health care. Is our budget, while going 

up on paper, actually allowing us to keep up with health care inflation and continue to improve service for our veterans? 

Mr. Secretary, we very much look forward to hearing your testimony in a moment, but at this point I would like to recognize our 

ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments that he would care 

to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know we have a lot of 

witnesses and a lot of testimony to listen to, but I just want to say 

briefly, this week what I said at my first hearing last week, and 

that is the highest honor and greatest privilege of my adult life, 

outside of my family, is to be a part of serving those who have 

served or are serving in uniform for our armed forces. 

This is an extraordinary privilege, and I do compliment the 

chairman, the new majority, and this committee on the work that 

was done last year on both military construction and veterans affairs. The new baseline was established because of your strong advocacy, Mr. Chairman, and the president acknowledged that in the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
107 

2009 budget request. I do share your concerns with aspects of the 

budget request, but do compliment both the new majority last year 

for their commitment to these programs, and the administration request for 2009. We are setting some new standards for these programs. 

I think continuing reforms at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

are needed. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the courtesy of coming by 

to see me, and to everyone at this dais, particularly Under Secretary Tuerk, who has been to my district long before he knew I 

would be sitting in this chair. So I thank you for your personal attention and for what you do. 

With that, let us get on with the testimony. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the courtesies all along the way. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Young, I do want to give you the opportunity as a leader on 

defense and veterans issues and former chairman of our full committee, and now ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, an 

opportunity to make any opening comments you would care to 

make. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. 

I want to echo what my friend Mr. Wamp said. We appreciate 

the way that you conduct this chairmanship and this subcommittee, and your dedication to our veterans is unchallenged. I 

appreciate this very much. 

I have the privilege of representing one of the greatest VA hospitals in the whole system at Bay Pines. But I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say a personal welcome to General 

Peake. We go back a long way, and we have talked about a lot of 

things. But I just want to mention one of those opportunities that 

we had to be together when our adopted Marine son Josh was shot 

in Kuwait, and General Peake, as surgeon general of the Army was 

one of the surgeons who saved his life. 

Shortly thereafter, after Josh had recovered—well, it wasn’t 

shortly thereafter. Josh was in the hospital for 6 months. I took 

Josh to a dedication of a Fisher House at Landstuhl Hospital in 

Germany. And sure enough, General Peake was there, and Josh 

was there in uniform. And I can tell you that the emotion of that 

moment, when the two greeted each other, was something that I 

can’t really describe. It will always be in my heart forever, General 

Peake. I just thank you for that, and I thank you for your willingness to take on this job. 

As we discussed earlier, this is a massive bureaucracy, the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are some problems. We want 

to be your help. We want to be available to provide you with whatever you need to take care of our veterans. If we don’t take care 

of our veterans, we haven’t taken care of our country. 

So general, you know the strong personal feeling that I have for 

you, and I just really appreciate you. I talked to Josh last night 

and told him that I was going to see you today, and he asked me 

to extend his best wishes also to you. 

So Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make those 

personal comments about the general. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Young. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
108 

Secretary Peake, I was going to go through a rather lengthy bio 

of your accomplishments, but I think Chairman Young’s comments 

are the best and most genuine introduction anyone could ever offer 

you. Thank you for your 38 years of service in the military, and 

now your continuing service to our country. We are honored to 

have you and would like to recognize you for your opening comments now. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY JAMES PEAKE

Secretary PEAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With your permission, sir, I have a written statement that I 

would like to submit for the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection. 

Secretary PEAKE. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, Chairman 

Young, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am honored to be 

here as the sixth Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and now responsible for the care of our veterans. I appreciate the opportunity that 

the president has given me to make a difference. 

With me today to present the 2009 budget is the VA leadership 

of this department. You have already introduced them. It is indeed 

a great crew. I couldn’t be more pleased with the people I have to 

work with, and many I have known for a long time. 

In my almost 2 months at VA, I have seen both the compassion 

and the professionalism of our employees. It is frankly just what 

I expected. The culture is one of deep respect for the men and 

women we serve. This group at the table and the VA at large understands that America is at war, and it is not business as usual. 

I appreciate the importance of, and I look forward to working 

with this committee to build on VA’s past successes, but also to 

look to the future to ensure veterans continue to receive timely accessible delivery of high-quality benefits and services earned 

through their sacrifice and service, and that we meet the needs of 

each segment of our veterans population. 

The president’s request totals nearly $93.7 billion, with $46.4 billion for entitlement programs and $47.2 billion for discretionary 

programs. The total request is $3.4 billion above the funding level 

for 2008, and that funding level includes the $3.7 billion plus-up 

from the emergency fund. 

This budget will allow VA to address the areas critical to our 

mission. That is providing timely, accessible and high-quality 

health care to our highest priority veterans. We will advance our 

collaborative efforts with the Department of Defense to ensure continued provision of world-class service and an interoperable electronic medical records system. We will improve the timeliness and 

accuracy of claims processing, and ensure the burial needs of our 

veterans and their eligible family members are met, and maintain 

veterans cemeteries as national shrines. 

The young men and women in uniform who are returning from 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families, represent a new generation of veterans. Their transition and re-integration into our civilian society when they take that uniform off is a prime focus. Those 

seriously injured must be able to transition between DOD and VA 

systems as they move on their journey to recovery. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
109 

This budget funds our polytrauma centers and sustains the network of polytrauma care that Dr. Kussman and his team have put 

in place. It funds the federal recovery coordinators envisioned by 

the Dole-Shalala commission report; and sustains the ongoing case 

management at all levels of our system. 

We know that our prosthetics support must keep pace with the 

newest generation of prostheses as our wounded warriors transition into the VA system. You will see a 10 percent increase in our 

budget for this. In 2009, we expect to treat about 333,000 OEF and 

OIF veterans. That is a 14 percent increase. With the potential of 

rising costs per patient—and we have seen some of that—we have 

budgeted a 21 percent increase to make sure that we can cover 

those costs. That is nearly $1.3 billion to meet the needs of OIF 

and OEF veterans that we expect will come to the VA for medical 

care. 

This budget will sustain our outreach activities that have ranged 

from more than 800,000 letters to the 205,000 engagements that 

our vets center outreach personnel have made with returning National Guard and Reserve units as part of the post-deployment 

health reassessment process. VBA alone has conducted more than 

8,000 military briefings to nearly 300,000 servicemen and -women. 

This is also part of seamless transition. With the authority to 

provide care for 5 years now for service-related issues, we can, 

without bureaucracy, offer the counseling and support and care 

that might be needed to avert or mitigate future problems. I highlight the outreach because we want these young men and women 

to get those services. Mental health from PTSD, to depression, to 

substance abuse are issues that I know are of concern to you, and 

they are of great concern to us. This budget proposes $3.9 billion for mental health access across 

the board, a 9 percent increase from 2008. It will allow us to sustain an access standard that says if you show up for mental health, 

you will be screened within 24 hours, and within 14 days you will 

have a full mental health evaluation if needed. 

It will keep expanding mental health access, according to a uniform mental health package, with trained mental health professionals in our CBOCs. And there are 51 new CBOCs coming on for 

2009, in addition to the 64 that are coming on in 2008. Our Vet 

Centers will bring on yet an additional 100 OIF/OEF counselors, 

and Dr. Kussman is prepared as need is identified to add additional Vet Centers. We appreciate the issues of rural access in this 

arena, and our Vet Centers are budgeted for 50 new vans to be 

able to support remote access, as well as expanding telemental 

health in 25 locations. 

But this budget and our mission is more than just about those 

most recently returning servicemen and -women. We should remember that 20 percent of VA patients, who in general are older 

with more co-morbid conditions than our general population, have 

a mental health diagnosis. In fiscal year 2007, we saw 400,000 veterans of all eras with PTSD. This budget will sustain VA’s internationally recognized network of more than 200 specialized programs for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder through 

our veterans medical centers and our clinics that serve really all 

of our veterans. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
110 

We have a unique responsibility to serve those who have served 

before. You know, we still have some World War I veterans. One 

died about a week or so ago. The World War II and Korean veterans are recipients of our geriatric care, and our efforts in improving long-term care, noninstitutional care where in this budget we 

have increased our funding by 28 percent. It will make a huge difference in their quality of life. We have currently 32,000 people 

served by home telehealth programs. This budget continues our 

work in this area and in the expansion of home-based primary 

care. 

Another facet of this complex problem is the issue of homeless 

veterans. Under this budget, our grant and per diem program continues to grow. We will have 13,000 grant and per diem beds funded by 2009. Our work with HUD for permanent housing vouchers 

continues, which we will support with case managers. And it sustains the 11 domiciliary facilities that have been coming online 

over the last 3 years, such that by 2009 we will be up to about 

10,000 domiciliary beds, with substance abuse treatment embedded 

with many serving otherwise homeless veterans. 

Our most recent study looking at homeless vets in particular 

shows a downward trend of about 20 percent, from 195,000 on any 

given night, to 154,000—still too many, but real evidence of 

progress. What many don’t know is that we provide a good deal of 

health care to homeless veterans—about $1.6 billion in 2007—and 

we anticipate $1.9 billion in 2009. 

Overall, the president’s 2009 budget request includes a total of $41.2 billion for VA medical care, an increase of $2.3 billion over 

the 2008 level, and more than twice the funding available at the 

beginning of the Bush administration. With it, we will provide 

quality care, improve access, and expand special services to the 

5,771,000 patients we expect to treat in 2009. That is a 1.6 percent 

increase above our current 2008 estimates. 

In April of 2006, there were over 250,000 unique patients waiting 

more than 30 days for their desired appointment dates. That is not 

acceptable. As of January 1, 2008, we had reduced the waiting list 

to just over 69,000—still not where we want to be. Our budget request for 2009 provides the resources to virtually eliminate the 

waiting list by the end of next year. 

Information technology cross-cuts this entire department, and 

this budget provides more than $2.4 billion for this vital function. 

That is 19 percent above our 2008 level. It reflects the realignment 

of all IT operations and functions under the management control 

of our chief information officer. A majority—or $261 million of the 

increase in IT—will support VA’s medical care program, particularly VA’s electronic health record. 

I emphasize it here because it is so central to the care we provide, touted in such publications as the book, ‘‘Best Care Anywhere,’’ as the key to our quality that is lauded worldwide. This IT 

budget also includes all the infrastructure support, such as hardware and software and communications systems, to include those 

51 new CBOCs that I mentioned. There is $93 million for 

cybersecurity, continuing us on the road to being the gold standard. 

IT will also be key as we begin to move our claims model down 

the road to a paperless process. It is an investment that we must 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
111 

make. This budget sustains the work in VETSNET that is giving 

us management data to get after our claims issues, as well as supporting our Virtual VA, our electronic data repository. 

In addition to IT, this budget sustains a 2-year effort to hire and 

train 3,100 new staff to achieve a 145-day goal for processing compensation and pension claims in 2009. This is a 38-day improvement from 2007 and 24-day, or 14 percent reduction from what we 

expect this year. 

This is important because the volume of claims received is projected to reach 872,000 in 2009. That is a 51 percent increase since 

2000. The Active Reserve and National Guard returning from OEF/ 

OIF have contributed to an increased number of new claims, but 

also bring with them an increased number of issues per claim. This 

chart shows that, with the top line being issues per claim, each one 

of which has to be adjudicated separately and rated, while the 

claims you can see growing. I think it is remarkable that Admiral 

Cooper has been able to keep that average days to complete relatively constant, even in the face of that extensive growth. We 

want to do better than what we are doing. 

The president’s 2009 budget includes seven legislative proposals totaling $42 million. One of these proposals expands legislative authority to cover payment for special residential care and rehabilitation in medical foster homes for OIF/OEF veterans with TBI. We 

again bring a request for enrollment fees for those who can afford 

to pay, and for a raise of the copays. Again, this does not affect our 

VA budget, just as last year, as the funds will return to the treasury. That is $5.2 billion over about 10 years. It does reflect the 

matter of equity for those veterans who have spent a full career of 

service, and under TRICARE do pay an annual enrollment fee for 

light care. The $442 million to support VA’s medical and prosthetic research 

program—the lesson we have had from the augmented 2008 budget 

is actually a little more than 7 percent above what we received in 

2006 and what we asked for in 2007 and 2008. It does contain $252 

million devoted to research projects, focused particularly on veterans returning from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, including 

projects in TBI and polytrauma, spinal cord injury, prosthetics, 

burn injury, pain, and post-deployment mental health. In fact, we 

anticipate with Federal and other grants a full research portfolio 

of about $1.85 billion. 

This budget request includes just over $1 billion in capital funding for VA, with resources to continue give medical facility projects 

already underway in Denver, Orlando, Lee County, Florida, San 

Juan and St. Louis, and to begin three new medical facility projects 

at Bay Pines, Tampa and Palo Alto, two of which relate to our 

polytrauma rehab centers and continue our priority in this specialized area of excellence. 

Finally, we will perform 111,000 interments in 2009. That is 11 

percent more than in 2007. The $181 million in this budget for the 

National Cemetery Administration is 71 percent above the resources available to the department’s burial program when the 

president took office. These resources will operationalize the six 

new national cemeteries that will open this year, providing a VA 

burial option to nearly one million previously unserved veteran 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
112 

families, and will maintain our cemeteries as national shrines that 

will again earn the highest marks in government or private sector 

for customer satisfaction. 

This budget of nearly $93.7 billion, nearly double from 7 years 

ago, and with a health care component more than twice what it 

was 7 years ago, will allow us to make great progress in the care 

of all of our veterans, and will keep us on this quality journey in 

health, in management of an extraordinary benefit, and in ensuring excellence of our final tribute to those who shall have borne the 

battle. 

Sir, it is an honor to be with you, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Secretary James Peake follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
113 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 42754A.066
114 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 42754A.067
115 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 42754A.068
116 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 42754A.069
117 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 42754A.070
118 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 42754A.071
119 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 42754A.072
120 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 42754A.073
121 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 42754A.074
122 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 42754A.075
123 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 42754A.076
124 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 42754A.077
125 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 42754A.078
126 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 42754A.079
127 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 42754A.080
128 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 42754A.081
129 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your excellent opening statement. 

Mr. Wamp, let me ask you, we have 4 minutes and 37 seconds 

on the vital vote on whether or not we are going to adjourn, on the 

floor of the House. I can miss that vote, but I don’t want to ask 

any others to miss it. Would you want to go vote, and I can ask 

my questions while you are gone? Or do you want to continue on? 

How would you like to proceed? 

Mr. WAMP. I am concerned that this vote is going to be followed 

by other votes on the floor, and I think that I need to go. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Maybe what we could do is we could do a tagteam here. Some members have gone to vote. I will go ahead and 

go through my initial questions while you are voting. And then if 

it turns out they are not having additional votes, then come back 

and maybe you could begin while I am gone. Would that be fair? 

I am a little bit concerned because we are having a series of procedural votes today. Also because of Mr. Lantos’s funeral, we already cut the time for this hearing in half, so I am a little worried. 

If you don’t object to that, we would proceed ahead. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Young will stay and I will vote, and that way we 

are covered. Thank you. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, let me just begin by asking you, 

there were legitimate concerns about the fact that given that the 

VA received so much additional funding last year for both supplemental as well as the 2008 budget year, and the fact that those dollars did not come initially on October 1, the beginning of the new 

fiscal year, that the VA might have a difficult time putting in place 

a plan to spend that money efficiently and effectively. Could you 

just make some observations about how you feel in terms of the 

VA’s plans for implementing the budget that we passed and the 

president signed recently? Do you feel comfortable in how you have 

those resources allocated? Do you think there could be sooner, rather than in the last quarter of the year, a request for a transfer of 

funds in order to allow you to use that money most efficiently. 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir. I think that we will be coming forward 

to talk about shifting some of that money around a little bit to 

make sure that we can use it most effectively. I do think that we 

have a good plan in place to be able to execute that, in what I have 

been able to see so far. Some of it is going to be things that don’t 

require an ongoing sustainment. They are sort of one-timers as 

well. I think we can get those executed. 

But I think that we also have in this budget the ability to sustain the things that will have an out-year tail to them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In regard to transfers, let me just say that this 

subcommittee would want to do careful due diligence in reviewing 

those requests from the VA to be sure they reflect the priorities 

that the Congress has set in its budget. At the same time, I would 

urge you to not have the department wait until the second or third 

week of August to ask for that transfer of funding. 

We understand you have a great deal of new funding and you got 

it late in the process. So given that process wasn’t perfect, we know 

there may be some adjustments. The bottom line to us is that those 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
130 

adjustments be made whenever it can best help the most number 

of veterans. 

Secretary PEAKE. We will not be waiting until August. We will 

up here soon. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Great. 

Mr. Young. 

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

General, when the casualties began coming home from Iraq and 

Afghanistan, the military hospitals were pretty much overwhelmed. 

I remember seeing hospital beds in the hallways. But what happened was, that great influx of wounded heroes eventually came to 

the VA system. And all of a sudden, you were pretty much overwhelmed at a lot of places, especially your polytrauma centers. 

A lot of these young men and women swore to me, to others, that 

we don’t have any kind of a post-traumatic stress problem at all. 

I think they were wrong. I think they are going to find out, and 

I think that the VA system is learning now that they might have 

felt that way when they came from Walter Reed or Bethesda, but 

as time went on they did develop the problems. 

Now, my question has to do with, do you have enough personnel 

in the VA system to deal with post-traumatic stress disorders? Are 

you able to give your patients sufficient time with a psychologist 

or a psychiatrist? Or do you need more psychologists and psychiatrists? And the answer is probably yes, because I know that time 

has been rationed for some of these cases. 

What do you need? What can we do? What can this Congress do 

to help you help our veterans by providing them the appropriate 

care for their post-traumatic stress situations? 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, sir, first let me comment about the great 

assistance we have had from the Congress in a couple of ways. One 

is giving us the money to move forward with the mental health 

strategic plan that Dr. Kussman put in place back in 2004, that 

started laying out the groundwork for what we needed to start to 

grow. We have better than 10,000 in the VA in terms of mental 

health professionals. If you look at all of the people that we have 

working in the mental health arena, it approaches 17,000, focused 

just on mental health. 

Part of the issue is being able to hire people in different places. 

Rural America has a challenge, and that is why I was pleased to 

find the fact that we are already budgeting 24 new telemental 

health access points. I think we did 43,000 mental health telemedicine consults last year, or something like that. So there are challenges to being able to find the psychologists and the psychiatrists 

where you need them. 

The ability to pay more and pay closer to going rates that has 

been authorized has, as I understand it, made a difference. So we 

are seeing less attrition of some of those folks than what we have 

seen in the past. But there is no question that it is a sub-segment 

of really a national issue of having enough mental health workers 

across this country. 

Mr. YOUNG. General, I know that the American Red Cross has 

a program of working with medical doctors, surgeons, to volunteer 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
131 

their time in military hospitals. I have met a number of these doctors who are there gratis under the sponsorship of the Red Cross. 

Do you have a similar program in the VA system? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, let me ask Dr. Kussman, because I actually don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. People can volunteer as Red Cross volunteers in 

the same manner that you just described, to provide services. So 

on a case-by-case basis, we will take advantage of that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Does that include psychologists and psychiatrists? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Yes, sir, I believe that is true. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, let me go back to my question. Do we need to 

do anything? Do we need to do anything to help you fill this need? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, I don’t have a good answer of a specific requirement. I think right now we have budgeted the money. Part of 

the issue of PTSD I think is breaking down the stigma. We are 

working on that with our Vet Centers. We are going to expand 

that. By bringing in OIF/OEF people to work in our Vet Centers, 

it starts to give the younger servicemember a chance to identify 

with somebody that is really of their own age group and their own 

experience set. 

The other thing that I want to be able to do is more in the way 

of outreach and try to get folks in. The opportunity to be able to 

have access to our system for 5 years after returning from overseas 

I think is a tremendous opportunity for us to be able to get somebody in to try and avert the potential for problems down the road. 

We are working with the post-deployment health reassessment, so 

we have to really link in with the military because that is really 

our feeder organization, if you will. 

Mike, did you have a comment? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Yes, sir. 

As the secretary said, we are aggressively hiring people. We have 

been quite successful in that. We have hired, in the last 2 years, 

3,800 new mental health people, including social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists. One of the issues of the stigma of mental 

health is that people don’t want to come, or they don’t want to 

come to a mental health clinic. 

So what we have initiated is a very thorough and aggressive program of integrating mental health into primary care, where the individual might be more comfortable going to a primary care clinic 

for a backache or a knee ache, but really the real reason they need 

to come is for their mental health. That has been very successful 

as well. So there are a lot of initiatives to try to break down the 

barriers. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I really appreciate what you just said, doctor. 

The week before last, Beverly and I visited the wounded warrior 

battalion, the Marine battalion at Camp Pendleton. We had an opportunity to visit with some of the Marines who were there rehabilitating that we had actually been with when they were at Bethesda when they first came from the war zone. 

I remember that when they left Bethesda, they were determined—‘‘I don’t have any mental or emotional problems.’’ But a 

couple years later, being there at Camp Pendleton in the wounded 

warrior battalion, they finally admitted that, ‘‘Yes, I do need help.’’ 

These young guys are going to be coming to you very shortly, and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
132 

your system, so I do worry. I do want to do anything that we can 

to make sure that when they get to your system that they are 

taken care of, because I think it is going to be a more serious requirement even than we recognize today. 

Thank you very much for what you do. I just appreciate the 

chance to see you again, and thank you for all of your service to 

the Army and to the Department of Veterans Affairs and our heroes. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary PEAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Before we recognize Mr. Farr for his questions, 

one other person I would like to take the privilege of introducing 

is not at the front table, but who has been a tremendous leader for 

the VA, and that is Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield. Secretary 

Mansfield, I want to especially thank you for taking over the reins 

as acting secretary of the VA during a very important time when 

we were discussing large increases in the VA budget. That was a 

challenging process, and thank you for your leadership in that role 

and for your continuing leadership as deputy secretary. We are 

honored to have you here today. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to begin this year’s appropriation hearing, and especially thank you for upgrading the room that we are in. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Don’t get used to it. [Laughter.] 

BURIAL NEEDS FOR VETERANS

Mr. FARR. Mr. Secretary, as I read the budget, I see that the 

president has again cut the VA construction budget to half of what 

was appropriated in fiscal year 2008. I am sure you are aware that 

California has the longest list of potential major construction 

projects. If you add them up, they exceed the total proposed for the 

budget in all VA construction. 

So as a concerned Californian, particularly one that has been trying to really reach out to this expanded veteran community in the 

greater Monterey Bay area, I am wondering if you are aware of a 

major construction project in the out-years at the former Fort Ord 

which would serve as a community-based outreach, and if you 

would pledge to make sure that in those out-years planning, in the 

FYDP-type things, that there is adequate funding for this project 

at Fort Ord for the VA–DOD joint clinic there. 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, sir, I don’t know the specifics of that clinic, or where it is in the out-years, but I am a proponent of DOD– 

VA sharing. I have been to that clinic on Monterey before, so I 

know that area. I have also walked the grounds of the old Fort 

Ord, so I am familiar with the area and the environment. I would 

certainly look to making sure that we can serve our veterans in the 

most effective and efficient way possible there. 

Mr. FARR. Well, if you walked it, that is incredible, because it is 

40 square miles, but I think you are aware that it is the largest 

military base ever closed in a BRAC round, and there is certainly 

a lot of opportunity. The land is still in federal ownership, to use 

it for VA efforts. 

Part of that land has been set aside and designated as a cemetery. Mr. Tuerk has been out there for a wonderful meeting out 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
133 

there with everybody, and he certainly recognizes the value and 

the importance of it. I was just wondering, given your mention of 

the critical importance of burial needs for our vets, and the fact 

that there is a density threshold now—this 170,000 veterans—and 

you do it by these 70-mile radii—that there is consideration of lowering that density threshold. 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, sir, as of this year I think we are going 

to be at about 84 percent. Our objective is to get to 90 percent, and 

then I think when we hit that strategic objective, we start to look 

at how do we expand it and offer burial services to even a wider 

group of underserved veterans. 

Mr. FARR. Well, what we are talking about is how do you reach 

out to those rural areas. I am very critical of the fact that in California, if you went up the central valley, and if you draw a 70-mile 

radius, you go from Nevada to the Pacific Ocean, except that very 

few people live in the central valley. They all live along the coast, 

and we don’t have any burial sites along the coast. Fort Ord is a 

place where we are putting together a private-public partnership to 

have a state grant. I don’t need to consume the committee’s time 

on that. 

The other issue, and I just want you to be aware of it because 

I am working on it, I am really intrigued by the fact that in your 

former position as Army surgeon general you have the unique skillset of being in both DoD and now VA—if you are going to be able 

to break down the stovepipes that exist between those two agencies, particularly as it comes for VA health care. I wondered what 

changes you would make in how DOD deals with the VA or viceversa. Have you got any ideas yet on how to break down some of 

those stovepipes? 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, sir, I think the chairman acknowledged 

Secretary Mansfield. He has been working essentially a weekly 

meeting or twice a week meetings with DOD. I think there has 

been a lot of progress in this area. I think there is more to be 

made. I think we need to work our IT systems, and in March I am 

expecting to see the study come back to talk about our way ahead 

in terms of our combined IT systems. 

If you go out to North Chicago, and I haven’t been there yet, but 

I am going, where we are looking at a federal shared facility between VA, co-managed VA and DOD. There are a number of places 

around the country where that just makes eminent sense, and we 

need to really work through that North Chicago as a pilot to understand the issues. And there may be some legislative support that 

we need—I am not sure exactly yet—to be able to enable that kind 

of a cooperative effort. 

But I think there are great opportunities for us to move forward. 

I have met with the secretary of the Air Force just recently within 

the last 2 days, and I signed a joint agreement with the secretary 

of the Army. So I think we can move forward. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that. I look forward 

to working with you. That clinic at Fort Ord is just that. We still 

have about 7,000 uniformed personnel now at the Defense Language Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School and some of the 

other military footprints there. And we are trying to joint locate 

with the RCI, the residential community, so that essentially the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
134 

families of soldiers and the veterans can share in facilities. I think 

we get a much bigger bang for the buck, so I appreciate your leadership on that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will have a few more 

questions in the second round. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, thank you, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

General Peake, we are glad you are there. We know you are a 

man of great skill and integrity, and yet this is a challenging job. 

I don’t know why, but for some reason over the years we have 

never done quite as well by the VA as I think we should have. That 

last year was changed by Chairman Edwards to say, hey, we have 

to do better. 

For some reason, we have underfunded this area. I am very 

pleased about last year’s budget and this year’s budget. But I am 

concerned about two things. In the out-years after 2009—and I can 

understand, and I am not blaming you for this. I want to blame 

OMB. Let me blame OMB, okay? We see that over the next 5 

years, there is going to be—it is $20 billion below the levels needed 

to maintain what the VA is doing today. Is that correct? You are 

below current services? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, I have looked at that. My understanding 

is that that is a calculated placeholder by OMB. The way we will 

build our 2010 budget is based on our forecast. 

Mr. DICKS. What you think is really necessary? 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir. And I think we are getting better at 

forecasting. It is one of the things that we have been asked about 

in the past. When I have looked at the data, I think we are getting 

better at being able to tell you what we are going to be asked to 

do in terms of work, and there be able to appropriately budget. 

AMERICAN LAKE, WASHINGTON

Mr. DICKS. Now, Mr. Farr brought up the construction funding. I think the need was $1.1 billion, Mr. Chairman, for this year, but 

the request is reduced to $587 million. Now, we have concerns in 

the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Farr is concerned about California, and 

rightfully so. We have concerns in the Pacific Northwest where we 

have seismic issues on some of our facilities, particularly at American Lake. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit 

two or three questions about local projects so I don’t take the time 

of the committee. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection. 

TRANSITION TO VA

Mr. DICKS. These are of concern. But we have some seismic 

issues, and we are worried that if this thing gets delayed even further, at American Lake and at Seattle, we could have a big event 

out there, which we have had in the past. So I hope you can take 

a look at those things. 

The one thing that really bothered me in this whole discussion 

last year about Walter Reed and the VA is this transition. We were 

just talking about this. But it is so important to try to work out 

a way to make that transition. I think the Army has the most difVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
135 

ficulty here. It is amazing to me how in the Army, the level of benefits is at one level, and then the Navy and the Air Force are up 

here. And the VA is up here, in terms of what these kids finally 

get. 

But the Army has low-balled this, and they can’t get away with 

this anymore. But that transition from the Army wounded warrior 

units now, over to the VA, when they decide. They go through this 

process. They decide that he can no longer serve in the Army. 

There is not a place for him, and then he goes into the VA system. 

How is that working? I know that is where we added a lot of people 

to try to get that under control. 

Can you tell us how you think that is working? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, first of all, there is a pilot program that 

started on November 27, where those wounded warriors going 

through the physical evaluation board, the medical evaluation 

board to have their fitness for duty determined will have their fitness for duty determined by the military. However, all of their 

medical exams for rating purposes will include not only the 

unfitting condition, but any potentially claimable condition. 

We will do that evaluation, and then Admiral Cooper has centralized the rating for that down at St. Petersburg, so they will get 

a consistent rating. 

Mr. DICKS. Is this just the VA? Or is this the Army as well? I 

mean, is there a way to have one evaluation? 

Secretary PEAKE. That is the point. That is what this is. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

Secretary PEAKE. The VA does the physical evaluation and the 

rating. The military just takes the evidence and says you are unfit 

or you are fit for military duty. If they are unfit for military duty, 

that particular unfitting condition, the rating that Admiral Cooper’s people have done, will determine whether they have a severance or whether they get medically retired. 

So it is out of the hands of the military. It is one consistent rating with one medical examination process. So that is the pilot. 

Mr. DICKS. In the old days it was two. You would go through the 

Army process, and if you were let go, then you would go over to 

VA and they would start over. 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. So we are trying to put that together? 

Secretary PEAKE. Absolutely, in this pilot. 

The other thing that we have done, really, is with the BDD program, the benefits delivery discharge program that has been going 

on for some time, but has only really picked up steam with the 

OIF/OEF experience, is that when a soldier, not necessarily being 

medically retired, but says ‘‘I am getting out of the service, and I 

have some potentially claimable conditions, things that I want to 

get evaluated,’’ then they can see a VA counselor 180 days before 

they leave the service. 

The VA counselor right there at the post, camp or station—we 

do it in 153 different locations—that VA counselor can start working that claim, get the physical examination done, get them into a 

fast-track rating system, which we are doing. And by the way, 

those are two of our paperless evaluation pilots. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
136 

So that by the time the soldier gets home, we are shooting for 

60, where I think our time has been about 85 days. But they get 

a check right away, as opposed to when they finally go home and 

then start to try to pull all the stuff together, all their paperwork, 

and then get adjudicated, where that can really stretch out. So I 

think we are making some progress. 

Mr. DICKS. And one final thing. I know that community-based 

outpatient clinics are sometimes criticized at OMB again. But I 

think these things really work. We have a situation in the State 

of Washington where we have the entire Olympic peninsula, and 

a veteran at Neah Bay would have to get up at 2 a.m. in the morning to get to Port Angeles for the 4 a.m. departure to go all the way 

into Seattle. 

We just got started out there, and I appreciate the VA’s work on 

this, where the VA works out of the hospital in Port Angeles and 

the Coast Guard clinic. This program is working very well. People 

really appreciate that. However, I think a full clinic would be better, and I put a bill in to authorize it and fund it. But to me, and 

we have had accidents on the roads out there, you get dangerous 

winter conditions on the roads. I think these situations for remote 

areas should still be a valid consideration. I know it has to cost less 

than sending people to Seattle. 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, we agree with you. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. 

There is some question right now on whether there is a quorum 

being maintained on the floor. Staff is checking to see whether 

some of us might need to go over to the floor for that quorum, but 

in the meantime we will continue on until we get a clear message. 

Mr. Wamp, with my personal apologies for the inconveniences 

caused you by this process between the committee and the floor, I 

am privileged to recognize you for whatever time you would like to 

take for your questions. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are a class act, and 

don’t you apologize to me. But to you seven, we all apologize. We 

don’t even really know what the rest of the afternoon is going to 

be like, but thank you very much for your time and your patience. 

Please remember, too, when I began, that I am as green to this 

subcommittee as this carpet. 

CARES

This is new, so when I start in a parochial example, in that context, please understand I am not parochial, and I will try not to 

be. Everybody that represents a district for 14 years has a lot of 

parochial interests. But I am going to use this example as part of 

a bigger picture, just to start on the front of reforms that I mentioned in my opening statement. 

Mr. Secretary, I am interested in CARES and some of the recommended changes with the CBOCs and with areas of service that 

are not fully and accessible. Mr. Dicks just talked about an example of travel. In my backyard, we have a very strong outpatient 

clinic, a CBOC that has been expanded—and is servicing a whole 

lot of veterans in 18 counties. It has been listed as one of the top 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
137 

five areas that doesn’t have a hospital, but has a very strong outpatient clinic. 

In CARES, they recommended a couple of new CBOCs in that 

service area by 2012, but then I am looking at the 5-year plan and 

they are not there. So I just wonder how the reforms of CARES are 

going nationally in terms of trying to meet some of the goals that 

you have, and then I will follow up with another question you and 

I talked about in my office. 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir. Regarding CBOCs and CARES, I 

think there were 156 new CBOCs that were part of the CARES 

process. We add the 64 that are going in, the 51 that are coming 

up in 2009. My understanding is that of that 56, there are 24 that 

have been decided, really because of changing demographics or 

whatever, are not needed. That would still leave 10 after 2009. I 

honestly don’t know if that is yours or not, but we would certainly 

be willing to work through that. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, in a technical question, do the construction 

budget reductions affect even meeting the needs of these 10 or others? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, the CBOCs are generally not major construction. In many cases, we are leasing, which I think is a smart 

thing to be able to do, because then you can shift as the population 

needs shift and change. And we have actually seen some of that. 

So it isn’t necessarily tied. 

Now, there are CBOCs that we have built. In those cases, if it 

is under $10 million, then it is minor construction. If it is over $10 

million, it needs to be authorized as major construction. 

Mr. WAMP. Because I am under my 5 minutes, I may come back 

to that later, if the time allows, and they go vote or whatever, because I have other questions about the construction piece of it. 

MENTAL HEALTH AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Let me jump back to mental health for a minute, because we 

have talked about this as well. There is a connection, everyone understands, between the mental health aspects of veterans care and 

the homeless population, which is in decline. And there are a whole 

lot of misperceptions about how many homeless people that are 

veterans are out there without benefits. 

But it is true, isn’t it, that the benefits actually are there for 

these veterans, and in most cases if the veteran would take advantage of the benefits, or if they might need medication to take care 

of any mental health issue that they have, they would then be in 

the capacity to go and seek the treatment. Whereas, we end up 

with quite a few in our homeless veteran population that are either 

not on their medication, are incapable, or not coherent enough to 

come in and get the care that is available under these kind of numbers. Correct? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, you are absolutely right. I will tell you that 

we have had a push to get the homeless to be able to access their 

benefits. Admiral Cooper, if you have the numbers? I was talking 

to Pete Dougherty, our homeless director, and he talked about 

17,000 homeless recently that were able to access their benefits. 

I will tell you also, when I was out at the homeless standdown 

at the VA medical center in Washington, D.C., I spent some time 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
138 

talking to our outreach person who goes under the bridges here in 

Washington, D.C. to try to identify homeless veterans and encourage them, pull them into the system, into the shelters and into the 

health care system. I think we got 34 folks to sign up into our electronic health record, that are homeless people that can access these 

things. 

As I believe I mentioned in my opening comments, in 2007 we spent about $1.6 billion on health care for homeless veterans. Even 

though it is going down, it is still too many, but we are really aggressive in our programs and we will continue to be. 

Mr. WAMP. I know the chairman is concerned about the research 

piece of this, and I haven’t even studied the research flow well 

enough to understand all the aspects of how it might be used, but 

one thing that you and I talked about is this head trauma issue 

coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan—particularly Iraq right now— 

and the long-term consequences of that. 

Are we spending enough? Does this committee need to try to do 

more for the research today to determine w we need to be 4, 5, or 

6 years from now based on head trauma and long-term problems 

from stroke to clots in the brain—all the aftermath of this kind of 

IED damage to not just the troops that are hit, but the troops that 

are close to the troops that are hit. 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, you know, our four polytrauma centers 

really started out as traumatic brain injury centers. That was their 

focus. Of the 487 patients that have come to our polytrauma centers from the active duty side, 460 of them really had predominantly traumatic brain injuries. 

So I guess my point is that we have a longstanding and aggressive interest in this issue. Further, we are working very closely 

with DOD because obviously we share a common interest there. 

You may have perhaps met General-select Laurie Sutton, who is 

going to be heading that. We are going to provide a deputy to her 

to make sure that we can continue to integrate our efforts in PTSD 

and TBI. 

There are about $252 million of our research budget that is focused on these OIF/OEF issues, to include TBI and MPTSD, and 

really that is something where we are looking for the overlap there. 

So we have I think in mental health across the board extra-mural 

funding, which was about $100 million. So we do have a very 

strong interest in it. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, why don’t I yield back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

BUDGET PROJECTIONS

Mr. Secretary, back in 2005 and over a period of several years, 

one of the challenges we faced was that even though on a bar 

graph the funding each year for the VA discretionary budget, and 

particularly VA medical care, was going up, it was not going up as 

quickly as the increasing number of veterans needing health care, 

added to the medical inflation numbers which I guess traditionally 

had been 200 percent higher than the CPI. 

And I know the VA has worked very hard on its modeling, and 

again it is not an exact science. It is an art and a science and economics. But could you tell me how comfortable you are with the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
139 

projections? What assumptions did you make in the 2009 budget in 

terms of the increasing number of veterans needing health care, 

outpatient, in-patient? How comfortable are you with those projections, within a certain parameter? And what inflation numbers did 

you use, both for medical care and for construction? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, I can talk to the medical care projection. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Secretary PEAKE. If we could put that graph up. I know we have 

had a history where our projections have been questioned, and 

maybe for good reason. So what this shows is the variance from the 

original estimate for each year, going back to 2001. What you see 

is, as we have come to 2005, 2006, and 2007, we are within 1 percent of what was estimated. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
140 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 42754A.082
141 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 42754A.083
142 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 42754A.084
143 

I asked the question, because I wanted to be comfortable when 

I came to you, that we had decent projections. This looks to me like 

it is. You know, most of this is from Millman, which is probably 

the best medical actuary available. They understand us and they 

know us. So they have been involved with doing these projections. 

There are 12 percent or so that is outside of the Millman projection, but this number includes even that 12 percent that is outside. 

So we have been accurate even with those that have to be taken 

off-model. So in terms of being able to come to you and say I think 

we have some confidence in where we are going in terms of our 

projections, this gives me some confidence. 

The other point I would make is that even within that now, the 

333,000 OEF/OIF, you know, we have put some Kentucky windage 

in there because we want to make sure that we don’t underestimate there. So we think we have 14 percent growth, and we have 

budgeted 21 percent in terms of the cost, because we want to make 

sure if something develops we are ready to do it. 

I think we are—again, if you have that other graph—we have 

confidence that we are going to not come in over the OEF/OIF 

folks. Looking back now, you know, back in 2005 and 2006, my understanding is we may have missed it because we really didn’t take 

it into account. But I think that we have the data to really support 

what we are doing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What about the medical inflation factor? Is that 

something that the VA must follow OMB dictates? Or are you 

given the flexibility to estimate medical inflation? If so, what factor 

did you use for that? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, my understanding is the number is 4.63 

percent medical inflation. As you know, we are 5.9 percent more 

than really the augmented funding that you all gave us last year. 

So even if you say that 4.63 percent of that is going to be taken 

up by inflation, we are still a couple of percentage points above 

that for new initiatives and so forth. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For medical care? 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir, for medical care. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Okay. So 4.63 percent—do we know what 

the private health care sector uses? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, that is the national—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is the national health care inflation factor? 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Who sets that? Does anyone know? Dr. 

Kussman, would you know who sets the national health care inflation factor? Is that an independent private group? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I am sorry. I don’t know what company, but I 

think it is from—— 

Secretary PEAKE. You know, my experience in the Army is that 

we would look for Millman. They do it for lots of people and they 

will tell you that they measure it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Could I ask you about the inflation factor 

for construction? We are seeing it in highway construction, military 

construction—in some parts of the country inflation is as significant as 15 percent. At least on the MILCON side of our subcommittee’s responsibility, we learned a couple of years ago that the OMB 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
144 

magically dictated that military construction inflation would be 2.4 

percent per year. It doesn’t pass the smile test or the laugh test. 

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION

Can you tell me what kind of a factor you are using for your construction inflation? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, I don’t have that information. Perhaps 

somebody at the table does. I will tell you that we are concerned 

about the cost of cement, the cost of steel, and the cost in the competition with people that actually can do the labor. For us, it says 

wait a minute. Where—in the future, are we going to be running 

into billion-dollar hospitals, and who can afford them? 

So going back to Mr. Wamp’s point and Congressman Dicks’s 

point, this issue of maybe looking at how do we leverage these 

CBOCs in a different model is going to be important as we look our 

way forward. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does OMB require you to use a certain inflation factor for construction? 

Mr. HENKE. No, sir, not that I am aware of. We have a number 

of different commercial indices that range between 23 percent and 

37 percent in 2003 to 2007. 

Secretary PEAKE. I am just informed that we do market surveys 

of the local areas and we use a locality factor as we project our requirements. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have your estimates for your major construction 

projects, such as in Las Vegas and around the country, are those 

updated in the 2009 budget using the best estimates? Or are we 

going to have to make some adjustments upwards on those projects 

because of inflation? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Mr. Neary, who works with our Office of Construction, says that for Las Vegas we used the latest information, 

which was in 2008. 

Mr. NEARY. Las Vegas was funded in the 2008 budget, and we 

used the best information we had from a current market survey at 

the time, recognizing that when we come into a budget, we are 

some time away from a contract award. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Maybe what I would ask you is just that 

if you would monitor that. It is not the VA’s fault that construction 

costs are going up significantly all across the country. As we need 

to make adjustments as to what the real costs are, it would be nice 

to plan ahead. Perhaps we need to build-in for some of that before 

we pass the 2009 budget through this subcommittee. Maybe that 

would be helpful and we could work together on that. 

Mr. Farr, we have 7 minutes and 52 seconds, would you like to 

take several minutes to ask questions before we go? And then I am 

going to turn it over to Mr. Wamp to take whatever time. 

Would this vote be the vote that you don’t need to answer? Ms. 

Granger can then take whatever time she wants. 

Go ahead, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

I bet they will love having us out of the room. [Laughter.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
145 

PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

My brother-in-law is disabled, and he has really worked hard. I 

really wanted to thank you for your support. We finally got DOD 

to admit, one, that there are golf carts on courses that have to meet 

ADA standard, and therefore have to buy the specialty carts. I 

think that is going to be great for vets all over the country, particularly those that have spinal cord injury. 

I don’t know if it was last fall, DARPA had a demonstration 

downstairs in this building. What they are doing is remarkable research on prosthetics. I just wondered, I mean with your medical 

background, is VA doing anything to leverage the prosthetic research? We found that it is not a big private sector research area 

because there is not a big market. 

It is very expensive research, labor intensive, and there is certainly not a market big enough to support that. So it has to be subsidized research. I wonder if you have leveraged that with other 

federal agencies, DARPA and VA and others who might be involved 

to provide our wounded warriors with the latest advances in the 

DARPA research, and whatever research you are able to do also. 

Secretary PEAKE. Well, DARPA has its own funding. I have been 

involved with DARPA for a number of years in terms of their medical research. I know that they are into the myoelectric arms and 

the biofeedback mechanisms. I haven’t seen their most recent stuff, 

but the collaboration between DARPA and DOD and the VA I 

think is—— 

Mr. FARR. So when new technology comes out, it is very expensive. I think an arm was about $30,000. Is there an outreach to 

vets? I don’t know enough about production and all of that, whether you call them in to get the training or things like that, on a 

prosthesis? 

Secretary PEAKE. It goes a little bit to what I was saying before 

about meeting the different needs of different veterans. I had something to do with the amputee center getting started out there at 

Walter Reed, because what I wanted was these young kids that 

really should be treated like world-class athletes—they have their 

whole life ahead of them—to have every advantage that could go 

on. 

The VA’s history then was more of taking care of the diabetic 

amputee that is older—my age and older. That is a different requirement set. So where I see us now is the fact that we are merging that continuum of care, and we are leveraging contract support 

to make sure that our VA has everything that we need to be able 

to support these new myoelectric arms and all of the new computerized legs and so forth. 

I would also point out that a lot of people think that there are 

thousands and thousands of these major amputees. There are 

about 701 at the last count of major amputees. So we can take care 

of them, and we can customize what we need to do for any one of 

them. 

Mr. FARR. That center you created, I visited it. It is fantastic. 

That is where I got the idea, because you are training people on 

golf as an indoor rehab, but when they went out to the courses, 

they couldn’t get on them. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
146 

Secretary PEAKE. You ought to come to our winter games and 

you will see these young men and women out there skiing. 

Mr. FARR. So the question I think goes back to whether there 

were any resources to bring these vets back, money to fly you back 

to Washington to outfit you. And I thought that is just a dumbdumb—that we couldn’t pay for a plane ticket? 

Secretary PEAKE. I couldn’t agree with you more. I think that we 

have had some bureaucratic pieces there that we can overcome, 

given the numbers that we are talking about. Dr. Kussman is already addressing those on a one-by-one basis, but we can do a better job of making sure that people are enabled to do the right 

thing. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I like that answer. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

We now have 2 minutes and 49 seconds, so we are going to go 

vote. Mr. Wamp waited 12 years to get this gavel, so if you will 

promise to give it back, I will proudly give it to you and recognize 

you for continuation. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. I won’t even touch it, Mr. Chairman. It will be sitting 

right here when you get back. [Laughter.] 

Secretary Peake, let me just say anecdotally before I ask a brief 

question, and maybe move down the line here while the chairman 

is gone, you have been on the job for 6 weeks. I mean, I don’t know 

of anybody with a life experience more well-suited for your position. 

However the president talked you into doing this, I just want to 

thank you for accepting this service. 

You sit here as if you have been in this job for years, because 

of your life experience. It really is impressive. It is nice every now 

and then in this city to see a round peg in a round hole, instead 

of a square peg in a round hole, which you see often. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Back to the construction and the reforms, because I think in 

many ways this is at the heart of where we need to go. As I said 

to you, I was not as concerned about the president’s budget request 

on construction as I was research, because I have somewhat of a 

built-in thought that veterans need as many options as they can 

possibly have on how to receive their health care, and the notion 

that it has to be inside of a veteran’s ‘‘box’’ to me is like a 20th 

century mindset and we are in the 21st century. 

Number one, we have all of it, from telemedicine to, as you say, 

medical records, and all these transitions with technology and information that would allow people, frankly, to receive their care in 

a much more efficient way than traveling somewhere to get it in 

a veterans BOCs. And that is my problem. 

A couple of years ago we had a bad wreck in a van driven by volunteers, transporting our veterans from our out-patient clinic to 

the hospital 2 hours away, in very treacherous weather conditions. 

They have to go over the mountain, and it is one of those things 

that logic defies. Why would we do that, when in fact we have a 

$500 million public hospital in our city with available beds? Keep 

that veterans hospital in Murfreesboro, Tennessee open. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
147 

Make sure that it is available so the veteran can go there if that 

is what they want. But if that veteran had a piece of paper in his 

hand that said, if I want to go to Erlanger Medical Center and get 

this care, it is going to be reimbursed at the proper Medicare reimbursement rate, or whatever we decide, but that gives the veterans 

more options, and then you don’t have to worry about steel increasing by 20 percent and concrete increasing by 30 percent, and the 

availability of construction products. 

So that is a reform that would make sense to me—empowering 

veterans to use the providers that are available to them, because 

their family can come see them. Their quality of life and their recovery is much better. This danger of transport is eliminated, et 

cetera. Is that the philosophy of CARES that I thought was part 

of the reforms in the VA? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, I think that we have ways and some constituencies to work with to be able to do that kind of good work. 

There are areas that we are looking at that right now—in Harlingen, Texas, as an example, where we don’t need a new hospital. 

We need to be able to take care of the folks locally. If they need 

something that we can do better than anybody up in San Antonio, 

we will move them. 

In Columbus, we have a super CBOC there because of the operating rooms and day surgery programs that are about to open 

here—September, I believe. We have a great model for doing the 

kinds of things that you are talking about. One of the things that 

we want to do is make sure that those veterans aren’t just out 

there shopping, though—where we are paying for that care, that 

they are going to have the quality, and that we can assure the 

quality, and make sure that that information is part of their continuous longitudinal patient record. 

So there are some pieces to it that we need to work on, but I 

think it is the direction that we need to be going in. 

Mr. WAMP. I don’t want to lead you, but wouldn’t you say that 

political decisions on veterans construction in the past has led to 

certain inefficiencies today? 

Secretary PEAKE. One could ask why we have certain facilities in 

certain places. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. One other, and then I think Mr. Crenshaw will 

be ready. 

Blue Cross, for instance, one of their big offices is in my hometown as well, and really has a whole subsidiary now on IT and 

health records. Where is the VA compared to the private sector on 

this issue? As we make this a big issue today in your budget request, are we ahead or behind the private sector? 

Secretary PEAKE. Sir, we are ahead of the private sector. At a 

local level, you may find a good patient record and so forth. When 

you look at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, mostly that is billing information. When we talk about clinical information, Dr. Kussman and 

the team that he has is leading the way. 

Now, do we have an issue? Yes. We are on a must-pay system. 

It is not Web-based. We are going to need to migrate that system 

in the future, and that is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of 

dollars. When we get that done, it is going to be even better. It will 

allow us potentially to reach into the local doctor’s office and allow 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
148 

them the opportunity to update the patient’s record when we buy 

that care from them. 

And we really need to look with DOD, because as we migrate, 

there is an opportunity for us to come together in not necessarily 

the same system but to have absolutely computable, interoperable 

medical information on our patients. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I want to thank my Republican colleagues for coming and attending this important hearing today, and I yield to Mr. Crenshaw for 

any questions he may have. 

OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. You will get thrown in the fire right 

away, and I appreciate your service. 

I have a couple of questions to start with that really relate to my 

district. Dr. Kussman, when you talk about health, it seems like 

every year I ask this question and try to get updated on a couple 

of things. One is the outpatient clinic that has been proposed for 

Northeast Florida. Everybody knows how important outpatient 

clinics are. We kind of move in a way, just like the health arena 

is, from in-patient to outpatient. 

And 11 years ago, as you probably know, the decision was made 

to expand an outpatient clinic in Jacksonville, Florida—probably 

one of the largest populations of veterans are in Northeast and 

South Georgia. It has kind of been a combination of changing 

plans, bad luck with hurricanes, increasing costs of construction, 

some political disagreements back in the community. But it has 

been 11 years and people are so frustrated. I ask about this every 

year. 

Part of it, I guess, you can attribute to the general bureaucratic 

problems, but some of these things are maybe beyond your control, 

but it is almost embarrassing sometimes when people say, well, 

how are we doing on the clinic. The plans are great. Actually, the 

plans get better and better, but nothing happens. 

So I guess my question is, can you kind of give us an update on 

where we are? Maybe any benchmark dates that you can give us 

some encouragement as to where we are? 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, thank you for the question. As you alluded 

to, it is a long, drawn-out story of efforts and not getting to exactly 

where we want to be. As you know, we are going to increase the 

clinic by about 30 percent in size. But to give you some dates, I 

think there is an end in sight here. The dates that I have been informed—we have been working with the city. We very much appreciate what the city has done with the Shands Medical Center and 

others related to parking and all those different things. 

My understanding is that in March of this year, we will finalize 

the contract with Shands. A few months later, we will issue the solicitation for offers. We are going to lease the property, or have a 

developer develop it and not build it ourselves. It will be leased 

property. And then we hope that by next year, we will have awarded the lease, and this will be completed by September, 2011. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And we are kind of on-track as far as that goes? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
149 

Secretary PEAKE. I just got this today. If we don’t make it, let 

me know. We will monitor it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I will see you again next year. 

Secretary PEAKE. No, no. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, we have a few years. But that is encouraging. I know it has been a combination of things, but you can 

imagine that the metro population is pretty frustrated. So thank 

you for that update. 

VETERANS CEMETERY IN JACKSONVILLE

And the other is another kind of local issue. As you know, we 

have been working on the—I guess I will ask Under Secretary 

Tuerk about this—the veterans cemetery, which we authorized 

back in 2000. We have made progress. We went through all the site 

selections, environmental studies. I think we are about to acquire 

the land. And then originally if the land is acquired, I think in this 

year’s budget there is money to kind of fast-track the construction. 

The hope was that by the end of this year, if everything goes according to plan, we could actually have the fast-track take place, 

and actually have some burial sites open by the end of the year. 

So from your perspective, I try to talk to the city from time to 

time. I know that there are some negotiations going on. But could 

you give me an update from your perspective on how we are doing? 

Can we get to that point in terms of the fast-track construction and 

actually—because I know there is already someone there to oversee this—so everything is moving in the right direction. But I just 

want to see what you have to say about where we are. 

Under Secretary TUERK. I am happy to give you an update, Congressman. It is a pretty good story. We are on track. We don’t yet 

own the site. As you know, the city of Jacksonville owns the 568– 

acre site that we are going to develop. We expect to have received 

an offer to sell title to the property from the city by the end of February. We will then be in a position to actually take title in late 

spring or early summer. 

We are not waiting, though, to get title before we started design 

of the cemetery. In fact, we let the contract for design activities last 

August. I have some materials here I can share with you after the 

hearing if you would like to see the sketches and drawings. Design 

is not final yet, but we are well along. 

Right now, we anticipate breaking ground in August of this year. 

We are on track. It is going to be close. It is going to be tough, but 

we are on track to have our first burials before the end of this year. 

Right now, we are scheduling December, 2008 to have our first burials in the so-called fast-track, or the early turnover, area. So we 

are moving along crisply. There is a lot that can go wrong, but so 

far so good. It is my objective to get that cemetery open before this 

year is over. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is great news. I have been kind of pushing 

the city. The city council is still—and I think they are on track to 

have the title transferred. 

Under Secretary TUERK. I appreciate that. We appreciate your 

support and help. We had some issues to work through with the 

city in terms of the boundaries, but we have resolved those matters. I think we are in good shape now. If I may, we will be in comVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
150 

munication. If we could use some help in dealing with the city 

council, I would like to be able to call on you, if possible. 

I might also note that the cemetery director, one of my leaders 

in the NCA headquarters office of a construction business here, and 

a representative from the design firm, the AE firm that is designing the cemetery, are going to escort some of your staff members 

around the grounds on Monday, so you will have a good feel 

through your staff about what this site is going to look like. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Right. Thank you so much. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

The gentlewoman from Texas will be recognized, but let me say 

there are 13 minutes left on the first of eight suspension votes. We 

may be able to finish on this side. 

Ms. Granger. 

SUICIDE RATE AMONG VETERANS

Ms. GRANGER. Great. Thank you. 

I know that we are all alarmed at the increase in seeing the suicide rate among veterans. There was recently a story in the Dallas 

Morning News about two veterans who committed suicide in the 

Dallas-Forth Worth area just within days of being released from 

the Dallas VA Medical Center. 

So I have two questions. The first one is what is the VA doing 

to determine what is causing this rise in the suicide rate, and of 

course what steps you are doing to address it. The other part of it 

has to do with the percentage of those veterans who are members 

of the National Guard and Reserve. 

According to the DOD data, approximately 28 percent of the 

forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were National Guard and 

Reserve members. But a recently released report found that over 

half the veterans who commit suicide—half—were guardsmen and 

reservists. So I would ask if you are also looking at that particular 

problem and what you are finding out. 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, ma’am. If I could address the second issue 

first. 

Ms. GRANGER. Yes. 

Secretary PEAKE. I am familiar with this data. What we did to 

get that data was to look at everybody that was separated from the 

service. Of those that are separated from the service, those are the 

ones that become veterans and then we can get information on. 

And really, that is about half and half, active and reserve. So you 

still have a lot of active duty guys and gals on active duty. 

This study you are talking about where we had 144 suicides was 

about split between active and reserve. So it really doesn’t show 

that there is a much larger number among the reserves. It looks 

like it is about similar, pretty close. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for that. 

Secretary PEAKE. Yes, ma’am. 

The other thing is to tell you that we really are doing quite a lot 

about this. We are very concerned about it. Even 144, and we really look at age, match and controls with the general population. It 

is not way out of bounds if you just look at the young men in that 

cohort. It is similar to what the civilian population is, so it is not 

way out. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
151 

But you say, boy, these are our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and we shouldn’t have anybody committing suicide, is what 

we would like. So we have the suicide hotline that has been put 

in place; 23,000 calls to the suicide hotline; about 400 rescues; 250 

active duty members have called that, or in that ballpark. 

We feel very good that has been put in place. Dr. Kussman has 

put suicide prevention coordinators in every single one of our medical centers. There has been a policy to train all of our VA employees about the issues of suicide. People get asked about it, so they 

can get screened for that, as well as PTSD and TBI, when they 

come in to see us. 

So there is a concerted effort. I think part of this outreach piece 

is to get people in. It is very interesting that that study did suggest 

to us that if you come in and avail yourself of being seen at the 

VA, that it is a lower incidence of suicide. Now, you have to look 

at the numbers carefully in terms of statistics, but we want more 

people to come and avail themselves of our services, so we want to 

push our outreach. 

There have been 1.5 million people deployed. About 800,000 overall have separated from the service. About 300,000 have come in 

to be seen by the VA. That is 500,000 out there that haven’t yet, 

but we can see them under the way the rules are. So we want to 

encourage those that need it, and educate their families to say, 

hey, you maybe ought to go. It is okay. We want to break down the 

stigma. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. And thank you for your service. I am 

like Congressman Wamp, very impressed with your background 

and how much good you can do in the position you are in right 

now. Thank you. 

Secretary PEAKE. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Carter. 

OVERPAYMENT OF BENEFITS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you very much. 

First, let me thank everybody for being here, and what you do 

for the veterans. There is nothing more important, as far as I am 

concerned where I live, in taking care of our veterans and making 

sure they have the best. I just have a question that came up last 

year. We talked about overpayment of benefits. Admiral Cooper, we 

talked about it last year. At that time, there was some indication 

that—and we had a follow-up visit about that also—that it really 

wasn’t an issue at the time. 

But then on September 28, 2007, the IG report indicated that 

wasn’t necessarily the case. This report stated that delay on the 

part of the VA regional office employees resulted in $5.8 million for 

only 209 cases. There were an additional $481.4 million in overpayments, of which Veterans Benefits Administration staff could have 

avoided $50.8 million had they processed adjustments promptly. 

VBA’s emphasis on incoming claims created a priority list, and adjusting existing claims was low on that list. And last year, this 

committee provided for 3,100 new claims processors. 

Now, in light of that information, first I guess I would like to 

know how many more claims processors are involved in this process of that 3,100 than we had last year when we discussed this. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
152 

How are these new processors helping address this backlog? And 

if the IG found $55 million in avoidable overpayments so easily, 

why is it that we were told last year that this wasn’t a problem? 

Mr. COOPER. I can tell you that we have looked into it, and are 

continuing to look into it. We are taking some of those people coming aboard, the 3,100. We have been hiring very fast, having gotten 

a start on that at the beginning of January of last year. We have 

to do a lot of training to get those people to be able to fully contribute to the total process. 

On your question about overpayment, it is a matter of quality. 

We are looking at it very closely. It continues to happen. Hopefully, 

we see it less than in the past, but I can only assure you that we 

continue to look at it, and are doing a lot of training with these 

new people coming on board. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, these overpayments create a crisis in the veteran’s life, because he gets overpaid. He operates on that money. 

And then he gets a notice that he was overpaid and he needs to 

reimburse, and it creates a crisis for the veteran. I am not trying 

to say I don’t want to pay a veteran as much as I can get in his 

hands, but then to get him out there with something he owes the 

government, and then tell him he has to put it back, puts a crisis 

on the veteran and his family. 

I think quite a few in my district have raised this issue with me. 

It has caused a real domestic crisis in their families with their 

wives and children. So that is why the question was asked last 

year. I think it really needs to be looked at because they have 

enough stress in their lives without having to owe the government 

a bunch of money. I think it is really important that we try to be 

accurate on that. So I just wanted to raise that issue again this 

year. 

Secretary PEAKE. I appreciate it. It does talk a little bit to the 

complexity of our disability system, and why we need to figure out 

how to simplify it. One of the things that we have done is put an 

RFI out for rules-based engines to get into this paper, this process 

that I mentioned in my opening remarks, so that we can start to 

have this stuff digitized with rule-based engines. Hopefully, with a 

more simplified system, we will be able to have more accuracy and 

more automated checking, instead of just somebody looking at 

reams and reams of paper. So I appreciate the point. 

Mr. CARTER. I thank you. My whole point is to make sure that 

that veteran’s life is better. That puts a crisis in his life. 

I thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you. 

Now, we have 4 minutes left on this first vote. I am going to go 

vote. The chairman has indicated from the floor that he does desire 

to come back. Hopefully, the remaining seven votes will be reduced 

to 2 minutes each, which will shorten the time that you will have 

to wait. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards follows:] 

VET CENTERS

A year ago the Department announced that 23 new Vet Centers would be opened 

to make ‘‘vital services more accessible for returning veterans.’’ Can you tell me 

what criteria are used to determine the location of Vet Centers? What resources do 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
153 

you need for a successful Vet Center in terms of space, people, and services? Why 

doesn’t the budget request contain any new Vet Centers for FY 2009? 

Question. Can you tell me what criteria are used to determine the location of Vet 

Centers? 

Response. The site selection was based on an evidence-based analysis of demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Defense Defense 

Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and with input from the seven Readjustment Counseling Service Regional Offices. The main criteria for new Vet Center site selection 

are the veteran population; area veteran market penetration by Vet Centers; geographical proximity to VA medical centers; and community based outreach clinics 

in the Vet Center’s Veterans Service Area (VSA). This analysis included information 

from the DMDC as to the current number of separated OEF/OIF veterans and the 

reported distribution of home zip codes of separated OEF/OIF veterans as well as 

the number who were married and those with children. Special consideration for relatively under-served veterans residing in rural areas at a distance from other VA 

facilities is given in site selection for some of the new Vet Centers. 

Question. What resources do you need for a successful Vet Center in terms of 

space, people, and services? 

Response. Vet Centers are small community-based leased facilities with a staff of 

4 to 5 team members including a team leader, office manager, and 2 to 3 counselors. 

Space requirements are approximately 600 square feet per staff member, and include confidential office space suitable for provision of professional counseling services for individuals, groups and families. The annual cost for a new Vet Center is 

approximately $380,000. Funding for these centers are covered in the Medical Care 

appropriations. 

Question. Why doesn’t the budget request contain any new Vet Centers for FY 

2009? 

Response. It is anticipated that the 23 VET Centers coming on line in FY 2008 

will be adequate through FY 2009. VA will monitor the change in workload for the 

VET Centers to ensure that actual experience is in line with estimates. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
154 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 42754A.085
155 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 42754A.086
156 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 42754A.087
157 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 42754A.088
158 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 42754A.089
159 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 42754A.090
160 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 42754A.091
161 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 42754A.092
162 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 42754A.093
163 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 42754A.094
164 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 42754A.095
165 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 42754A.096
166 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 42754A.097
167 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 42754A.098
168 

MAJOR CONSTRUCTION—GRAVESITE EXPANSIONS

The budget includes $83.4 million for gravesite expansion at three existing National Cemeteries. What were the criteria used for selection of these three sites for 

expansion? What other sites are also candidates for gravesite expansion? 

Response. Usually, only our large national cemeteries are candidates for major 

construction ($10 million or more). Most gravesite expansion projects are addressed 

through the minor construction appropriation. 

The principal criterion for selecting a site for a gravesite expansion project is the 

expected depletion of casketed gravesites. It is NCA’s top priority to prevent the 

closing of a cemetery and the interruption of burial services. The sites where we 

propose major construction expansions in the FY 09 budget—Calverton (NY), Massachusetts and Puerto Rico National Cemeteries—will close to first-casket interments by 2012 if we do not expand those cemeteries with the requested funds. The 

projects at these cemeteries will provide an estimated nine to ten years of burial 

capacity. Infrastructure needs are also included in the scope of each project to take 

advantage of economies of scale. 

The following national cemeteries are projected to deplete available gravesites between FY 2013—2018 and are potential candidates for future major gravesite expansion projects: Indiantown Gap (PA), Quantico (VA), Fort Mitchell (AL), Houston 

(TX), Dayton (OH), Abraham Lincoln (IL), Jefferson Barracks (MO), Tahoma (WA), 

National Memorial Cemetery of Arizona, and Riverside (CA). 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(169) 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008. 

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION 

WITNESSES 

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. NICHOLSON, U.S. ARMY RETIRED, SECRETARY, ACCOMPANIED BY BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM J. 

LESZCZYNSKI, JR., U.S. ARMY RETIRED, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; 

TOM SOLE, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE 

MIKE CONLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

ALAN GREGORY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING 

MATTHEW BECK, BUDGET OFFICER. 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Let us call the committee to order. 

This afternoon, the subcommittee will hear testimony from four 

agencies related to the issues of concern to retired military personnel and other veterans. Our first panel is from the American 

Battle Monuments Commission, with a request of $47,470,000 for 

salaries and expenses, and $17,100,000 for the foreign currency 

fluctuation account. 

For salaries and expenses, this budget is $2.87 million higher 

than the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The foreign currency fluctuation account request is $6.1 million above fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

As we know, the American Battle Monuments Commission is responsible for the administration, operation and maintenance of 

cemetery and war memorials commemorating the achievements 

and sacrifices of the American armed forces. The commission maintains 24 permanent American military cemetery memorials and 34 

Federal and Non-Federal monolith memorials, markers and offices 

in 15 foreign countries. 

Representing the commission today is its Secretary, Brigadier 

General John Nicholson, retired. General, welcome back to our subcommittee. 

General NICHOLSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And Brigadier General, retired, William 

Leszczynski, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer. General Leszczynski, welcome back as well. 

Thank you both for your distinguished service to our country in 

the military. General, please give your brother our very best, and 

let him know we are deeply grateful for not only his service to the 

military, but his tremendous work on behalf of America’s veterans 

as VA secretary, and we wish him all the best. 

General NICHOLSON. Thank you, sir. I will. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
170 

Mr. EDWARDS. In a moment, I will recognize you for your opening 

comments, but I would like to first recognize our ranking member, 

Mr. Wamp, for any comments he would care to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER MR. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if I could just open by saying that we 

too, join your friends and associates in expressing our condolences 

for the loss of your father, who lived 90 outstanding years, and 

whose son is a living testament to what kind of a man he was. And 

so, we are with you, and I know that this is a time of loss, but at 

the same time a time of celebration for 90 outstanding years, as 

you shared with me as we walked off the floor just a minute ago. 

I have the highest admiration for you and that speaks volumes 

about what kind of guy your dad was. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. He was a naval aviator in World War 

II and a great father. Thank you for that. He wrote the last chapter in his book and lived life to the fullest, like so many of the 

greatest generation. Thank you for your kind words and thoughts. 

Mr. WAMP. And to these two generals, welcome and thank you 

again for the courtesy of coming by my office and just getting to 

know me and talking a little bit about your work and these important assets. I just want to share publicly that, as I said in my office, having been at Normandy and stood among the white crosses, 

you really don’t need to do any more than that to understand the 

importance of what these facilities that you are charged with taking care of, and we are charged with resourcing, mean in the world. 

There is no greater sense of pride that an American can have 

than to stand in one of your cemeteries in one of these places, on 

this hallowed ground, on foreign soil, than to know how important 

it is for us to maintain them and to give these places the proper 

resources to honor the sacrifices of the men and women that are 

interred there. For any American who has not done that, it is a 

breathtaking moment of patriotism and pride. 

I think, while we might split hairs from time to time over exactly 

where the money goes, we stand completely united in this Congress 

behind the missions that you represent and carry out for these incredible places. Thank you for your appearance here today, and I 

look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. So very well said. 

It is going to be my tradition to also recognize Chairman Young, 

who has been such a leader on this committee, the full Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, and our full committee. Mr. 

Chairman, any comments you would care to make? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I would like to join the comments of my ranking member about 

your father. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I certainly agree with everything that Zach said, and 

also his comments about visiting the cemeteries overseas. I have 

had the chance to visit many of these American cemeteries overseas and I can tell you, you come away with just a special feeling 

that it is hard to describe, the inspiration and the feeling of humbleness leaving one of those cemeteries that are really beautifully 

maintained. If there is anything that you need to make sure that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
171 

they are maintained up to the standards that you have established, 

let us know. The chairman, I am satisfied, would be more than 

happy to fix it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Young and Mr. Wamp said it well for all of 

us on this subcommittee. 

Thank you both for your service. General Nicholson, your full testimony will be submitted. I would like to recognize you now for 

your opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. NICHOLSON

General NICHOLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. 

Before I begin my opening remarks, I would like to request that 

my written statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection. 

General NICHOLSON. On behalf of our chairman, General Franks, 

and our commissioners, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you regarding the fiscal year 2009 appropriations request for the American Battle Monuments Commission. 

Since its creation in 1923, the American Battle Monuments Commission has served as guardian of America’s overseas commemorative cemeteries and memorials. Our purpose is to preserve for future generations the 24 cemeteries and the memorials, monuments 

and markers we maintain around the world to honor America’s war 

dead, missing in action, and those who fought at their side. 

These cemeteries and memorials are symbols of America’s willingness to fight for our freedom and the freedom of others. They 

inspire patriotism. They evoke gratitude, and they teach important 

lessons of history to all who walk those hallowed grounds. Our fiscal year 2009 request provides $47.47 million for salaries and expenses. Our request also includes $17.1 million for our foreign currency fluctuation account, which has become a significant 

issue. This account is used to defray losses due to changes in the 

value of foreign currency against the U.S. dollar. With the funds 

in this fluctuation account, maintain our purchasing power to operate and maintain our commemorative sites, which is critical when 

you consider that 80 percent of the commission’s annual appropriation is spent overseas using foreign currency. 

Since the summer of 2006, the U.S. dollar has fallen steadily 

against the European euro and the British pound. This drop in the 

value of the dollar has serious implications on our ability to maintain our cemeteries and memorials. To lessen the impact of the declining value of the U.S. dollar on our overseas operations, we are 

requesting that the committee modify the commission’s appropriation language to read as follows: ‘‘Such sums as may be necessary.’’ 

This change would ensure that we have the funding we need 

when we need it to maintain our purchasing power overseas if the 

dollar becomes weaker than estimated, while maintaining the committee’s oversight of these expenditures. The commission’s fiscal 

year 2009 request fully supports our strategic goals and continues 

our commitment to honor the service, achievements and sacrifice of 

America’s armed forces and to fulfill the promise of our first chairman, General of the Armies John J. Pershing, who wrote that 

‘‘time will not dim the glory of their deeds’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
172 

I would like to close my remarks by introducing the staff that accompanies me today. I believe you know General Bill Leszcynski, 

who is the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director. Tom 

Sole is the Director of Engineering and Maintenance. Mike Conley 

is the Director of Public Affairs. Alan Gregory is the director of finance and accounting. And Mathew Beck is our Budget Officer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my opening statement. I will be pleased to respond to your questions. 

[Prepared Testimony of Brigadier General John W. Nicholson follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
173 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 here 42754A.099
174 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 here 42754A.100
175 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 here 42754A.101
176 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 here 42754A.102
177 

SUPPLEMENTAL

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, general. 

Let me just begin on the foreign currency fluctuation issue. It 

just seems to me it would not be the intent of Congress to want 

the hallowed ground that you have responsibility for to be impacted 

for the worse because of foreign currency fluctuations that are simply not under your control. Do you know if OMB has any intention 

of requesting in a supplemental appropriation bill the money needed to make it up? I think you have a $6.1 million shortfall you are 

projecting for the present fiscal year 2008. Do you know if OMB 

has signed off on any request to ask Congress for that supplemental funding? 

General NICHOLSON. Let me ask Alan to answer that. I think I 

know the answer, but I want to make sure. 

Mr. GREGORY. I am Alan Gregory, the Director of Finance. OMB 

has not indicated or identified any supplementals specifically for 

that. However, they have supported our efforts to identify that requirement. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Can you briefly explain the kind of cutbacks you would have to put in place to make up for a loss like 

this? A $6.1 million cut relative to your budget would be a 15 percent cut in your budget, with a lot of fixed expenses. What would 

you have to do to make up for a $6.1 million loss? 

General NICHOLSON. We would have to take that money out of 

projects that we have planned to implement to maintain the standards that were described here and that you have seen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General NICHOLSON. We don’t want to cut into salaries. That 

would be the last resort. So we would make our cuts in the engineering and maintenance. 

I would like to ask my chief of engineering and maintenance, 

Tom, to speak to it. 

Mr. SOLE. It would be a very difficult cut for us to make. In fact, 

we were having that conversation on the way here. As you know, 

most of our budget is taken up by fixed costs, like personnel, so it 

is very difficult to change in the short term. And so things like 

equipment purchasing to replace outdated equipment or engineering, a lot of what we have worked on as to infrastructure modernization, I think a lot of what this committee has given us in the 

past and this year, would be sacrificed for this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you be able in the next week or two to put 

together a list of maybe not the exact projects, but the most likely 

projects you would have to cut back on for the total $6.1 million 

so we could look at the specifics of what the impact would be? That 

might help us as we are going into the supplemental process perhaps as early as March. I don’t know the latest plan, but it would 

allow us to present a case for this. 

Mr. SOLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wamp. 

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
178 

Just a quick follow up on that. General, those words in your 

hands, ‘‘such sum as may be necessary,’’ are not troubling to me, 

but I think those should be troubling words to any appropriations 

subcommittee when a request is made to include language ‘‘such 

sums as may be necessary,’’ because that certainly in some areas 

of government spending could get out of control. 

I wonder if there is another way, or did you all consider other 

language recommendations besides that that might somehow peg 

the amount to the fluctuation in currency? Or is there just no way 

to do that? 

The second part of my question is how do you forecast into the 

future in any way what the value of the dollar is going to be? I 

know this year it was the biggest issue when you came to see me, 

but I just wondered at the hearing here today what our options 

are, or if you have already exhausted them all and you think this 

language change and this amount of money is the only option that 

we have? 

General NICHOLSON. Thanks. That is a real good question. Let 

me give you two points, and then ask Alan to help me out here. 

This is not unprecedented, this ‘‘such sums as necessary.’’ It is 

used elsewhere in the United States Government and it is successful. Secondly, OMB backs that. 

Now, how about some more details, Alan? 

Mr. GREGORY. Several years ago, this committee asked the GAO 

to examine what our process was for estimating. They deemed it 

reasonably appropriate after their study. The process we go 

through is we look at the rates and we look at the projection of 

those rates, and we have to lock them in at a certain point. That 

point is usually the last calendar date in the year prior to the submission. So for the fiscal year 2009 budget, we did it on December 

31, for this budget that we are looking at for fiscal year 2009. For 

fiscal year 2008, it was the year prior. So when we block it in, the 

rate was .82, and now it is .69. So it has dropped considerably. So 

that is where that delta amount comes in. 

We looked at other alternatives and numbers, to time it to the 

fluctuation account, but we couldn’t find any other means within 

the appropriation language, and we looked at a number of appropriation titles from the Department of Agriculture and several others that use ‘‘such sums’’ as appropriate. Our purpose was to look 

at this from the standpoint of not being allowed to go directly to 

the Treasury without Congress, and using a justification. In those 

years that (INAUDIBLE) we would not seek that. 

Mr. WAMP. One other question, the capital security cost sharing 

program is a 97 percent increase. While it is only $1 million, in this 

city that is not much money. It is a 97 percent increase and I just 

wanted you to tell the committee basically what services you get 

from the State Department for this money to begin with, and why 

the increase. 

General NICHOLSON. Well, that is a good question. This has hit 

us, this assessment, but we are implementing it by paying it. I 

would ask some of my colleagues here to tell you specifically what 

is hitting us here. Alan? 

Mr. GREGORY. Sir, the capital security cost sharing part of the 

law came up in 2005 under the consolidated appropriations, which 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
179 

requires all of the agencies who have an overseas presence to participate in the program. Because we have people designated overseas within that, 398 are overseas, we have to pay an updated proportion share to that. 

Mr. WAMP. And the increase comes just from what? 

Mr. GREGORY. We did not have the budget for that previously 

and we have lost our exemptions and now we have to participate 

in the program. 

Mr. WAMP. You have nowhere to turn? 

Mr. GREGORY. No, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. No questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, that’s the greatest compliment I have ever 

heard to any federal agency—three members of Congress passing 

up the opportunity to ask questions—a great compliment. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions. I have 

read the statements. I believe that they are very, very total and 

thorough, and I just offer our support to maintain the cemeteries 

and the battle monuments to the extent that is necessary. It is a 

proud part of America. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

SECURITY AT NORMANDY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just a brief question. Last year, we were getting 

ready to open the visitor center at Normandy, and I haven’t had 

a chance to go there, but I understand it has just been wildly successful. At the time, we talked about since it is such hallowed 

ground and of such great interest to Americans, as well as folks 

from all around the world, the question kind of came up last year 

about security, because in this unfortunate age in which we live, 

even a place like Normandy would be so prominent and such a 

focus for some sort of terrorist attack. 

I am wondering what kind of implementation was put in place 

dealing with security, and has that affected people’s freedom to 

really appreciate everything. Can you just touch on that, because 

I know we talked on that last year? 

General NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. Let me give a quick answer, and 

then let these experts give more detail. 

The security was dictated by the arts. The security officer from 

the embassy said you need to put pylons here so they can’t drive 

into your building. You need some guards and the whole nine 

yards. 

Secondly, I don’t think that it has impeded the visitors very 

much. It is not something we can’t deal with. So that is my quick 

answer to your question. I would defer to Bill. You know more 

about what is involved that I do. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
180 

General LESZCYNSKI. The secretary has mentioned a few things 

that have been put in place. Certainly, the most visible one is the 

security guards that we have over there to basically monitor the 

people that are coming into the building, so we do have a security 

check to make sure that everything is fine. We try to low-key it as 

much as we can because we certainly don’t want that to be a deterrent to anybody to come and visit, because we think the message 

that we have portrayed in the Normandy visitor center, the sacrifice of the men and women that took part in the Normandy invasions is one that is very, very important. 

So we have a good security force there. They are blended in with 

the other host nations and U.S. personnel that are working there 

in the Normandy visitor center, but they are a visible deterrent. If 

you go there, you are going to see people that are obviously security guards. So that in itself has a good effect if there was anybody 

out there that was thinking about making it a likely target. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Let me be brief on one other point, because I know we have three 

other hearings this afternoon. General, I think the quote that you 

used from General Pershing is really powerful, ‘‘time will not dim 

the glory of their deeds.’’ That is more eloquent than I could have 

put it and it that makes me so passionate about protecting Pointe 

du Hoc and honoring the incredible courage of Colonel Rudder and 

the Rangers on D-Day. I know how both of you care so deeply 

about preserving that historic site. 

I know you have been working hard on that project. Let me just, 

without getting into all the details of it, compare it to where we 

were a year ago. Does it look as if the conclusion is there is a possible way to protect that site from literally falling into the ocean 

at sometime in the next several years? 

General NICHOLSON. The answer to that question is yes. A few 

details—we don’t have a complete study yet, but we think we know 

where it is going. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General NICHOLSON. We can’t be presumptuous totally on that, 

and we will get that this summer, and then we will come up, look 

at the plan, what is feasible, and look at the cost, and get the 

French involved. That is what it is going to take. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. We already had some interaction with the 

French on this. 

General NICHOLSON. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Are they aware of what we are doing? And so far, 

have they been open to trying to preserve this site? 

General NICHOLSON. Bill will take that. 

General LESZCYNSKI. I can answer that one. We have kept the 

French informed all along the way, so they know everything that 

we are working on. We are hopeful that there is an engineering solution, but we are also very well aware of the politics that are involved. So we have been very, very careful to keep the French involved along the way. 

We have had meetings, a number of meetings with the Suprefite 

of Bayou who is very, very supportive. He is an engineer himself. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
181 

He is also getting some great support from his boss, who is the Prefect. I attended one of those meetings, along with Tom Sole, and 

people from ABM&C and there were representatives from Texas 

A&M over there before Christmas. You could tell from that meeting 

that the Suprefite wanted to move the process ahead. 

On January 19, there was another meeting over there attended 

by somebody from Texas A&M, Jean-Louis Briand. There were representatives from American Battle Monuments Commission. There 

were also the Suprefite who hosted the meeting. There were representatives from the Conservatoir Literal, and another agency 

called the DeRente. The presentation was given by Jean-Louis 

Briand to bring people up to date on the technical aspects of the 

project. 

There was also some discussion initially about moving the bunker, so he gave a presentation to convince people why that was not 

such a good idea. That idea is not going anyplace because the 

Suprefite said it wasn’t, and the Prefite said it wasn’t. So that is 

off the table. But there was some discussion there at that meeting, 

and the final results of that meeting is that the representative 

from the Conservatoir Literal made the recommendation and a 

package was put together to be forwarded to what is known as the 

scientific committee for review. 

We think that this is a very, very positive step. So I guess to 

summarize, we think it is moving forward. We have tremendous 

support out of two people who are key players, the Suprefite and 

the Prefite. In fact, the Suprefite directed that ABMC prepare the 

construction documents, which is a very, very positive step. So we 

will wait for the final results of the study from the people from 

Texas A&M and the—communities, and hopefully we can bring 

things together at the end of the summer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your hard work on that. 

To my colleagues, if any of you haven’t been to Pointe du Hoc, 

the German observatory and even the monument dedicated to Earl 

Rudder and Rudder’s Rangers, where Ronald Reagan probably gave 

one of his finest speeches ever, perhaps one of the most powerful 

presidential speeches in history, that is off limits to tourists now 

because of wind and water erosion. It would just be a tragedy, in 

my thinking, to lose that to future generations and all that stands 

for. 

I have one request, and I will finish with this. I understand that 

the final report, the engineering study, may not come out until July 

of this year. If in the March–April timeframe, you have even some 

early estimates of what it would cost, or what would be a first-year 

effort, if it looks like you have a plan that might well work, if you 

could just give us some estimate, so that maybe we can plug that 

figure in our markup on this bill. We can’t let time defeat us on 

this and the quicker we move, the greater the chance of saving that 

hallowed ground. Thank you both for what you have done on that. 

Mr. WAMP. No more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your service. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any other questions, members? 

If not, thank you both for the great work you do. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
182 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008. 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND UNITED STATES SOLDIERS’ 

AND AIRMEN’S HOME NATIONAL CEMETERY 

WITNESSES 

JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

CIVIL WORKS ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

CLAUDIA TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS. Secretary Woodley, Mr. Metzler, welcome to both 

of you back to our subcommittee. It is very good to have you here. 

We will now take testimony on the fiscal year 2009 budget submission for the Department of the Army, specifically Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. We welcome back Mr. John Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, to testify on behalf of 

the cemeteries. Mr. Woodley is accompanied by Mr. Jack Metzler, 

second-generation superintendent, as I recall, of Arlington National 

Cemetery, and Ms. Claudia Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of the Army. Welcome to all of you and your staff as well. The fiscal year 2009 budget request is $31.23 million, the same 

amount as the appropriation that Congress approved for fiscal year 

2008. Mr. Woodley, your entire statement will be printed in the 

record, and in a moment I will ask you to briefly present your oral 

testimony, but we would like to first recognize Mr. Wamp, the 

ranking member. 

Mr. WAMP. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to welcome you both. I am the new kid on the block. 

Mr. Woodley and I go way back, though, on energy and water, as 

I am sure he also does with our chairman. I thank you for your 

service and look forward to your testimony and the questions that 

follow. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo what Mr. Wamp 

said and what you have said. I thank them for being here and 

thanks for taking care of Arlington National Cemetery. Unfortunately, we have had a chance to do that too often in the last few 

years. I do have a couple of questions that I will ask. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, very good. 

It is hard to put in words that meaning of those hallowed hills 

of Arlington. 

Secretary Woodley was appointed as Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works in 2005. He previously served as the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, and 

retired from the Army Reserve in 2003 as a lieutenant colonel. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for those years of military service. It 

is good to have you back before our committee, and we would like 

to recognize you now for your opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. 

Secretary WOODLEY. You are very kind. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
183 

Let me introduce, if I may, Mr. Thurman Higginbotham, Deputy 

Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery; Mr. John Parez, 

who works on many of these important issues on my staff; and 

Lieutenant Colonel Duane Smith, who is here also as my military 

assistant. He was here last year as a major and has been promoted 

in the meantime, and has been selected for battalion command, 

and will take that up after he serves next year as the professor of 

military science at the West Virginia University Mountaineers, in 

West Virginia. 

My statement, as you have said, is that we are asking, or the 

President has proposed a budget of $31.2 million. We believe that 

is sufficient to maintain the buildings and grounds, acquire necessary supplies and equipment, and provide the standards of service expected of this national shrine. 

There are two items of particular significance I would like to 

highlight in my testimony. First, the budget includes approximately $5 million to partially fund construction of the Millennium 

Project, which consists of the development of 36 acres of land into 

gravesite areas, roads, utilities, columbarium walls and a boundary 

wall with niches for the placement of cremated remains. 

Approximately 14,000 additional gravesites and 22,000 niches 

would be provided when development is complete. Burial capacity 

would be extended to the year 2045, and niche capacity to the year 

2027. In the long term, this project is very important to extend the 

useful life of the cemetery. In the short term, it is essential to alleviate the crowding of funeral services that is occurring in the concentrated areas of the cemetery. 

I would like to extend an invitation to the subcommittee and 

staff to visit the cemetery for an on-site briefing so you can see 

first-hand the importance of this project. I know that many of you 

have been there, but it is a real special privilege to walk the 

grounds with Superintendent Metzler and to understand the significance of this new project and how it will improve the actual operation of the cemetery on a day-to-day basis. 

Secondly, the budget includes $500,000 to develop a comprehensive cultural resources management plan so that the cemetery will 

be in compliance with the requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. It will be used as a management tool to facilitate 

the preservation of historic resources at ANC, and a programmatic 

agreement will be developed between ANC and the appropriate resource agencies to address all routine operations at ANC. 

The agreement will establish a procedure for future undertakings 

that may be excluded from the detailed consultation process under 

the Act. The goal is to reduce ANC’s consultation requirements and 

to establish procedures that ANC will follow to ensure preservation 

of its historic resources in accordance with federal law. I have to 

say, I think that is a little overdue, but we are finally getting 

around to it. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, our 2009 budget is adequate to 

maintain existing infrastructure, to provide services to the visiting 

public, continue making some of the capital investments needed to 

accommodate future burials and preserve the dignity, serenity and 

traditions of these great cemeteries. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
184 

That would be my summary of my full remarks, which we ask 

that you insert in the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr. follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
185 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 42754A.103
186 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 42754A.104
187 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 42754A.105
188 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 42754A.106
189 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 42754A.107
190 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 42754A.108
191 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 42754A.109
192 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Secretary Woodley. 

Mr. Wamp. 

CEMETERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will repeat what I said at my first hearing, just for Mr. Bishop’s 

sake down there, and that is the day I was born at Fort Benning, 

Georgia 50 years ago, my father was a lieutenant in the United 

States Army wearing those tassels on his lapel as a member of the 

Corps of Engineers. So Lieutenant Colonel, it is an honor to look 

at you and see those and know that that is part of my life as well, 

with my father, on the day that we honor your father’s life. 

Also, I want to say that this is an unusual budget request because it is flat from last year, which we don’t see very often. It is 

good to see that you can live within your means and do what you 

have done. I was at Arlington for the funeral of a soldier from my 

district in November. It was unfortunately a very, very busy day 

there. 

I have to ask, Mr. Metzler, things are not as busy, I would think, 

in the last 2 months as they were last fall, but then to just ask 

you to go into phase one and phase two of your cemetery management plan, as we know that your modernization is underway, and 

then just touch on the federal water main issue while you have the 

floor, please sir. 

Mr. METZLER. Thank you. 

Well, under the current cemetery operation, it is not quite as 

busy, as you mentioned. We are doing about 27 funerals a day on 

average. This time of year, it is a little bit slower in the winter 

months. We are doing 22 to 25 funerals. However, it will pick up 

here in just a few weeks as the spring months start to come on to 

us. 

As far as active duty funerals, we did last year 123 active funerals. We are not nearly as busy, thank goodness, in this current 

year. However, we are still seeing active duty funerals about every 

other week at the cemetery. 

The Potomac interceptor is a sewer line coming through Arlington Cemetery from Rosslyn, so it traverses all the way through the 

cemetery. That project isn’t quite ready to get started yet, but we 

are lined up at our end, in the middle, if you will, of the project— 

and we hope that that project gets through this summer. They are 

still doing some additional work with the community on lands and 

rights-of-way with the National Park Service and other people who 

own the land that they are crossing over. 

Mr. WAMP. Do you foresee future-year requests for Arlington National Cemetery from this subcommittee for any involvement in 

this project or not? 

Mr. METZLER. For the Potomac interceptor, I believe we are covered at this point unless something comes up that is unforeseen. 

The challenge we have is moving the utility lines that were in the 

green space to underneath the roads. So as this project moves forward and the new sewer line comes in, we want to have all the 

utilities either abandoned, removed, or moved. So that is what we 

are trying to do, and have told the utility company to get that accomplished. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
193 

Mr. WAMP. And then anecdotally, your father served prior to 

you—while we are talking about fathers? Is that right? 

Mr. METZLER. My father was there from 1951 to 1972, and I 

came on board in 1991. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, 21 years plus 17 years is 38 years of service between you and your father. 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions. I would 

like to associate myself with the remarks of you and Representative Wamp and Bill Young. I think they say it best for all of us. 

Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. Young. 

CARE OF THE HONOR GUARD AND HORSES

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I just have to ask a jurisdictional question first, and depending 

on the answer, I have a follow-up. Who is responsible for the care 

and feeding of the members of the honor guard and the care and 

feeding of the horses that they work with for the funerals? 

Mr. METZLER. I am very happy to report the United States Army, 

the Old Guard at Arlington Cemetery. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Well, then my next question would go to 

them, then. It has to do with soldiers and their honor guard, who 

have responsibility for caring for the horses. Apparently, the mess 

facilities were open at a certain time that didn’t coincide with their 

responsibility, and they went all day without food. I did think that 

was up to the Army, but I just wanted to ask if all that was corrected. Well, I will go back to the Army and ask the colonel. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will circle back with you on that, Mr. Young. 

Thank you very much for raising that. 

Mr. BERRY? OKAY. Mr. Bishop. 

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS

Mr. BISHOP. Let me just associate myself with the remarks of my 

colleagues. I just have one question, and that is with regard to the 

Tomb of the Unknowns, with the crack that has to be addressed 

in terms of the—what are the plans for that and how is that going 

to take place, and what, if anything, will that do to adjust, alter, 

disrupt the changing of the guard there, which is such a prized opportunity for tourists to come to this city? 

Secretary WOODLEY. Mr. Bishop, the authorization act for national defense called for the secretary to make a report on that 

matter. That report is not yet due, but it is almost finished, I believe, and will be submitted to the committees as soon as possible. 

And then once that is provided, hopefully we will get some future 

guidance on what is the Congress’s pleasure with respect to options 

on that historic monument. 

I can assure you, though, that whatever options are undertaken, 

they will be undertaken with a minimum of disruption, and I believe that we are prepared under any circumstances to proceed at 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
194 

a time when the public would not be confronted with something 

that they do not expect to see when they come to pay their respects 

to the unknown soldiers. So whether everything is accomplished at 

night or in some way where we can do that, we would not allow 

a disruption of the honors paid to the unknown soldiers. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have the changing of the guard 24 hours, or 

is it only during the daylight hours? 

Mr. METZLER. The formal guard change starts at 8 o’clock in the 

morning when the soldiers are in their dress uniform and it is open 

to the public. The last guard change this time of year concludes at 

5 o’clock at night. We are about to change in April to 7 o’clock at 

night, and then on March 15, we will start 1⁄2-hour guard changes, 

on the hour and on the 1⁄2 hour, because the crowds are so large 

at the cemetery. We receive about four million visitors a year on 

the grounds of the cemetery, and at the beginning of the spring 

months, the crowds just balloon in the cemetery. So that everybody 

will have that opportunity to see the change of the guard, we start 

the 1⁄2-hour guard changes. 

At night, the tomb is still guarded, but it is not open to the public, and the soldiers are dressed in their non-ceremonial uniforms. 

The guards practice at night. The less-proficient guards have an 

opportunity to get proficient out of the public’s eye, all the while 

the tomb is guarded, and they do have a cycle where they change 

the guard. 

Mr. BISHOP. So that would be the time of day for the repairs to 

be made. 

Mr. METZLER. Right. We would do it during the non-public hours. 

We have done a repair at the tomb in the past. As an example, we 

did this repair back in the 1980s, one night we removed all the 

grouting from the tomb, cleaned it all up, and came back the next 

day and everything was normal. The next night, we came in and 

then we would apply the grout and clean everything up before 8 

o’clock in the morning and the tourists wouldn’t know anything 

had happened. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just on that point, as I understand it, it is kind 

of a sensitive issue whether to replace or renovate. I guess that is 

all part of that study. But to follow up his point, is there anything 

that this subcommittee can do to help as you go through that process? Anything you need from us as it relates to the tomb of the unknown soldiers? 

Secretary WOODLEY. Well, other than to reassure your colleagues 

that I have consulted with this subcommittee with respect to that 

matter as it was going forward, during the time when we were 

studying the options, because I received a letter from some members of the other body that appeared to be unaware that I had submitted testimony and other materials and I felt was keeping the 

Congress aware of the decision-making process as it unfolded, but 

that is just a personal matter to me. 

I don’t really think that matters in the long run, but I think that 

it is a very interesting question, and I think a close question, and 

I am delighted that the Congress has decided to relieve me of the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
195 

burden of making the decision. We are waiting for the benefit of 

your wisdom on that very, very interesting and difficult decision. 

AMPHITHEATER

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one real quick question. Last year, I remember we talked about the amphitheater and it kind of being a 

priority. I don’t think it is part of this year’s budget. Is there any 

particular reason? I think you ought to be applauded for setting 

your priorities, and I am just curious because I know it was discussed last year. What went into the decision to wait a little bit 

longer in terms of it, because I know it is used for all the ceremonies, and it is obviously very much a part of the overall appearance. 

Secretary WOODLEY. Sir, Jack can address that better than I can, 

but I think the reason we are suggesting our priorities is that we 

really are facing an operational issue with crowding in terms of 

having multiple ceremonies undertaken in a relatively small area 

of the cemetery. That is not ideal and it is not the experience that 

we want to provide for our veterans and their families. So that is 

our highest thing to do right now. 

The amphitheater, the public areas of the amphitheater which 

are used in ceremonies on Veterans Day and Memorial Day are in 

very good shape. They are not the part of it that needs attention 

right now. The part that needs attention is the interior that is not 

seen by as many members of the public or used in as many ceremonies. So it is on our list. We are not saying it doesn’t need attention, because it does, but it is just slightly back in the queue. 

Mr. METZLER. If I could just add on to that a little bit, when you 

come out for the tour, and we certainly want you to do that, we 

would like to show you the amphitheater. And we have had two 

major projects there to help restore some of the problems we have 

had with water. As we have done these projects, we have discovered other things we need to accomplish. This is an old structure 

that was completed in the 1920s, and is subject to all the environmental issues of being outside. 

Our main emphasis right now is the millennium project. The amphitheater renovation, the amphitheater repairs that we need are 

still a high priority. It is our fifth item, but the number one item 

for the operation of the cemetery is this money for the millennium 

project and we want to continue to push this forward and have this 

project—to get this done, as Mr. Woodley explained, not only to relieve the overcrowding that we have, but also to add gravesites and 

columbaria. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

We have four votes. So rather than keeping you here, Mr. Secretary, if I could just ask you to bear this in mind. While we added 

$4.2 million above the president’s request for your budget for Arlington Cemetery last year, and this is a flatline budget, I would 

be interested in knowing, given mandated salary increases and 

utility increases, if you are going to be able to maintain your operations and maintenance, and basically defer major capital expenditures. What will you have to do in order to keep within a level 

budget? Our committee wants to know that you don’t have to move 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
196 

backwards in terms of the maintenance on the hallowed ground 

that you have responsibility for. 

With that, thank you very much for being here. Thank you. 

Members, just come back immediately after the last vote. 

[Recess.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr follows:] 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

Your budget request for $22,218,000 indicates you will be able to condct an average of 27 funeral services per day. 

Everyone knows our country is losing upwards of 1,000 veterans a day. 

1. Question. Please explain how you determined that there would be an overall 

increase of only 32 internments at Arlington National Cemetery from FY07 to 

FY08? 

1. Answer. According to demographics published by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, the death rate of World War II veterans is approximately 1,000 per day. 

Most of these veterans are buried in their home cemeteries, with relatively few interred at Arlington National Cemetary (ANC). The estimated increase of 32 interments, from 4,052 tom FY 2007 to 4,084 in FY 2008, is based on the past 15 years 

of burial records at ANC, and the expectation that the peak period for World War 

II veterans’ deaths will be drawing to a close in FY 2008. 

2. Question. How do you figure an increase of only 11 interments from FY08 to 

FY09? 

2. Answer. As mentioned above, World War I veterans deaths are expected to 

peek during FY 2008 and then level off, so the impact on funerals at ANC is expected to be minimal in FY 2009. The small increase projected in FY 2009 is primarily attributed to an upward trend that ANC is experiencing in spousal deaths. 

3. Question. You state that in FY07, there were only 124 interments related to 

the war on terror. Please tell us how many interments you project from OEF to OIF 

for FY08 and FY09? 

3. Answer. Based on funerals that have already occurred and those scheduled 

through the end of March 2008, ANC will have had 41 active duty funerals associated with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

If the number of funerals in the second half of FY 2008 is the same as the first 

half, the total for the year would be 82. However, the number could be somewhat 

less than 82 because the trend in the monthly rate of funerals for the war on terror 

is down so far this year. Funeral projections for the war on terror is beyond FY 2008 

have not been made, due to the many variables associated with the war. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee back into 

order. 

Our third hearing this afternoon will be on the budget request 

of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which has a fiscal year 

2009 budget request of $63 million in the trust fund, an increase 

of over $7 million when compared to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

Representing the home is once again before our committee, Mr. 

Timothy Cox. Mr. Cox, welcome back. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

He is accompanied by Mr. Steven McManus, Chief Financial Officer of the Home. Mr. McManus, welcome. Good to have you here. 

Mr. Cox, we know that in past years we have had a lot of challenges at the Armed Forces Retirement Home, as you have had to 

cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, absorbing those 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
197 

residents into the Washington facility and adapting the facility to 

satisfy the new demands. 

Before we hear your statement, Mr. Cox, I would like to yield to 

Mr. Wamp for any opening comments he would care to make. 

Mr. WAMP. I thank the chairman. 

Just briefly, I thank you for your appearance here and your service to our country. I just now got to meet you, and look forward to 

working with you in the future. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp, thank you. 

Mr. Cox, I would now like to recognize you for your opening 

statement. Without objection, your full statement will be submitted 

for the record. 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008. 

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 

WITNESSES 

TIMOTHY COX, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ACCOMPANIED BY STEVEN MCMANUS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY COX

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak with you and with the committee members. 

Briefly, I will go over what the budget entails, just in synopsis, 

and get to the questions I think you may have. As you know, we are asking for $63 million, $8 million over last year, and $63 million is all coming from the trust fund. The $8 million difference refers to capital improvements that we need to do. 

We need to do a study on one of our dormitories, and we need to 

actually do some physical maintenance on one of those dormitories 

as well. So that is the difference. It is not an increase in our costs. 

Congress is supporting our home with two major commitments. 

The $76 million major dormitory renovation, and that is part of the 

$8 million to do the study and the planning for that $76 million. 

That $76 million is scheduled in 2010 to come out of the trust fund. 

And then as you know, the rebuilding of the Gulfport campus is 

going on, and that is through supplemental money, a total of $240 

million that we received. 

The rebuild is on track. On March 3, we are actually having our 

groundbreaking ceremony, so we have demolished the existing facility in Gulfport and on March 3 we will be down there for the 

groundbreaking. Again, that will be available the last quarter of 

2010, which is as expected. We also are submitting a report no 

later than March 1 on planned services and how we are adapting 

our program, including Green House initiatives, which are important to Senator Wicker, as well as important to residents. A residentially-based model, Green House, particularly as it pertains to 

long-term care nursing home functions, but we really are looking 

at a residentially based model for all continuing care of our home, 

which we have done. 

We have done our multi-year financial plan that went out and 

looked at trust fund solvency, while addressing capital requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
198 

ments. It includes a financial plan that we are doing for that independent revenue piece. We have engaged a nationally known engineering construction firm to look at our structures and our campus 

infrastructure, that cost of repair is not just in the Scott Building, 

but we are using this $76 million to look at other buildings as well, 

at a total cost of $134 million. 

With the president’s efforts to improve housing for retired veterans, we felt it was really important to begin to do some of those 

deferred maintenance issues in our buildings. That dormitory 

hasn’t gone under a major renovation since it was completed in 

1954, so we have plumbing issues. We have heating issues, and we 

have electrical issues. So that is what the bulk of the money is for, 

and specifically the $8 million is out of the increase; $5.6 million 

is for planning and design for those renovations, and $2.4 million 

is for facility upgrades. Congress, we also are thankful to you all for the $800,000 that 

you have given us to be able to study the trust fund long-term viability, so that $800,000 will be used, I should say some of that 

$800,000 will be used for looking at how that master plan with the 

funds that will come in once that development is started, and how 

we are spending the money for the renovations, so we make sure 

we don’t get into that negative cycle that the trust fund was in before. 

Past problems, as you know through paper and through communication with your staff, we have received some unfair criticism 

over the last couple of years. All of our investigations, both internally, by OSD, by Health Affairs, as well as by JCAHO, have 

proved all those allegations unfounded. We received JCAHO’s gold 

seal of approval in 2005, and with two unannounced visits last 

year, they found no health care problems at our home. 

We have established a hotline and routinely the AFRH inspector 

general cooperates with the Department of Defense inspector general. The residents have the DOD hotline, OSD hotline, and our internal inspector general’s hotline so they can call those numbers, 

as well as reach out to anyone on campus as well. That seems to 

have improved communication with the residents. 

The trust fund had declined to $94 million in 2002. We have now 

created over $65 million of growth, so after the end of fiscal year 

2007, our trust fund was $159 million. We are very proud of that. 

And we have become much more business-savvy. We have looked 

at our new budget, our guidelines established by Congress in 2002 

and we operate within those guidelines now. 

Our financial performance is probably the one that has improved 

the greatest, and we received our third unqualified audit. The first 

one was in 2005, and received in 2006, as well as 2007. We were 

named GSA’s Customer of the Year in 2007, and just to go on a 

little bit about the Green House part, because I know that is of interest, too, there are 10 initiatives. I won’t go through all of them, 

but the whole premise is really residential homelike environment, 

and really matching what the residents’ needs are. 

Our needs are unique. Usually, long-term care population is 75 

percent to 85 percent women, ours is 92 percent men. The women 

traditionally at the age of 82, cooked, cleaned, bake. Our men do 

none of those things. So to look at an environment that really has 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
199 

socialization with other than seven or eight people, which for our 

gentlemen, who usually eat with people that don’t live on their 

floor, because they do like to socialize. They like big group activities. So we are really making the best of both worlds both in Gulfport, as well as the renovation in D.C. 

We have made steady progress. The trust fund balance, I told you, has risen to $159 million. GSA selected Jacobs Engineering to 

rebuild Gulfport. The contractor has been selected, that is Yates 

Construction out of Mississippi. We have launched our own inhouse channel 99, which includes communications such as continuous feed of everything from menus to announcements to bus 

schedules. Residents on any TV can go to channel 99 from their 

room, or we have one outside the dining room that just keeps telling everyone what is going on. It is another way to get information 

out there. 

Staff was trained in over 136 hours of health and wellness. We 

have really focused to make sure that we are not just reacting to 

the health care needs, but prevention is coming in, too. That is 

with introducing tai chi, weight training, walking courses—all 

those things are really healthy and extend the longevity of our residents. A resident satisfaction survey this past year found that 75 

percent of those surveyed either ranked our services very good or 

excellent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What percent was that? 

Mr. COX. It was 75 percent very good or excellent. 

In conclusion, I want to thank members of this committee for 

what you do for us, and Congress, because of your continued support for the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the veterans we 

serve. I look forward to answering any questions that you have or 

comments, or anything you would like me to go into more specifically. 

[Prepared Statement of Timothy Cox follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
200 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 42754A.110
201 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 42754A.111
202 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 42754A.112
203 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 42754A.113
204 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 42754A.114
205 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 42754A.115
206 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 42754A.116
207 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 42754A.117
208 

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Cox, for your statement. 

Let me begin by asking you about the recent Washington Post 

article regarding the facility that you have leased out to a group 

that provides housing for homeless veterans. As I understand it, 

that facility will be either knocked down or renovated, so it won’t 

be available for those homeless veterans. Have you had any discussions with the VA or anyone else about what kind of plan could be 

put in place so that those homeless veterans are simply not left out 

on the streets of Washington, D.C.? 

Mr. COX. Right. As you know, our intent is never to let any veteran be out on the streets. Part of why we were into this venture 

was because Secretary Abell knew someone who was going to look 

for temporary housing in the D.C. area for vets in transition. It is 

not a homeless shelter. It is actually vets who have gone through 

a training program, are substance-free, and this is their last step 

before they have a home of their own. 

So when USVets initiative, which is out of California, Los Angeles, they came to us asking if we had temporary housing. We said 

we did. We had this building. Take it as-is, and we had reduced 

our footprint. This is one of the buildings that is going to be torn 

down because it needs so much maintenance. They took it as-is, 

and we have had four leases with them. The first lease was for 1 

year, and the second lease was for 1 year, and then two 6-month 

leases because our master plan has taken a longer period of time. 

They always knew that it was temporary. They chose not to have 

a business plan to look for a transition, but maybe to force us to 

keep them. As you know, by law, we can’t have them, because Congress sets the four criteria for admission to the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the vets that live there don’t fit the criteria 

to live in the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

So with that being said, we have reached out—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is that criteria? 

Mr. COX. The criteria are four. They are just, again, set by Congress and each one is independent on their own, so a vet only has 

to fit one. The first category is retiree, with 20 years of service, and 

that one has an age attached to it. So you have to be a minimum 

of 60 years of age. The remaining three don’t have any age restrictions. 

The second category is you served in a theater of war, and in all 

of these you have to be honorably discharged. The second category 

is you served in a theater of war, so you actually had to be in the 

Pacific in World War II or in Europe, and you couldn’t be here in 

the states. 

The third category is you have a service-connected disability because of your service at the time of war, and you are 100 percent 

disabled and unable to earn a livelihood. 

The fourth category is a female who served prior to 1948. A lot 

of the women who served in World War II, even in combat, weren’t 

considered active duty combat, so they didn’t get the same retiree 

benefits. So Congress felt that would catch them. Women obviously 

qualified in the other three categories as well. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
209 

What we have done is we have actually reached out to the VA 

and to community partnerships, as vets get most of their money 

through HUD, and HUD funds the community partnerships division, and they give a monthly lease allowance to the vets who live 

in the USVets initiative houses. So we have coordinated now weekly calls with USVets, with Councilman Thomas, with the representative from VA, and a representative from community partnerships 

to really look at options to ensure that those residents know that 

they could be moved to a USVets initiative program in Houston. 

They might not like that, but they don’t have a job here. There are 

29 of their transition housing providers in D.C., and we will work 

with them, but they have to vacate by the end of July. Everyone 

will either be placed or USVets will find a new place for them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So by the end of July, they will have to vacate. 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So as of today, there is no specific plan in play for 

somewhere those veterans will go? 

Mr. COX. No. What USVets have looked at is they have a facility 

in Houston, and they could absorb the 50 persons there based on 

if a person wanted to relocate there. They haven’t talked with the 

other providers because they would like USVets initiative-D.C. to 

still stay an entity, but of course that comes knowing that they 

have an ultimate deadline and the building will be destroyed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you know how many veterans are there all 

total? 

Mr. COX. Fifty. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Fifty. And how many of these have jobs? 

Mr. COX. I don’t know. When we met with Tim Cantwell, who 

is the president of Cloudbreak, that supervises this, he said he felt 

that only 37 of them had jobs, but he hasn’t given us a roster. We 

asked for a roster on who had jobs and who doesn’t. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Who is your key VA contact on this? 

Mr. COX. The VA contact right now, we don’t know. Tim Cantwell is giving that to us, or Susan Marshall through the HUD program. But we had a meeting just with Tim Cantwell on Friday and 

he is supposed to get that to me by March 3. It has been Secretary 

Mansfield, who has been calling Dr. Chu, but I don’t know if Secretary Mansfield would be the one who is on our weekly calls. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I will follow up on this, because while there 

are criteria and there are responsibilities and different purposes 

and different groups, public and private, the public will not understand any explanation that it takes 50 homeless veterans and ends 

up putting them out on the streets. 

Mr. COX. I can assure you that is not going to happen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am not sure they would be excited about taking 

37 veterans that have jobs here in Washington as they are rebuilding their lives, and shipping them off, as much as I love Texas, 

shipping them off 1,500 miles away to Houston. We will follow up 

on that. 

Mr. COX. That is why we want to talk with community partnerships, who runs similar programs so they could stay here. USVets 

just hasn’t done that, so we are willing to work with them to be 

able to identify appropriate accommodations locally. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
210 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Well, would you please keep us informed on 

any progress on that. 

Mr. COX. Yes. I will give you updates. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. We welcome that. 

Mr. Wamp. 

GULFPORT FACILITY

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All of a sudden, it kind of hit me like a ton of bricks. I should 

have realized this before today, but I have been to your Gulfport 

facility, when we went down with the leadership team, and Speaker Pelosi led that group 21⁄2 years ago. When we got off the helicopter in Gulfport, we went by the home on our way to Biloxi. 

Then-Representative Wicker was with us, but wasn’t the ranking 

member of this subcommittee at the time, interestingly enough, 

and Governor Barbour was with us as well. 

Mr. Cox, the barrier islands issue off the coast—is that being addressed at all with the continuing Katrina response? I mean, we 

are going to rebuild your facility, yet we still have the issue of another hurricane event like that. Or is your construction much, 

much different this time, as are the gaming facilities in Biloxi, 

which are now all-masonry and built back and not floating, and on 

and on, right? 

Mr. COX. Correct. Barrier islands hasn’t been resolved, as far as 

I know. And GSA just keeps us in the loop on those communications. What we have done is actually built to a storm-surge level 

that actually our first floor will be washout. So on the grade that 

we have built up 20–some feet, then we are 15 feet above that, and 

the first floor is just parking, storage, really wash-through. So residents will be above the storm surge area where living space will 

occur. 

Mr. WAMP. So you break ground on March 3. How long is the 

construction period? 

Mr. COX. Until the fall of 2010. 

Mr. WAMP. So 21⁄2 years. 

Mr. COX. About 21⁄2 years. It is construction, hurricane-proof windows, so it is built to category–5 for wind, rain and storm surge, 

we are hoping. 

Mr. WAMP. But the construction is funded in the supplemental? 

Mr. COX. Correct. 

Mr. WAMP. All of it? 

Mr. COX. All but $20 million, which we were going to ask some 

larger units, ADA compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant units, and we had set aside $20 million in the trust fund. 

That we will spend at the end should it be needed. So in that $240 

million is included $20 million from the trust fund. 

Mr. WAMP. That would be great to see it come to fruition. 

GREEN CONSTRUCTION

Mr. COX. Well, there is huge progress now. 

Mr. WAMP. You were talking about green housing, which helps 

the quality of life. What about green construction in terms of environment? We are doing it here at the Capitol. Are you doing it 

there? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
211 

Mr. COX. That is a very good question. We are. We are looking 

to be LEEDS-certified at least gold, but striving for a platinum. 

But if you look at green roofs, some of our outside space will be 

on the parking deck roof level, where you will have putting greens, 

items like that. We are looking at recirculating water. In fact, I 

just talked to one of the architects last week when I was in Roanoke about the 5-gallons of rainwater that will collect after a 

storm, and that could be recycled for use in the building. So yes, 

we are working heavily with Yates to be able to get LEEDS certification for that building as well. 

OTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. WAMP. The whole construction process is completely private 

in terms of the bidding? You talked about Jacobs, and obviously 

they are a large contractor from Mississippi who won the competitive bidding of the master general contract on the entire facility. 

Are there any other reforms in procurement of the construction? 

We have witnessed tremendous privatization in housing, and this 

is one exception to that. Of course, this is very different from just 

regular housing for active duty men and women. This is much 

more in the line of nursing care, retirement living, et cetera. But 

are there other private developments underway in your business? 

Or is this kind of unique? 

Mr. COX. Well, we are doing a master plan here in D.C., but to 

back up, actually GSA did—this was competitively bid, so GSA ran 

through it to be competitively bid for design, because it is designbuild. We also bid for the design-build component, not really the 

construction component, but design and build for that. 

In D.C., we actually went through a competitive process as well 

to select Crescent Resources, who will be the developer of 77 acres 

in D.C., so it is a revenue source. That is the only other one. 

Mr. WAMP. That is privatization. 

When you say you are more business-like, in what way? 

Mr. COX. We are. When you look at how wisely we are spending 

our dollars, we have looked at what we do best, which is really focused on care. We necessarily didn’t do transportation well, so 

transportation, to hire a bus company to do that for us made much 

better business sense, just to have that available to us. So we really looked at the roles of what outside groups could do to help our 

business, so we could really focus on our core business, which is 

providing care for the residents. 

And that, as you will see, was a reduction in our requests for operating maintenance year over year until this year. And also our 

services have improved and increased, where we are able to get 

great IG reports and we are able to get great JCAHO reports, 

which were inconsistent at best. So it is really a business-like approach to how we are operating, so that we don’t have to do everything as a government entity. We can partner. 

We also partner with other government agencies. For instance, 

the Bureau of Public Debt, which is an entity of Treasury, does all 

of our accounting for us. So when my managers couldn’t get on a 

computer to call up their daily profit-loss statements to see where 

they were today, or budget for the month, or budget for the year, 

and it took me 8 weeks when I first came to get a profit-loss stateVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
212 

ment. Now it is real-time, 24/7, you can access your account from 

any computer with your access code, because Treasury does that 

for us. So I was able to reduce FTEs, but we get a better quality 

of product, because we are using another federal agency that has 

expertise in accounting for us. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Bishop. 

WASHINGTON FACILITY

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Welcome back, Mr. Cox. I appreciate the progress that you have 

made. In Gulfport, you are moving right along. Very good. How are 

things in Washington at the facility there? 

Mr. COX. Washington is going great. We are very grateful for the 

money that we have. We need buildings repaired or replaced. We 

have had some ongoing maintenance problems because of deferred 

maintenance for over 20 years. They are biting us now, so we are 

being able to focus on those. It is very helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Last year, we talked about some of the measures we 

have provided the residents, including the golf course. 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. We talked about, last year you hadn’t costed it out, 

but it was the cost of the sprinklers on the fairways, doing some 

of them up. You said you were going to cost that out. 

Mr. COX. We notified the Committee that we did not have the 

money to adequately cost it out by private correspondence. However, we plan to make it part of our capital study. We also want 

to look at if there is a way to connect it to our development, so 

some of the development requirements could be there as well. So 

we haven’t forgotten that. That is on our list, and we actually are 

looking at that as part of the master plan. We need a way to fund 

it. We have to do the study because we have realized that doing 

that now really wasn’t fair, because we don’t have water in significantly 90 percent of where the golf course is. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is all I have. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very impressed that a young articulate person would be so 

concerned and confident in answering question dealing with the elderly population. It is refreshing to see. 

How many soldier homes do we have in the federal government? 

Mr. COX. Currently, only one in operation, the D.C. site. In Gulfport, no one is living there because we tore down the building. But 

one in operation, and the other 1,100 residents in D.C. 

Mr. FARR. Well, 1,100. So on a $94 million budget—— 

Mr. COX. About $63 million. 

Mr. FARR. So on a $63 million budget, we are helping 1,100 people. 

Mr. COX. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. What is the goal to house how many in federal jurisdictions? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
213 

Mr. COX. The goal really would be to, when we open Gulfport, 

there would be 500 people. There wouldn’t be 1,600 people because 

we would look at, with the reduction in the building that we are 

going to renovate, Scott, we would be looking at a population of 

about 800. 

Mr. FARR. What is the total goal? 

Mr. COX. The goal would be about 1,200. 

Mr. FARR. About 1,200 addition to the 1,100? 

Mr. COX. No, 1,200 total in the two homes. 

Mr. FARR. Total in the whole nation? 

Mr. COX. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. And how many state homes? I know California has 

some. 

Mr. COX. California does. I don’t know how many state homes 

there are. I have spoken to them quite a few times at their conferences about what we have done. 

Mr. FARR. Do all states have veteran retirement homes? 

Mr. COX. Some states have several. 

Mr. FARR. We have had testimony here that there are about 

200,000 veterans on the streets in America—200,000 veterans that 

are homeless. We are only taking care of 1,200. Somebody has to 

pick up that gap. What you find in dealing with a homeless population is you can’t get them to deal with an individual problem 

until you get them a safe place to sleep. 

The shelters are essential to getting them off the streets and getting them in treatment, though they will not always accept the 

help. What I have seen in my district is that that responsibility has 

just gone to local government, so homeless shelters are being built 

by cities, with public and private funding. 

I would be interested, it seems to me that if the responsibility 

here that our committee has taken would be in essence leave no 

vet behind, then we are falling really short. 

Mr. COX. I actually gave a report to Congress back in 2006 that 

had five options. One of the options—and this is just my personal 

opinion, not the department’s opinion nor AFRH’s opinion, the department being OSD—but one of the options there was to look at 

AFRH forming a nonprofit, and being able to leverage funds to be 

able to have home four, home five, a home ten, a home twelve. 

That plan was not accepted. 

Mr. FARR. And the $63 million to help 1,200—I mean, you could 

give them vouchers through the housing authorities to get a better 

value for your buck. 

Mr. COX. We could. Part of it is that is why we want to renovate, 

and as you will see in our financial analysis that we do, our costs 

continue to come down because we are in buildings that have outlived their usefulness, that haven’t been updated. We have so much 

square footage that really we don’t need. So yes, we can—— 

Mr. FARR. So how much land do you own? 

Mr. COX. We own 272 acres. 

Mr. FARR. That is it in the whole nation? 

Mr. COX. Well, in Gulfport, it is 49 acres. 

Mr. FARR. Has there been any discussion of using what the Department of Defense is using, and what they call RCI, the residential community initiative, where you essentially have private dolVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
214 

lars build on public land, and then they get the rent from the BAH. 

And you could work out a voucher kind of payment that other authorities use, plus the private sector would take all the risk and 

puts up all the capital, and essentially designs it as state-of-theart. It’s beautiful. 

Mr. COX. That is what we are doing in part, not to replace what 

we have, but we are developing 77 acres on the premise that that 

income from there, the developer, Crescent Resources, is responsible for all of the development there, and will pay us rent. We get 

rent in three ways. We get rent just based on the sheer lease of 

the ground because we didn’t sell it to them. We are leasing it to 

them. Second, we participate in rent for every lessor they have on 

the campus, 4.3 million square feet of rentable space there. And 

then third, whenever they refinance and have a savings, we split 

in that savings as well. 

Those funds will come in the trust fund, and my hope, again personally—not my professional opinion—or the AFRH’s chief operating officer in the department, but then we would be able to use 

funds to be able to look at private-public partnerships and have 

like a Del Webb build us 150 units in Arizona, of which then we 

could voucher people to go there. 

Mr. FARR. What, of these requirement that you have, the four 

criteria qualifications, how many vets out there fit that criteria in 

one way or another? What is your unmet need, who qualify, but 

have no space available for them? 

Mr. COX. There are people who make application to us, usually 

we accept because they look right, so we don’t deny people if they 

meet our criteria. 

Mr. FARR. How is it you only have 1,100 or 1,200 units? 

Mr. COX. Well, because our people don’t sign an annual lease. 

They don’t have to give a month’s security deposit. So we turn over 

about 30 a month, with residents coming in. So the wait list is really continuous, that people usually only have an extended time of 

90 days to wait from when they make application to get in because 

of the turnover we have. People come. They get better. They go 

back to their home. 

As I testified in the past year, the number one reason people 

leave, other than they are able to die at our facility, is they go back 

to where their family is, because they are growing frail and they 

can’t travel back to Texas, and can’t travel back to California. So 

that is the impetus in the report that we should have—— 

Mr. FARR. What is the percentage? I mean, you do have people 

who just live with you until they die. 

Mr. COX. Correct. We do. The vast majority—over 80 percent of 

our deaths are people—80 percent of our discharges are people by 

death, not by choice to leave—but 20 percent leave because they 

want to go home because they are too frail to travel back and forth 

to see their children and grandchildren, family members and 

friends. 

Mr. FARR. But if we have 200,000 homeless, and we are housing 

1,200, and of those homeless, maybe not all of them fit this criteria, 

particularly people who retire, and I am not sure they all have 20 

years of service. 

Mr. COX. That is only one category. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
215 

Mr. FARR. Yes, but you also have served in-theater, war disability, injury. A lot of them can’t prove that either, or females 

prior to 1948. It is a very, very narrow niche of people that qualify 

to live there. The only reason I am asking these questions is that 

it seems to me that Congress has created this responsibility to take 

care of essentially people that are in this narrow niche, and who 

are financially in need, and yet we find this huge population out 

there that is in need and either doesn’t fit this criteria or there is 

no room. 

I would be willing to look at how we should expand it. You are 

the administrator. You are smart about the ‘‘how.’’ How do you get 

better? Do we just work with housing authorities to make sure that 

people get housing vouchers or rental vouchers? Is there a better 

way in which we can pick up the unmet need, because you are 

serving less than 1 percent. 

Mr. WAMP. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FARR. Sure. 

Mr. WAMP. The secretary of veterans affairs pretty well told us 

last week, 2 weeks ago, that it is about 130,000. I know that is still 

a huge number, but of the 130,000, a very large part of the population is either frankly on some kind of medication. There is a tremendous percentage of them with no illness. And so you can kind 

of start to see. 

The question that I would have, which is very related, because 

I am like the same as those on this subcommittee, I don’t want to 

leave the veterans behind. I want to find a way with vouchers to 

empower these people to find a place to go, and then make sure 

the ones that need medication are on medication so that they will 

have the wherewithal to understand what is available to them. Because a whole lot of them—I would say the majority of them—don’t 

understand what is available to them. 

What kind of waiting list do you have? You said 30 days. Are 

there thousands of people waiting to get in your facility? 

Mr. COX. No, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. That speaks to what I want to point out, is that the 

real challenge is not to have the facilities or even the voucher, but 

figure out how to corral the ones that need help and get them diagnosed properly and treated properly so that they can pursue the 

health, because most of them frankly have mental health issues. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, some of them don’t want any help. 

Mr. WAMP. I know some don’t. 

Mr. FARR. But that is a treatment problem, too. 

Mr. COX. We would love to look at our admission criteria. One 

of the things that we have talked about before is that spouses are 

not permitted by law to come to our facilities unless they independently qualify. So a person moves to our facility usually at a time 

of trauma because the number one reason why they moved is their 

spouse died. That is the worst time to make a lifestyle change is 

when your spouse dies. So we would love to entertain looking at 

alternatives to our criteria that we feel needs to evolve to something better. 

Mr. FARR. Have you made those recommendations? 

Mr. COX. We have. They are in the report that we gave to Congress. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
216 

Mr. FARR. When was that report? 

Mr. COX. In February, 2006, and we gave five different options, 

and one was pretty aggressive, to give us 18 months to explore who 

we need to serve and expand that; look at perhaps privatizing and 

partnering with some other retirement housing developers; and 

that was not accepted. I would be happy to re-visit it. 

Mr. FARR. What do you mean, it wasn’t accepted? 

Mr. COX. It wasn’t accepted. The only option in that report that 

was accepted was just to go back to Gulfport proper and rebuild 

new, and that was option two out of five. 

Mr. FARR. The authorizing committee—I mean, who? 

Mr. COX. The House Armed Services Committee. We can certainly bring that information back out to you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you could provide that to us. 

Mr. COX. Yes. And if you want more than the six-page—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We could talk to our colleagues on the House 

Armed Services Committee. 

Mr. COX. Great. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Cox, I just have one other question. That is, when 

you finish completion, or when you complete the renovations on the 

Scott building, do I understand you are going from three floors to 

two floors. So what will that mean in terms of your capacity? 

Mr. COX. With the Scott renovations, and our study will be completed in the end of April about utilization at the Scott building, 

and what most likely—if I had a crystal ball—the Scott building 

will come out to be renovated assisted living and long-term care because we can join two rooms to make one, rather than joining three 

rooms to make one, so we don’t lose as much of the volume, and 

because our infrastructure for dining, so much of the activities are 

in that lower level in Scott, to reproduce that would probably be 

exorbitant. 

Mr. FARR. Right. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr follows:] 

Question. Is the study of Renovation of Existing/Previously Existing Structures 

complete? 

Answer. Yes, the report was submitted to Congress on February 28, 2006 and contained five options. Options 1 and 2 proposed rebuilding on the Gulfport property, 

either a renovation or a total rebuild. Options 3, 4, and 5 did not propose rebuilding 

on the existing Gulfport campus. The Department approved option 2, to rebuild the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) on AFRH property. Congress provided the 

funding to support this decision and construction is underway. The Department of 

Defense does not support revisiting any options contained in the report AFRH initially delivered to Congress on February 28, 2006. 

Question. If so, did the study recommend a reduction in the AFRH footprint of 

either facility? 

Answer. No, the study provided options to enhance capabilities. 

Question. If not, what do you mean in your testimony about reducing the ‘‘footprint.’’ 

Answer. The terminology ‘‘footprint’’ recognizes divesture of excess infrastructure 

at the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)—Washington. Over the past four 

years, AFRH—Washington has consolidated operations to create better support for 

aging residents. The footprint of the AFRH has been reduced by over 600,000 square 

feet, but continues to serve the same number of residents. 

Question. Please update the committee on the scope and status of the privatization plan for the DC Old Soldiers Home? 

Answer. We are not privatizing the Home or supporting a change in governance 

or eligibility. The Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) is seeking final approval 

for the AFRH-Washington Master Plan from the National Capitol Planning ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
217 

mission by May 1, 2008. As part of the master plan process and competitive bidding, 

Crescent LLC was selected as the preferred land developer, pending Department of 

Defense approval and Congressional notification. 

Related to this master plan, the Department has directed Mr. Cox to work with 

US Vets, the Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and the 

DC Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness to find a suitable 

alternative for the approximately 50 homeless veterans currently residing at Ignatius House as part of a lease agreement between US Vets and AFRH. Ignatius 

House is part of the AFRH redevelopment plan and is expected to be turned over 

to the developer in August 2008. Furthermore, US Vets is also in discussion with 

the AFRH developer about being the transitional housing provider within the future 

AFRH development. 

Question. (Congressman Farr) commended AFRH for developing new ‘‘Green 

House’’ dorms at the Gulfport facility that will foster more of a community environment with supportive services rather that the traditional dorm/barracks house. Will 

these facilities ever be located outside of AFRH properties? 

Answer. At the request of Congress, the Gulfport AFRH Project Team performed 

due diligence to ensure we successfully incorporated the best facets of numerous retirement home concepts, including the Green HouseTM and Small House concepts at 

AFRH—Gulfport. The AFRH Project Team, comprised of environmental gerontologists, architects, retirement home designers, engineers, and residents, has designed Neighborhoods of Care that will provide an unparalleled quality of life for 

all of our veteran residents and the staff that serve them. AFRH—Gulfport has been 

designed to meet the specific needs of AFRH residents while maintaining the intent 

of our statutory charge to incorporate the principles of the Green House approach. 

We have designed a facility, staffing plan, and program that provides privacy where 

needed, values individuality, fosters spiritual well-being, provides meaningful activities, and, above all, sustains the veteran’s dignity; all concepts embodied within the 

Green House approach. With the General Services Administration as our lead construction agent, we expect the facility to open in 2010, on time, within budget, and 

on target in meeting the intent to provide the best level of care possible to meet 

the needs of our proud veterans. Similar design concepts will be used when renovating the Scott Building at AFRH—Washington. There are no plans to employ 

this design outside of AFRH properties. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 

Mr. COX. So what we are looking at is is there an opportunity 

then to build a residential living component. So we would be looking at perhaps a replacement facility. It could be the Grant building, that sits on Harewood right across from the cemetery, or would 

we build something new? It most likely wouldn’t be a care facility. 

It would be for those with independent living. That is part of the 

master plan as well. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. I hope that we can look at that report and perhaps make some recommendations in report language, but working 

to see if we can find ways to meet that unmet need out there. 

Mr. COX. Great. We would love to have your help with that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for coming. I will look forward to updates, if you would, on the homeless veterans issue. 

Very good. Thank you both. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Greene, welcome back to our subcommittee. 

It is good to have you back. Thank you for all of your service on 

the court, and thank you for your distinguished career as Army 

judge advocate in the judge advocate general’s corps. It has been, 

I understand, 25 years, having retired as a colonel. We are deeply 

grateful to you for your public service. 

This is our final panel for the afternoon, the United States Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The budget request for fiscal year 

2009 is $23,975,000, of which $1.7 million is for the pro bono proVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
218 

gram. The request is an increase of $1.285 million when compared 

to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

Judge Greene, rather than my continuing on, let me just recognize Mr. Wamp for any comments he would care to make, and then 

we will recognize you here. 

Mr. WAMP. Judge Greene, I wasn’t here last year. I am the new 

kid on the block, but thank you for your distinguished service and 

career. I look forward to working with you and supporting the improvements that I read are already underway. Thank you very 

much for your testimony today, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Greene, we will without objection submit 

your full testimony for the record. I would like to recognize you 

now for any summary comments you may have. 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS 

CLAIMS 

WITNESS 

CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM GREENE 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Wamp, and Mr. Farr. I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to be here again today. I brought with me my Clerk 

of Court, Norm Herring, Mary Anne Marcot, who is my financial 

manager, and Alice Kerns who is the counsel to the Board of 

Judges. These people help me each and every day in the running 

of the court and especially preparing the budget. 

Fortunately, this year the budget was pretty easy to prepare. It 

is a pretty straightforward budget from last year. We are asking 

for, as you say, $1.25 million more than we received for the 2008 

appropriation. Of course, we thank you very much for providing us 

$1 million more than we asked for last year. Your recognizing that 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Board of Veterans Appeals received more money to increase their productivity, and the 

ripple effect that will come from that, certainly will enable us to 

prepare for the inevitable growing caseload. Those executive agencies are rendering decisions at record pace. 

We have the obligation to conduct that judicial review, and we 

are doing so to the best of our abilities with the seven judges that 

we have and the very competent administrative and judicial staff. The $1.25 million increase that we are asking for in FY 2009 is wrapped up basically in the $510,000 dedicated to covering the anticipated personnel costs that are associated with pay raises and 

benefits that will occur simply because of inflation. For basic operating costs, we are asking for an increase of $258,000 to cover the 

anticipated increases in the rent of the location where the court is 

located, and the continuing operation site, as well as payroll services from the National Finance Center in the Bureau of Public Debt 

and the security expenses that we have as a court. 

That basically is our request in a nutshell. We certainly appreciate the support that you can give us in that regard. I do want 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
219 

to tell you that we have been very successful in our productivity 

at the court. This past fiscal year, fiscal year 2007, we decided 

4,877 cases. We received about 4,600 cases. That is an all-time 

record high. Some of that is associated with one particular kind of 

case, but if you subtract the 900 cases that involved that issue, we 

still decided more cases than the court has ever decided in its 20- 

year history. 

There is every indication, however, that we will continue to receive 4,000 to 5,000 appeals each year. As a result, we have to 

ramp-up our resources to take care of that caseload, and at the 

same time develop efficiencies that will allow us to dispose of these 

cases timely and efficiently. 

Thank you for the support that you have given us in our electronic filing plan. That is now in effect. We started in November 

requiring representative attorneys to file Equal Access to Justice 

Act applications electronically, and that has shown great dividends 

to us in terms of administrative ease in which we are able to make 

decisions. 

We are this summer going to require electronic filing for all 

pleadings that come to the court, and that certainly will streamline 

our administrative process. Probably, as those documents become 

readily available to the judges sooner, then more cases, of course, 

will all of a sudden come to chambers for decision. 

We are doing things to develop our record of trial to make it easier to obtain. Right now, it takes about 90 days just to get a record 

established for us to review, or for the case to be briefed. If we can 

condense that time by changing the way in which we develop the 

record, it will also pay dividends in terms of cutting down the time 

it takes to get to decision. Those procedures will take effect in 

April. 

With the money provided by the committee, we also hired additional attorneys for our Central Legal Staff. The 10 attorneys that 

we now have have all received formal mediation training that will 

allow them to come to the table with the parties, improve briefing, 

and hopefully resolve the disputes before they have to be presented 

to the judge. Again, when you are receiving 3,600 or 4,000 or 5,000 

appeals a year, that is a critical piece of our process. 

These innovations are significant. Changing how the relevant 

record is created doesn’t cost anything. That is something that we 

are doing in-house. It may cost VA some things because it requires 

them to get into the business of scanning records. Also, we have 

been recalling our retired judges to assist us in deciding cases. The 

five retired judges available come in for 90 days at a time to help 

us there. Again, that cost is minimal as well. I have one judge who 

is located out of town in Utah, and I bring him back for 90 days 

to do that. 

What is coming up in the near term that we need your tremendous support on is the courthouse. We are getting very close now 

to providing to the Congress a feasibility study by GSA on the options available for the courthouse. We are the only federal court in 

the system without its own dedicated courthouse. We are putting 

in place plans to try to alleviate that unflattering distinction. 

GSA, as I said, has done a follow-on feasibility study that examined our current location, a commercial office building. That study 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
220 

accesses whether or not it is feasible for us to take over that entire 

building, or in fact build at some other location that is considered 

to be appropriate and feasible. 

There is no better time than now to make this happen if we are 

going to let the public know that there sits a courthouse that demonstrates the public’s respect and gratitude to America’s sons and 

daughters for their service, and also that is a beacon of justice for 

the veterans and their families. So we look forward to working with 

you to make this a reality. 

That is all I have. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable William P. Greene, Jr. follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
221 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 here 42754A.118
222 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 here 42754A.119
223 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 here 42754A.120
224 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 here 42754A.121
225 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 42754A.122
226 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 42754A.123
227 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 42754A.124
228 

BACKLOG OF CASES

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge, thank you. It was very well presented. 

Let me just ask you in terms of your backlog, based on the historic number of cases that you decided this year, it looks to me like 

you handled more cases, closed more cases than came in, so you reduced your backlog. How long is the backlog in terms of the waiting list? Or in terms of if I were a veteran today and I filed a case 

before the court, when would I generally have my case? How many 

months later would I have my case considered? 

Chief Judge GREENE. It is very hard to speak in terms of backlog 

with an appellate court, but let me, if you recall from last year, I 

provided an overview of how the process works at the court. I think 

our median time for the fiscal year 2007 was 416 days. That was 

high—higher than previous years—because I had certainly put 

pressure on all my colleagues to make sure that we got rid of the 

oldest cases at the court, and therefore reduced the time that cases 

have been waiting for decision. We were successful in that. 

I think right now we have very few cases in chambers that have 

been there over 4 months. Now, how does a case get to chambers? 

Because of this record of trial issue that I presented, that it takes 

90 days just to get that, and then after the 90 days the parties file 

their briefs, and they have another 90 days to 120 days to do that. 

In essence, it takes at least 254 days for a case to even get ready 

for the Central Legal Staff to look at it to see what kind of case 

it is really going to be. They take about 2 or 3 months to do that, 

so you are already at 1 year before a case can actually come to 

chambers. 

There is just no way you can really reduce that too much. We 

can reduce it by changing the way we develop the record on appeal. 

Through electronic filing, there will be 24-hour access, to file briefs 

via the cyber-space, and e-filing will be at the court very soon. 

So as we work this, we are going to see how that improves the 

efficiencies of getting the case to a judge. But just like any other 

appellate court, once you get the case to the judge then you get into 

the deliberative process and the legal process. The time to disposition just depends upon the arguments raised by the parties, what 

effect the case may have on other cases pending at the court at the 

time, what the federal circuit is deciding at a particular time, and 

whether or not we are going to render a decision on an issue that 

is being also considered by the federal circuit—all those factors 

play into our ability to dispose of a case. But we are working to 

reduce that median time. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. You said you have hired five retired judges 

to come back for a certain period of time to help reduce the backlog. If you had additional budget funding, would you be able to hire 

additional retired judges? Or is that a limit? 

Chief Judge GREENE. No. I have six retired judges. One is not 

able to participate right now because he has had a terrible accident. So the other five are coming in, and by statute, once they 

make themselves available to be recall-eligible—and I as the chief 

judge decide to call them—they must serve 90 days. They can serve 

longer than that if they volunteer to do so. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
229 

As it has been working out, I have taken the five judges that I 

have and have spread their service over the year, so that there are 

always one or two available to help the other seven judges with the 

cases. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. Thank you. 

Zach. 

PRO BONO CONSORTIUM

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Besides both Mr. Farr and I wearing our pastel spring colors 

today, we have both agreed to a shared goal of leave no veteran behind. I was wondering—and forgive my naivety because I am a beginner here—but with your 41 percent increase in basically your 

pro bono work, can I assume that that is a population of veterans 

that are so indigent that they are coming through your court and 

might fit into some of this population that we are talking about 

where the goal would be to not leave these veterans behind? Who 

are these people? 

Chief Judge GREENE. An appeal to the court is an appeal by 

right. In other words, when a veteran is dissatisfied with the Board 

decision, that veteran can appeal the decision. There are no preconditions to doing it. So if they want to appeal, they just write a 

piece of paper to us, and we accept the appeal. 

So that is why when you think in terms of 5,000 or 4,000 veterans doing that, it is inevitable that many of them, who haven’t 

had legal representation because up until last June, a lawyer 

couldn’t represent a veteran before VA and charge a fee. Now, they 

can. So perhaps that is going to change substantially. 

But at any rate, we do have a high rate of individuals initially 

filing pro se. But then as the appeal works through the system, we 

have a pro bono consortium that screens the cases, and then they 

look at cases that appear to be viable, and thus assign an attorney 

to represent these veterans. There are other veterans organizations 

that come in and represent veterans from that same pool of unrepresented veterans that was 41 percent at the beginning. 

That is why in our annual report at the end of disposition, that 

number of unrepresented appeals reduces to about 19 percent. 

Mr. WAMP. But then they still have a $490,000 one-time increase, right? 

Chief Judge GREENE. I am sorry? 

Mr. WAMP. The $490,000 increase in your representation program, your pro bono work, is a 41 percent increase. Do you expect 

that to continue? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Well, I don’t normally comment on the Pro 

Bono Consortium’s budget, so I am not sure. I am sorry. I misunderstood you when you said pro bono. You were talking about 

the Pro Bono Consortium. Well, as I mentioned the consortium, in 

fact, screens the cases and as more cases come in, there are more 

cases to choose from as to whether or not they are going to assign 

the many lawyers that have signed up to represent veterans. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
230 

FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS

Mr. WAMP. On a little history, you talked about $1 million that 

this committee gave last year. Of course, I wasn’t here, so I don’t 

know. That was above the 2008 request? 

Chief Judge GREENE. That is correct. 

Mr. WAMP. And so, did that increase your FTEs once you got 

that money? 

Chief Judge GREENE. As I indicated in my prepared testimony, 

it increases our FTEs to 112. 

Mr. WAMP. From what? 

Chief Judge GREENE. From 105. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. So seven FTEs followed the increase. Were you 

going to increase that without the $1 million? Or did that prompt 

it? 

Chief Judge GREENE. That prompted it. 

Mr. WAMP. That prompted the FTE increase? 

Chief Judge GREENE. That is correct. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. So that then established a new baseline that 

you have to have going forward. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Exactly. 

Mr. WAMP. So it wasn’t really a one-time thing. You came to that 

level because you needed to. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Well, we had asked to increase to [I think 

we were going] up to 105 FTES for 2008. Then with the ripple effect coming from all the resources that were being put into VA, I 

guess it was nice to think about the court and say, well, there is 

going to be some residual effect on the court, and that gave us an 

ability to at least increase our resources. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, I am learning, and I appreciate the lesson here 

today. 

Chief Judge GREENE. I would be glad to come by and talk to you. 

Mr. WAMP. Very good. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

APPEALS PROCESS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Greene, thank you for coming. I am not a lawyer, so I 

want to ask you just a little bit about the process. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. The way a veteran gets in—a veteran applies for a disability through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they make 

a decision on rating and payment. 

Chief Judge GREENE. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. And if they are not satisfied, they appeal that to the 

Board. So that is the first instance of an appeal from an administrative decision. 

Chief Judge GREENE. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. Then your court is the second tier from the Board to 

you, and you are the supreme court of the decision. 

Chief Judge GREENE. In a sense we are, but really for questions 

of law only, the veteran can appeal again to the United States 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
231 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And then the veteran can 

appeal from the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. FARR. Have there been any of those cases this year? 

Chief Judge GREENE. No. I think there have been three cases to 

the Supreme Court in history. Well, there have been two accepted 

by the Supreme Court. We had one that went up on cert. It was 

a big case, but the Supreme Court decided not to take it. 

Mr. FARR. So essentially these 4,000 to 5,000 appeals that come 

to your court are people that have lost twice. They have lost in the 

preliminary decision. They have lost in the Board decision, and 

now they are in this third strike, right? 

Chief Judge GREENE. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. Now, what I am concerned about is that I think there 

is a tsunami of appeals coming with PTSD. Do you think that we 

will be able to predict how much they are going to get, how much 

disability they have, the ratings? Is that what they are usually appealing is the rating itself? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Well, that is why I said in a sense. Anything may be appealed that can be considered by the veteran, to 

be an adverse decision. That could be, obviously, a straight-out denial of all benefits, or it could be a dissatisfaction with what has 

been awarded. So the veteran could very well receive 50 percent for 

PTSD, but believe he should get 100 percent, and therefore a case 

coming to us would be the veteran’s allegation that the Board erred 

by not applying the rating schedule correctly in only giving him 50 

percent when he should have received 100 percent. 

Mr. FARR. When you have pretrial conferences, do you resolve a 

lot of those in the dispute resolution? 

Chief Judge GREENE. We do. I think the Clerk ends up acting on 

about 75 to 100 cases a month—it is about 40 percent of the conferences, historically. 

Mr. FARR. Let us just take the 5,000 figure—would you deny 

some of those or would you hear all of them? 

Chief Judge GREENE. No. Pre-briefing conferences are designed 

to get the parties to resolve the issue. Generally, what happens is 

that they agree that an error has been committed by the Board and 

therefore the matter is returned to VA for them to do it over again. 

Mr. FARR. What is the success rate of making an appeal? Is it 

50 percent or 20 percent? If you appeal to your court, does the appellant have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable decision? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Yes. I was just looking at our annual report. I thought we had a percentage here of remands. A remand is 

considered a win. 

Mr. FARR. That is what I have gotten into some casework on is 

the remand. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And the time consumed and the fact that people then 

have to go through that to find a regional record. It just seems like 

a paper nightmare and big administrative costs. 

Chief Judge GREENE. We do not fact-find, so consequently in 

some cases we can reverse the case as a matter of law and fact, 

and as a result say that under no circumstances could there be any 

other outcome but an award for the veteran. Make it happen. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
232 

But in many cases, there has been some screw-up by the Board 

that they didn’t do something correctly, and had they done it correctly, it would have changed the outcome of the facts in the case. 

As a result, we return it for them to do just that, to readjudicate 

the case correctly, and then if they don’t, I guess it does come back. 

Mr. FARR. Do you see an increase in the number of appeals? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Absolutely. We have gone from roughly 

2,400 a year up to 2005, to now from 3,600 a year, to 4,600 this 

past year. 

Mr. FARR. You have said the chances of getting a better benefit 

from appeal seems to be there. Is there feedback to the lower 

board? Is it a board? Is it a hearing board? What is the equivalent 

to the trial court? 

Chief Judge GREENE. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

Mr. FARR. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Well, the trial court, if you put it in that 

sense, the regional office is the first entity that adjudicates the 

claim. Then you have an intermediate appellate—— 

Mr. FARR. Is that an administrative process? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Absolutely, as well as the Board, although 

it is quasi-judicial in that they have veterans—— 

Mr. FARR. Does the Board have to approve that, or unless there 

is an appeal, it is a decision? I am a veteran. I think I have PTSD. 

I think I am 80 percent disabled, but I get denied. 

Chief Judge GREENE. So you appeal to the Board because a veteran has one right of appeal to the Secretary of VA, and that is 

to the Board. And the Board looks at the case de novo, as we say, 

and looks at the facts, and even will determine if there are other 

facts to be considered. If there are other facts to be considered, the 

Board generally would return it to the regional office for them to 

consider those facts, or ask the veteran to waive that requirement 

and let the Board make those considerations of fact. 

Mr. FARR. So how many of these 5,000 cases end up being recycled, versus final decision? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Normally, 50 percent are remanded by us. 

Mr. FARR. Here is what I see happening—you are going to get 

this increased workload. If you are, in fact, remanding them because you have found error, shouldn’t they be learning something 

so there won’t continue to be that much error? Because you are 

going to be overloaded and you are not going to have the resources 

to do this. 

Chief Judge GREENE. Chairman Terry will tell you—he is the 

chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals—that he is learning 

from our decisions, and that he has placed emphasis on his 55 to 

75 veterans law judges that they are going to prevent these remands coming back to us because they are going to do it correct 

the first time. 

Mr. FARR. And you are seeing that happen? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Oh, absolutely. At the same time, we are 

seeing a tremendous output of productivity by the Board as well. 

Now, Chairman Terry would tell you in that situation, if the Board 

does 90 percent correct the first time, there shouldn’t be any appeals to the Court. That would be great for us, but that doesn’t 

mean it is going to be so, because as I said, the veteran could still 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
233 

appeal to us if he gets 50 percent and believes he should get 70 

percent. 

Mr. FARR. My whole point is that your full workload is dependent on what happens at the ground level. If the veteran is feeling 

that they are being fairly judged or fairly rated, they won’t make 

the appeal. It seems to me that we ought to make sure that all the 

professionalism is necessary, because a lot of our casework at our 

local office is about the product of the bureaucracy. 

Chief Judge GREENE. I will say that I think it was last year, the 

Board had 18,000 cases that were totally denied—18,000. And all 

of those potentially could have come to the court, but they didn’t. 

And so for whatever reason, those veterans decided to say, okay, 

that is the decision and I accept it. We are always concerned about 

the fact that there is a pool of cases out there that just don’t come 

to us that certainly could. 

Mr. FARR. Why do you need your own courthouse? 

Chief Judge GREENE. Well, we are a federal court. All other federal courts have a courthouse. I put it as simply as that. 

Mr. FARR. Does that mean you have to travel here to Washington, DC? 

Chief Judge GREENE. No, no, no, sir, because at appellate courts, 

counsel appear. A veteran is certainly entitled to come to his hearing from wherever, but we are a national court and we go to other 

places and conduct hearings. I was just in Florida last week conducting a hearing. It is part of our outreach program, and is something that we do. 

But having a federal courthouse, is designed to demonstrate the 

public’s respect and gratitude to veterans as a symbol of justice for 

them. That is the main reason I think we should have a courthouse. Soldiers who are court martialed and convicted of serious offenses can appeal their cases to the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces, which has a courthouse. What about veterans with honorable discharges? So I think it is time for that to happen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Greene, could I just ask one last question? 

Based on the first quarter, the first 3 months of 2008 versus 2007, 

there were in 2008 first quarter a little over 300 per month filings 

and 387 in the same time period in 2007. Are you projecting any 

downward trend based on that, or is that just an anomaly? 

Chief Judge GREENE. No, I think we are really still on the same 

trend that we were in 2007, except for the class of cases that involved bilateral tinnitus. We ruled one way and the Federal Circuit 

ruled the other way, and that caused almost 1,000 cases to get 

worked in the system. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. WAMP. No more questions. Thank you for your statement. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Greene, thank you for your service. It is 

great to have you back here. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Question 1. For FY 09 you ask for $1.7 million for the Veterans’ Consortium Pro 

Bono Program. How many veterans requested or required the services of the Veterans’ Consortium Pro Bono Program last year? 

Response. Although the budget estimate for the Pro Bono Representation Program 

(Program) is an addendum to the Court’s budget, the Program is a separate and disVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
234 

tinct entity from the court and the funds appropriated for it are deposited through 

the Court to the Program. Therefore, I have referred your question to the Chairman 

of the Program, Mr. Jeffery A. Stonerock, and asked that he respond to your question. 

Question 2. Electronic Filing of Claims. I’ve read your testimony and it seems that 

your Court is one of the few branches of the Federal Government that has been successful at records integration. Can you also access the veterans’ claims and medical 

records electronically? 

Response. No. The Court’s Electronic Filing and Case Management Syustem does 

not have direct electronic access to records maintained by VA. However, under the 

Court’s Electronic Filing initiative, when an appeal is filed with the Court, VA will 

copy the entire Record Before the Agency and furnish a complete copy to the veteran. All medical records and other documents from the Record Before the Agency 

relevant to the issues on appeal will be provided to the Court electronically. 

[CLERK’s NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(235) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WITNESSES 

JOHN DAIGH, JR., MD, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR 

HEALTHCARE INSPECTORS 

JAMES J. O’NEILL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS 

BELINDA FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT 

MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I will call the subcommittee to order. 

Dr. Daigh, Mr. O’Neill, welcome to our subcommittee. At least in 

my years in the subcommittee having jurisdiction over the VA, this 

is the first time to ask for a hearing specifically to meet with the 

Office of Inspector General. We thank you for being here. 

I think we are all proud of our work last year to add $11.8 billion 

in a 12-month period to the VA budget. I think one of the things 

that we all accepted was that this subcommittee carries with that 

additional funding the responsibility of being sure that it is spent 

wisely and effectively. 

We have all talked to our constituents back home about finding 

waste, fraud and abuse. To me, the operation of this office is where 

the rubber meets the road. I thank you both for taking on the important responsibility and seeing that our tax dollars are spent 

wisely and efficiently. Where there is waste or even criminal action, as you have uncovered in some cases, that is vetted. As many of you may recall on the subcommittee, we added $7.9 

million last year to this account for the VA Office of Inspector General. The reason was to give them extra resources to be able to 

keep up with the kind of oversight that we felt was so crucial to 

see that this significant increase in funding level was spent wisely. 

Let me just for the record give the subcommittee a little bit of 

track record information on the OIG’s office. In their last two semiannual reports to Congress, OIG identified $820 million in actual 

and potential monetary savings from proposed efficiencies. They 

issued 217 reports on VA programs and operations and—this is 

amazing to me—achieved 580 arrests, 336 indictments, 242 criminal complaints, 389 convictions, 1,711 administrative sanctions, 

and 45 pretrial (INAUDIBLE). 

OIG, according to their numbers, their operations provided a re- turn on investment of $12 to $1. That is not based on overly optimistic assumptions. I wish I could get that kind of return on my 

family’s investments. 

The president’s budget for 2009 did not help us maintain the 

funding level that we provided in 2008. In fact, it would cut the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
236 

OIG budget by 5 percent, resulting in an 11 percent decrease in 

staff. I hope during the discussion today we can talk about what 

the impact was. I respect the fact that the administration asked for 

some significant increases in some areas of the budget, particularly 

VA medical services, and we all agree that should be the highest 

priority. I would like to delve into how many people do you have 

to lay off or how many people could you not hire, and what would 

be the kind of work you couldn’t do that you can do if you have 

them. 

We will not put you in the unfair position of asking you if the 

administration budget is fair or not. I respect the chain of command and once OMB has signed off on a budget, it is everyone’s 

responsibility in the administration to say we are going to do the 

best we can with what we have been given. But I think we will ask 

in a fair manner what actions you have to take to implement that 

budget cut, or what actions could you not take with the additional 

funding that we provided last year. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Wamp, for any comments he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership on all these hearings, just the general way that you 

present yourself and the leadership that these two major priorities 

of federal spending deserve. 

The chairman said that this was the first hearing at this subcommittee for the inspector general to come in. Well, every hearing 

that I go to is the first one that I have been to, so we have that 

in common. [Laughter.] 

I would also say that I can’t think of an inspector general’s office 

that would be more important than this one, because the covenant 

that our nation has to the veterans and with the veterans, and 

frankly the bureaucracy and the agency association with that covenant, are very, very important that we squeeze every dime in efficiency out of the precious resources that we dedicate to our veterans, and that we root out any waste any fraud, and any abuse. 

Because this is a covenant relationship between our country and 

the men and women in uniform that have stood in harm’s way on 

our behalf, your IG’s office is about as important as any you can 

find. 

So I welcome you here on that tone. I thank you for your service, 

and commit myself to help the chairman find the resources to ensure that you can meet these responsibilities in the coming year regardless of what point we are starting from with the president’s 

budget request. I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well said, Mr. Wamp. 

We have two panels today. The methodology here was we wanted 

to bring in the assistant inspector generals that have the handson experience, for example, Dr. Daigh in healthcare and Mr. 

O’Neill in investigations. So rather than bringing in the inspector 

general, we thought that we would get the people who really have 

the boots on the ground. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
237 

Let me just briefly introduce our two witnesses today. Dr. John 

Daigh was appointed Assistant Inspector General for Healthcare 

Inspections at the VA in January of 2004. He has 27 years of active 

duty service in the United States Army. Dr. Daigh, we thank you 

for those distinguished years of service. He obtained his medical 

degree, and Judge Carter and I would be proud of it, even though 

I am an Aggie, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical 

School—it is a great institution, highly respected—after graduating 

from the U.S. Military Academy in 1974. 

Mr. James O’Neill was appointed in July of 2006 as the Assistant 

Inspector General for Investigations. Before joining the OIG, Mr. 

O’Neill had a distinguished career in the U.S. Secret Service— 

thank you for that—where he held leadership positions in the Office of Investigations, candidate nominee for the Protection Division, and the Information Resources Management Division. 

I think we are very fortunate to have people of your experience 

and qualifications to serve in these two very, very important positions. I would like to recognize each of you for any opening comments you would care to make. Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted for the record, so if you could in your initial 

comments address what you think are your key points, then we 

will open this up for discussion. 

Dr. Daigh. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DAIGH, JR. 

Mr. DAIGH. Sir, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, it is an honor to be here 

to represent the people in the Office of the Inspector General that 

work with me to try to ensure that veterans get quality care. We 

spend our days walking through the wards of the hospitals meeting 

with veterans, meeting with providers, trying to either inspect hospitals or deal with the issues that stakeholders bring to us through 

hotline complaints. While collecting data, it allows us to publish 

what we consider national reviews. 

I think that we have had a significant impact on the VA’s performance, and I hope that I can respond to your concerns through 

that discussion. I would say to you that I think veterans do receive 

quality health care at the VA system. I am, however, concerned 

over the last year, where I have had a spate of what I consider, 

and VA considers, really quite unfortunate incidents that we have 

published as hotline complaints in general. There is a complaint 

that arose at Martinsburg, West Virginia where a veteran was unable to get an adequate airway. There are some issues that we testified in a House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee regarding Salisbury surgery service. We recently published a hotline regarding the 

San Antonio VA intensive care unit, and then most recently we 

published the Marion, Illinois hotline addressing the significant 

issues in Marion. 

So I believe that there are some control issues that need to be 

attended to in order to assure that veterans do in fact get quality 

health care. We publish, and I think make important recommendations during the year. There are about 57 FTEs that would work 

for me in 2009 under the current budget proposal, which would be 

about 15 less than the 2008 proposal. My current workload outlook 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
238 

is to publish a CAP review, which would be a review of a medical 

facility about once a week; publish a hotline about once a week; 

and publish a national review about once a month. We would continue that publication pattern at about the same level. 

Of the reports that people expect to come from us, from my office, 

most of them deal with the quality of health care. But there is one 

I would like to make you aware of that I think will change our ability and improve our ability to address the issues that VA has to 

deal with. That is called the LC dataset report. We have a problem 

of universes. The VA is 150 hospitals of varying sizes at varying 

places. It is a collection of nursing homes of different sizes and different places. 

We have had a particular issue in coming up with a way to think 

about the returning veterans from OIF and OEF. So the LC 

dataset essentially creates a series of cohorts—a cohort being everyone who leaves DoD in a given year. So if you understand the 

health care that has been provided and basically the disease burden that that group of individuals has as they leave DOD and transition to VA, one can then in the epidemiological view look and 

watch as VA tries to treat that disease as it comes across. 

So patients diagnosed with PTSD on the DOD side will have to 

be treated on the VA side as well. Similarly, one can look at that 

cohort of patients and see who is paying for their care. You can see 

for that population are they getting their care in-patient or outpatient or fee-basis VA? Fee-basis TRICARE, which many of them 

are eligible for. Are they in fact disabled such that they cannot— 

some would view them as unemployable? They may in fact be receiving Social Security income and have Medicare as their primary 

care. And some of these individuals are in nursing homes and have 

Medicaid as their care. 

So one can look at the epidemiology of it. One can look at the 

financing of it, and then one can also look at the disability penetration of these patients as the cohorts leave DoD. I think that that 

will allow us to know with much better precision how close we are 

to truth when we say that health care is truly representative of 

what the VA is doing. 

I would like to end my statement there. 

[Prepared statement of the Office of Inspector General follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
239 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 611 here 42754B.001
240 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 here 42754B.002
241 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 here 42754B.003
242 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 here 42754B.004
243 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 here 42754B.005
244 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 here 42754B.006
245 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 here 42754B.007
246 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 here 42754B.008
247 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 here 42754B.009
248 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 here 42754B.010
249 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 here 42754B.011
250 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Daigh. 

Mr. O’Neill. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WITNESS 

JAMES J. O’NEILL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS 

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. O’NEILL

Mr. O’NEILL. Thank you, sir. 

I represent the 149 members of the Office of Investigations. We 

will be growing to 163 in FY 2008. 

We have 120 special agents and administrative investigators in 

25 locations around the country. We are opening up an office in Las 

Vegas and in Tallahassee in the coming year, so that will bump it 

up a couple. We have full authority to arrest, conduct investigation—as any other special agent in government does. In the last 7 

years we have averaged somewhere about 6.5 arrests per special 

agent, and monetary recoveries of $1.3 million per special agent. 

I thought I would tell you about some of the criminal investigations that we conduct. We are most interested, of course, in any 

sort of patient abuse, whether that is intentional homicides which 

have happened in VA hospitals, and on a couple of occasions, negligent homicide cases. If there is a suspicious death, we investigate 

it. 

We investigate allegations of serious assaults, rape, and a variety 

of assaults—we investigate threats against VA employees and facilities. We focus on drug diversion by medical personnel and by 

drug dealing on medical campuses that threatens the rehabilitation 

of those with substance abuse problems. We investigate identity 

theft by people who are getting benefits either at the hospital or 

the monetary equivalent. We are involved in a number of investigations which are typically civil investigations. 

In terms of the monetary benefits of investigations, we work on 

fraud committed, either by fiduciary or by survivors and deceased 

beneficiaries. We look at investigations of veterans who fabricate or 

grossly exaggerate service-connected disabilities such as blindness 

or paralysis compensation. 

We also investigate veterans who have fabricated or grossly exaggerated combat experience to support PTSD claims. We investigate people who pose as veterans and get some sort of benefit 

from the VA, or ineligible veterans and non-veterans who have assumed the identity of a veteran in order to get monetary benefits, 

and fraud against the loan guarantee program. There are many 

other types of investigations, but these are the highlights. 

We are proactive when possible. We have the Fugitive Felon Program in response to a law passed in 2001, where benefits are denied to fugitives who have committed a felony. In that case, what 

we do is we get the fugitive felon data from the FBI’s National 

Criminal Information Center, NCIC, and 14 or 15 other states. And 

we compare it with beneficiaries, and if there is a warrant for their 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
251 

arrest, then we provide the warrant holder with the last known address and other information from VA systems so that will expedite 

the arrest. 

For safety reasons, we wait 60 days and then we notify VBA and 

VHA, and then they initiate their due process procedures where 

they notify the beneficiary of an arrest warrant and that their benefits will be terminated as long as they are a fugitive, and that 

they will owe the payments for any benefits received while they 

were a fugitive. So it inspires them to either surrender or have 

their benefits cease. 

During the time that this program has been in existence, since 

late 2002, the program has resulted in 1,700 arrests, of which 112 

were VA employees, because we also match VA employee information against these fugitive warrants just to make sure we don’t 

have someone working at a facility who is a fugitive felon. 

We also match the VA beneficiaries against the Social Security 

Administration’s death file—to make sure that the VA is not providing monetary benefits to someone who is deceased. This program has resulted in 250 arrests, recovery of more than $27 million, and a 5-year cost avoidance of more than $72 million. The 

monetary benefits associated with the Fugitive Felon Program approached $1 billion because that is for the period of time that they 

are not able to get benefits—— 

We investigate allegations of bribery, contractor fraud, and data 

loss. You probably know we investigated a data loss last year in 

Birmingham. We have actually investigated about 50 data losses 

over the last 2 years. We provide fraud awareness briefings to 

about 8,500 VA employees a year, where we try to give them some 

sense of what are some of the indicators of fraud, and what they 

should be reporting to us. 

And finally, we do conduct administrative investigations of 

wrongdoing that is not criminal, but administrative, by GS–15s 

and SES employees of VA. These typically focus on use of public 

office for private gain, inappropriate use of resources, nepotism, 

and abuse of authority. 

HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. O’Neill. 

Thank you, Dr. Daigh. 

Let me begin by just asking you, Dr. Daigh, and then you, Mr. 

O’Neill, how many people were you able to hire as a result of the 

additional $7.9 million that we added to the administration request 

for 2008? And then, have you hired all of those people? Are you in 

the process of hiring them? And then, how many of those would 

you have to fire or not hire if we went to the budget proposed in 

the administration’s budget request? And then maybe more specifically, and most importantly, what would be examples of the kind 

of tradeoffs you have to make? 

We all know we have to make tradeoffs. We don’t have an unlimited checkbook here, but given the important work that the two of 

you and your offices do, what would be some of the tradeoffs that 

might, you know, cause priorities to get lost in the shuffle if you 

didn’t have those additional funds? 

Dr. Daigh, we can begin with you. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
252 

Mr. DAIGH. Let me try to answer that. We have not fully hired 

all the people in that when we were told we could hire. We are in 

the process of hiring those people. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And that would allow you to hire fully funded, or 

when you spent that money or hired those people, how many people would that allow you to hire? 

Mr. DAIGH. That would be 57 plus 15. So that would be—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. So that is 72 additional? 

Mr. DAIGH. No. My office would be 72 total—would be my office. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. DAIGH. Under the president’s budget, I would be at 57 in 

2009. So the delta is 15 people, and those 15 have not totally been 

hired. They are in the process of being hired. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Dr. DAIGH. I have a mandate to try to ensure that veterans receive quality care, so I try to look at a portfolio of issues every year 

all the time. So I try to ensure that the institutions within VA ensure quality and are performing properly by going to hospitals. I 

try to look at acute care. I try to also look at VA programs designed 

for elder-care, which would be the nursing home programs and the 

various—programs to provide opportunities for veterans to receive 

care outside of nursing homes. 

We also look at the programs that are VA-specific, like care for 

the homeless and other programs that are not really health care 

related and not really institutional care. So even if I were to lose 

FTE. I would try to still cover all those programs every year 

through the CAP inspections or hotline or national reviews. I don’t 

focus entirely on the issue of the day. I think that is not the direction we need. 

What would become difficult is it would become difficult to look 

in detail at issues that I think are important, and to put the emphasis on them that we need. For instance, I think credentialing 

and privileging are two of the issues that are of high importance 

right now; the ability for me to go directly into facilities and spend 

the time it takes to take a sample, and in the credentialing process 

to ensure that detail work has been done correctly, is time-consuming. 

What we currently do is we go in and we ask the VA what they 

do in the credentialing process. We look at their records. If the 

records appear to be reasonable, and we have been told that they 

do things correctly, then we move on. If you want us to go in and 

actually look at the applications for hire at the VA, to read the documents that allow one to be hired, to go and check and validate 

that each of the steps was taken—that is a much more time-intensive procedure than we currently do. 

We realize there are credentialing issues, and we have asked 

that through our marion report court that VA change their processes to improve those credentialing procedures that we have identified that need to be improved. So that would be an issue. 

Peer review is another issue that is important. When an event 

occurs at a facility where the outcome is not what is desired, there 

needs to be a review of that. So we have identified a number of 

problems with the peer-review process. We have identified VISNs 

we think are probably not properly supervising and applying the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
253 

controls that one would like to see over the movement of quality 

data. So again, a detailed look at that would be difficult. 

The kind of work that the LC dataset would let us use to bring 

power to the data that we have and turn it into much more actionable, useful information for the VA, would be difficult to do. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Daigh, let me interrupt. I want to try to stay 

to the 5-minute rule. We have an informal committee and a small 

number of people, so we can do multiple rounds. And then, Mr. 

O’Neill, later I will go back to you. 

Just quickly, as briefly as you could, we bumped up your budget 

significantly for 2008. If we were to maintain that level or inflation-adjusted amount for that level of staff, would you be able to 

give us a pretty good report within 12 months and say, this is what 

we think we could have done; this is what we think we were able 

to accomplish that we might not have been able to accomplish before. 

Basically, the question is can we, just as you measure the VA, 

would we be able to measure some of the results of that extra 

money? Rather than a 1-year bump-up and go back, if we hit the 

high level for 2 years, do you think you would be able to give us 

a pretty good, honest, objective analysis of what extra results? 

Mr. DAIGH. I think that where you would see that extra result 

is in the 800 CBOCs and 200 Vet Centers that are out there that 

essentially get no coverage. 

Mr. EDWARDS. They get no coverage? 

Mr. DAIGH. Well, minimal coverage, almost no coverage. In the 

CAPs, which is our review of ongoing facilities, we for a year went 

out and look at the CBOC that happened to be the closest to the 

hospital, but that is essentially no coverage. Of 800 CBOCs, we 

look at a very small amount—50 of them or 60 of them. We have 

paid no attention to the 200 Vet Centers. Vet Centers I think provide peer-to-peer counseling, which is in my view not health 

care—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. DAIGH. But they also provide suicide prevention counseling 

and social workers provide a therapeutic interaction. So we have 

not looked to see that if in fact the standard of care in there is the 

same as the standard of care at a facility. 

We would have a very difficult time addressing hotlines that are 

in detail or in-depth that Members of Congress or stakeholders 

would present to us. So a Marion—I have a 50-person staff and it 

takes 10 or 15 people several months actually, to crank through the 

data, to interview the people involved, put together a meaningful 

report and drive change. 

So the number of hotlines I could do, the detail that I would be 

able to do, the quality of the national reports, and CBOC and Vet 

Centers we can do. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

INADEQUATE CARE

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know the purpose of this hearing is to make sure that your office has the resources to meet its responsibilities and carry out 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
254 

oversight effectively. The chairman has touched on the what-if scenarios if you didn’t have enough money, or if you had to honor the 

president’s request. Because of my newness here, I need to ask a 

couple of questions while I have you here about the work that you 

do and what you find out there. 

Do you see in VA health care, Dr. Daigh, across the country, 

areas of less than adequate service? I will give you an example. 

This is a little parochial. We have a large outpatient clinic, but people have to drive 2 hours to receive hospital care. At one time, I 

was interested when Mr. O’Neill said that you opened offices in Las 

Vegas and Tallahassee—and I will ask you in a minute why—but 

Las Vegas was one area that only had an outpatient clinic, and I 

think now there is a hospital there. 

We still are in a large service area with only an outpatient clinic 

that they have expanded with an imaging center and extended 

hours, but it is a really, really active place with no hospital. It is 

very dangerous transporting our veterans 2 hours to a hospital. As 

a matter of fact, a couple of years ago there was a really awful 

wreck where veterans died in a van transporting them from Chattanooga to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, through the mountains in the 

winter, in the ice. 

It is still a problem, but to us it is an area of inadequate service. 

Do you see that throughout the VISNs? 

Mr. DAIGH. We do. The problem that I have is coming up with 

a way to present that data in a meaningful way. In other words, 

when you explained the story to me, which I understand and which 

I agree with, how can I take 100 stories like that and make that 

picture that will drive people to do something about it? So the current problem that we are addressing first is with this LC dataset 

I am talking about, is access the mental health care. 

So if I can paint a picture of everyone who left DOD—several 

hundred thousand people in a year—and I know where they are by 

zip code or census track, and I know where the VA is, and I can 

see how these people are getting health care, then we can describe 

through various metrics, for instance, the penetration rate, the percent of veterans who actually get their care at this or that facility, 

or who do not use the VA. 

So I think that through the methodologies that I am talking 

about, which I think we can get to the issues that you are addressing, that is a population that is due care that is not receiving care. 

We can find those pieces through the various health care—— 

Mr. WAMP. You are the most objective source that we may actually get on some of these questions. That is why I would ask you 

to be as candid as you can be when you are talking about your CAP 

reviews and through your cycle that you do these. What percent of 

your VA facilities are actually at risk under your review process? 

Mr. DAIGH. I would say that—I have been there about 5 or 6 

years now—and I would say that every year we find one or two facilities that I am going to say is at risk, where the maintenance 

or the performance or the quality assurance activities within that 

hospital do not meet standard. We report that. In the CAP report, 

we say this facility has significant problems, and we itemize specifically the major flaws that they have. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
255 

Not uncommonly, when we write that report, there is a leadership change or a significant impact on the leadership of that hospital. So we write the report. We give it to the VISN director to 

make sure that the VISN director and the facility director agree 

that we have the facts right. We write recommendations about how 

to fix it. There are a number of times when we have made that 

statement and changes occurred. 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA AND TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA OFFICES

Mr. WAMP. I have other questions for the next round for you. 

Mr. O’Neill, then, why did you open offices in Las Vegas and Tallahassee? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, we are opening them, they are not open yet. 

They will only be a two-person—office. 

Mr. WAMP. Why did you choose them? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Because we reviewed the likelihood of getting an 

increasing number of referrals from there. So if our agents have to 

travel, spend the night in Las Vegas, for example, the nearest office is Los Angeles. So in order to, one, grow our presence at a facility, we tend to get more referrals if we are physically at a facility. 

Las Vegas, of course, has an increasing number of veterans. It will 

save us some money in the long term. And then to address a quality of life issue of reducing frequent—travel. That is why we chose 

Las Vegas. 

I think, again, there is an increasing amount of work in that 

area, and we have one of our agents spending most of his time in 

Tallahassee. Our office is in the Tampa-St. Pete area, so this new 

office will help us cover the panhandle and Jacksonville, as well as 

southwest Georgia and Alabama, and we just will have a much better presence. 

RECRUITMENT

Mr. WAMP. Where do you recruit most of your talent from? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, to give you some sense of that, we do very 

well. I believe we are fairly well regarded by the investigative community. For example, in San Francisco, which is a fairly large 

area—because of the cost of living, we had 63 qualified applicants 

who were GS–13 special agents. We have hired from the Secret 

Service. We don’t recruit them, but we do attract them. [Laughter.] 

Because, a lot of people know that I used to work there. I have 

a son in the Secret Service so I am pretty well informed as to what 

is going on there. They are dealing with a tremendous amount of 

traveling, and a lot of them wanted to be criminal investigators. 

That is one of the reasons they became a special agent. Instead, 

they are being constantly asked to work protection. 

So we are able to attract many qualified Secret Service applicants, because of a fairly effective network to determine whether 

they would be interested in us—so we actually have done well. 

We have found other OIGs, and we make sure that when we find 

someone from another OIG that they recognize that we are a fullfeatured criminal investigative unit, an not an OIG that focuses on 

administrative misconduct. So we want to see that they have had 

experience in conducting complex criminal investigations, that they 

are well-rounded. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
256 

So I would say DEA is another source of applicants. We also try 

to attract a smaller number of younger folks who have a lot of 

promise. We recognize that succession planning is important, so we 

try to sprinkle younger people who lack experience, but have great 

talent. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back until the next round, 

please. 

STAFF RESOURCES AND WORKLOAD

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You say that your workload is divided into two main categories. 

One is proactive and the other is reactive. 

Mr. O’NEILL. I would say that realistically it is mostly reactive. 

What we do is—— 

Mr. FARR. How many cases did you open last year? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Approximately 1,100, sir. 

Mr. FARR. How many of those did you get resolved—1,100 or 

11,000? 

Mr. O’NEILL. About 1,100, we would have opened, and we basically—— 

Mr. FARR. Eleven-hundred, one-thousand-one-hundred? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. You have 488 positions and you only did—— 

Mr. O’NEILL. I have effectively about 95 special agents actually 

conducting investigations. The 488 is the entire OIG. 

Mr. FARR. And how many of those reactives did you solve—I 

mean, our office is a reactive office, too. We have district offices. 

Well, I have two staffers, and we process about 3,000 cases a year, 

so I am a little surprised that with your staff what you do is so 

low. 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, I will give you an example. We are in the 

middle of a major investigation in which we have devoted 9,000 

hours already. So the—— 

Mr. FARR. Yours are more complex. 

Mr. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. But some of these are just—these are allegations that 

you said you have received through a variety of sources, including 

Congress. 

Mr. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Our offices would call and say this—— 

Mr. O’NEILL. Frequently, a staff member of a Member of Congress will receive an allegation. For example, John Doe is said to 

have never served in the military and he is getting VA benefits. 

And then that may get referred to us—— 

Mr. FARR. And then you would refer that to the VA? 

Mr. O’NEILL. We get a lot of them directly—involved in that kind 

of work, but that is just one example—complaints that your staff 

may receive about abusive behavior, so we may launch an administrative investigation based upon that allegation. 

Mr. FARR. Is that the responsibility of your office? Or would that 

just be the responsibility of the VA’s normal management of office 

managers? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
257 

Mr. O’NEILL. Most of the time, it would be the responsibility of 

VA. It is when the allegation is serious enough to devote resources 

to, and it is against a senior level VA official, that is when we will 

accept it for an administrative investigation. If it is a criminal allegation, that somebody is accepting bribes, for example, then it is 

clearly our responsibility to investigate that, as opposed to the department. 

We as the OIG routinely refer allegations to VA that we receive 

on the hotline, which is really the source of most of the allegations 

we receive. 

Mr. FARR. So the proactive input to these 1,100, not all of them 

are criminal issues. They just might be—— 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well,—1,100 criminal investigations, as opposed to 

administrative—— 

Mr. FARR. Okay. You indicated in your testimony that there are 

some 800 clinics out there. I know I represent two of them—community-based outpatient clinics. And you haven’t been able to review these clinics. Our problem is VA always wants to shut them 

down or squeeze them. We are constantly trying, because what 

they would do if they shut them down is require patients to go a 

lot further. The idea was to try to handle the issues close to home 

so they wouldn’t have to go all the way to the VA hospital, in this 

case in California, to Palo Alto. 

I am curious, because I don’t think we have ever used your office—what kind of issues would we report to you? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, regarding the clinics—— 

Mr. FARR. Do you inspect them for inspection purposes? Or is it 

all based on complaint basis? 

Mr. DAIGH. No, sir. I proactively go out and look at medical centers on a schedule. I look at them. So what I am saying is those 

800 clinics I think should in some way be at risk if we aren’t going 

out and looking at them. The reason I say this is that the clinics 

were established with clear goals in mind. For instance, they 

should provide a certain set of services, and the providers at those 

clinics ought to have a certain set of credentials and capabilities, 

and they ought to have the same standard of care at that clinic as 

they have at the local hospital. 

So we think that looking at what they are actually doing at those 

clinics will improve the quality of care the veterans receive—not 

assuming that the care there is good or bad. We are just trying to 

make sure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. 

Mr. FARR. Whose law do you follow? California has higher standards than other governmental entities, so do you follow the federal 

standard or do you stick to the state standard? 

Mr. DAIGH. For the review of medical facilities, we follow VA directives and we follow, where inspections of hospitals are concerned, we also use Joint Commission JACAHO guidelines, which 

are generally accepted hospital standards. So we do not use individual state guidelines. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Carter. 

DATA-MINING

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
258 

We have a little university in my district that did some datamining of projects on the crop insurance program and saved about 

$1 billion in fraud for the federal government. I am looking over 

some of the programs that you use in a small way—program is a 

data-mining sort of program, as is the death-match program, in 

looking and comparing and seeing trends now where we are finding 

people in those ways, if I understand it correctly. 

But to me, this is what some people would term data-mining as 

a negative connotation, when in reality in law enforcement, it 

would seem to me that in the inspection of these clinics and hospitals, that you could establish in a computer program trends that 

make indications of mismanagement like excessive drug use in one 

clinic over another clinic might give an indication that there might 

be somebody stealing drugs. Are you all doing any of that type of 

data-mining as you look at both the health care side and the criminal investigation side of the VA, to try to establish these trends so 

that you are regularly looking with a computer at these issues? 

Mr. O’NEILL. That happens with data-mining, the VA tries at a 

number of facilities to use software programs that flags suspicious 

drug disbursement for patients. It helps us to focus in on either a 

nurse or a pharmacist who may be either stealing drugs from inventory or stealing drugs pretending they are given to a veteran. 

So we do use technology when it is available. 

Now, for example, in that one particular case, that software 

works with only one of VA’s dispensing software programs, but not 

with the two others. So we are working with VHA to help develop 

a more effective tool to identify suspicious drug disbursement-type 

of activities. 

We actually are waiting for the Department of Defense, DMDC, 

Defense Manpower Data Center, to do a match for us now that will 

look at VA records and Department of Defense records and try to 

highlight the discrepancies between the type of discharge that may 

be shown in VA records, or the discharge records of the individual—so they may not be eligible for VA benefits or even more 

important, I guess, is identifying non-veterans getting treatment 

and benefits which we don’t think is epidemic. 

To give you another example, in Florida we matched—now, to be 

honest with you, we can’t match databases without a data-matching agreement. However, you can go in one record at a time, so we 

identified in Florida, VA beneficiaries who were listed as blind, and 

then went into Florida driver’s license database and went one by 

one until we found somebody, and that led to an investigation that 

the individual may have received benefits, by fooling VA into thinking he was blind. 

So we are looking for that sort of opportunity because with our 

limited resources, we don’t want to waste our time trying to do 

things manually if data can lead us to the fraud. 

Mr. DAIGH. It is clear to me that some facilities are privileging 

people to do things beyond what that facility can support, allowing 

for instance physicians to do surgeries they may well be capable of 

doing, that anesthesiologists can support, but the hospital itself is 

without 24-hour services in a variety of areas and may not really 

be capable on a regular basis of taking care of that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
259 

So we are looking at the data that VHA produces in terms of 

workload data by, again, the right kind of medical billing codes, 

CPT codes, to identify facilities that are at risk and that we should 

go look at and talk to, and say, hey, should you guys be doing these 

procedures? That basic issue is what the Under Secretary of Health 

has agreed to address in our Marion report where we identified 

and said, hey look, you have to call time out; you have a small facility doing many complex things; you all need to match, in a sense, 

what you are allowing these facilities to do with what they are capable of supporting. So we are trying to leverage that—— 

Mr. CARTER. Well, you know the VA has a reputation now on 

their medical records of having a very superior computerized medical records program. At least in the experience of the little program that we funded and financed, it really saves manpower and 

it gives you a clear picture. That picture is an ongoing picture that 

is being delivered to you every day. All you have to do is pull it 

up on the computer and it is kind of running in the system all the 

time. 

And the fact that you are doing those things caused those who 

are cheating to say, wait a minute, they are looking for me now. 

And they back off. So you can’t maybe catch $500 million worth of 

actual theft, but you head-off $1 billion of people who are not going 

to steal anymore. It would seem to me that that would be money 

well spent for this committee as far as oversight is concerned, to 

look into data-mining to try to tie your systems together so that we 

could have clear pictures. 

I just raise it because I think it is a thing of the future in government that is going to make a difference in government. So I am 

glad that you are working in small ways. I would like to help you 

work in bigger ways. 

Mr. O’NEILL. If I could add a little bit, sir. We have a staff in 

Austin, Texas that spends their entire day mining data from VA 

systems. 

Mr. CARTER. Good. I am glad they are in Austin. [Laughter.] 

Mr. O’NEILL. So I didn’t want to let that pass. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Judge Carter. 

Members, let me ask you, I know some members have some 

other commitments, perhaps starting as early as 3 o’clock. I have 

a number of other questions I would like to ask. I am wondering 

if, and Zach, I will proceed in however way you feel comfortable, 

if we would like to get Ms. Finn and Ms. Regan to make their opening statements, and then on the conclusion of that, I will just recognize anyone for as many questions as you would like, and then 

those of us who can stay on, we can continue on. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, you are very gracious. 

It would very much be a great way to proceed the way you have 

proposed. That way, the questions can then be directed at any of 

our witnesses. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Then if there is still remaining time left for 

Ms. Finn’s and Ms. Regan’s testimony, I will recognize the two of 

you for any follow-up questions you would like to ask of Dr. Daigh 

and Mr. O’Neill or Ms. Regan and Ms. Finn. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
260 

Might it be okay if you exchange seats, and then we will get all 

four of you up here? 

Let me just say briefly as we welcome you both to our subcommittee, Mr. Wamp used the term ‘‘covenant.’’ I feel as if we are 

meeting with the guardians of the covenant. I just thank all four 

of you for your tremendously important work. You are the kind of 

federal employees working day-in and day-out without attention 

and public acclaim, but what you are doing is seeing to that covenant to spend our tax dollars to help our veterans, and not with 

waste, fraud or abuse, or helping those who are ineligible for benefits. The work you do is so important. 

Ms. Belinda Finn was appointed Assistant Inspector General for 

Audit in January of 2007. Prior to joining the VA–OIG, Ms. Finn 

was the Deputy Assistant Inspector General at the Department of 

Homeland Security. She has also worked as an accountant and 

auditor with the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense IG, the Department of Energy IG, and the U.S. House of Representatives IG. 

Ms. Maureen Regan was appointed counselor to the Inspector 

General in 1989. Ms. Regan is a 1982 graduate of the Columbia 

School of Law, and The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. 

She began her government career in 1984 as a staff attorney with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of District Counsel, here 

in Washington. 

Thank you both for your service and for being here today. As you 

heard previously, your full statement will be submitted, without 

objection, into the record. If you could summarize in 5 minutes or 

less your key points, and then we will open this up for questions. 

We will begin with you, Ms. Finn. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WITNESS 

BELINDA FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT 

STATEMENT OF BELINDA FINN

Ms. FINN. Chairman Edwards and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you very much for having me here today. I am delighted to 

be here to represent the Office of Audit. We conduct independent 

financial and performance audits that address economy and efficiency across the VA operations. We are the only OIG component 

that provides programmatic reviews across all of our five strategic 

areas, in health care, benefits delivery, financial management, procurement, and information management. 

In 2009, we will be authorized 175 people. This will be a reduction of four from our current authorization: We are currently 

spread across headquarters and nine regional offices. We perform 

a mix of mandatory, reactive and proactive audit work across VA. 

We are required to perform three financial audits. These include 

the audit of the consolidated financial statement, the audit of the 

department’s drug control reporting, and the audit of the departVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
261 

ment’s report on their capabilities to provide care for special disabilities. 

We are also required to perform an annual information security 

program audit. This is a requirement under the Federal Information Security Management Act, known as FISMA. Our work in this 

area has resulted in numerous recommendations to address systemic IT control weaknesses. 

In 2009, we are planning to report on 23 national audits, with 

a potential for about $100 million in monetary benefits. In the area 

of health care, we plan to review and report on resource allocation 

for clinical services, outpatient scheduling process, and safeguards 

in domiciliary residential programs. 

We also review the VA’s benefit processing system. This provides 

benefits and payments to about 3.7 million veterans and their 

beneficiaries. We will assess VBA’s training programs, the quality 

assurance program for ratings, compensation and pension disability 

examinations, controls over regional office operations, risk-management processes for housing assistance programs, and independent 

living services for veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

We all know VA continues to face major financial management 

challenges. It lacks an integrated financial management system, 

and has material weaknesses that impact its ability to provide 

sound financial stewardship. So in addition to our mandatory work, 

we will report on the development of the financial management 

system known as FLITE—financial logistics integrated technology 

enterprise system; the integration of budget and performance information to allocate resources; and the fee basis program billing and 

collection activities. 

The VA has had a longstanding problem with managing its contracting activities because it doesn’t have the visibility or the corporate database to know exactly what it is buying and how much 

it is spending on goods and services at locations. Both we and GAO 

have continued to identify significant continuing deficiencies in 

VA’s procurement activities. 

We have a number of issues we would like to report on in 2009, 

including acquisition efforts across VHA VISNS, standardization 

initiatives, community nursing homes contracts, the electronic contract management system that hopefully will provide some visibility, capital asset management issues, and also high-cost medical 

equipment—the acquisition thereof. 

In information management, we are always concerned about the 

IT governance issues, as well as information security. In addition 

to our FISMA work, we would like to take a look at the HealtheVet 

initiative, VHA’s efforts to develop a new scheduling software, and 

their enterprise architecture. 

We have a long list of areas that we think we could provide oversight over, but right now we are just able to touch the surface. 

Other areas would include VHA’s enrollment process for health 

care, the accuracy of benefits, security of data exchanges with 

DOD, and the quality and repair of prosthetic devices. 

That would end my prepared statement. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Finn. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
262 

Ms. Regan. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WITNESS 

MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN REGAN

Ms. REGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk to you about 

the OIG. 

The Office of Contract Review is an independent group within 

the Office of Inspector General, staffed by 25 auditors and analysts, 

and it is actually reimbursed through an agreement with the department’s Office of Acquisition and Logistics. What our group does 

is we primarily conduct pre- and post-award audits of federal supply schedule contracts. We also do pre-award audits of health care 

resource contracts awarded by VA medical centers. 

In addition, the Office of Contract Review conducts special reviews of individual contracts either at the request of Congress or 

at the request of VA or the Department of Justice. Our current program began in 1993 and it has really proven beneficial to VA. Since 

October of 2002, we have issued 420 reports with a federal monetary impact of $2.1 billion. 

Pre-award reviews. A pre-award review provides contracting officers with vital information they need to negotiate fair and reasonable prices on our contracts, as well as on contract terms and conditions. With respect to health care resource contracts, we also provide advice to contracting officers on how they can improve the contract document itself, such as, performance and what they can do 

to make sure that VA gets what it pays for. 

In addition, we provide services to contracting officers during the 

negotiation process. We will assist them in explaining the results 

of our review to the vendor. We also go out and do training for contracting officers on a lot of these issues. 

The federal supply schedule and health care resource contracts 

are awarded sole-source and are noncompetitive contracts. The vendors are required to provide certain data to the VA to satisfy their 

pricing. We review that data during the pre-award process. We 

very often find that the data they provide is not accurate and complete. When a pre-award is not done, contracting officers rely on 

that data to award a contract at the offered prices, and very often 

we pay very high prices, much higher prices than we should pay 

for the same commercial items and services. 

Since October 2002, we conducted 282 pre-award reviews with 

recommendations for approximately $2 billion in cost savings. We 

plan to conduct 45 pre-award reviews in fiscal year 2009. 

A post-reward review, of course, is done after a contract has been 

awarded. When we have not conducted a pre-award review, we will 

go back and look at the data that was provided to see if it was accurate and complete. If it was, and we felt that VA was misled into 

award of certain prices, we calculate the damages. It is called deVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
263 

fective prices, and we will recommend the contracting officer get 

back that money. 

We also during post-award look at whether or not the contractor 

complied with other terms and conditions of the contract. In particular, federal supply schedule contracts contain a price-reduction 

clause. The vendors are required to give us a price reduction under 

certain circumstances, and we find that very often they don’t. 

Also, our post-award and our pre-award reviews include whether 

or not VA’s drug pricing is accurate. As you know, the Veterans 

Health Care Act set statutory limits on how much manufacturers 

can charge VA. We have a very active program to look at whether 

or not they are complying with that statute. 

In the post-reward area, since October 2002, we have done 138 

post-award reviews and we have returned back to VA, that is deposited in the VA supply fund $8.2 million. I can tell you that this 

year, we negotiated and collected $20 million. We are expecting to 

have a good year. 

We plan on conducting 25 post-award reviews in 2009. Our postaward reviews can be done on our own initiative, but many of them 

are reactive. Because we have an active post-award program, we 

actually make contractors accountable. VA has one of the most successful and active voluntary disclosure programs at this point in 

time, where contractors can come in and tell us, we have overcharged you; we haven’t complied with contract terms and conditions, and we have overcharged you. 

Since October of 2002, we have had 75 voluntary disclosures and that represents $64.1 million—in recoveries. In fact, our voluntary 

disclosure program takes up a lot of our post-award time, as opposed to proactive post-awards. 

Although all of these involved individual contracts and we deal 

with individual contracting officers, we periodically analyze the 

data that we have in all of these reviews and look for systemic 

issues. We then issue a report to the department on systemic 

issues in various areas in order to have them make corrections and 

improve contracting overall. 

In 2005, we issued a report on sole-source health care resource 

contracts. The department put together a task force and issued VA 

Directive 1663, which established a whole new process for awarding these contracts and what is required. We have already seen it 

saving money. We are paying a lot less on some of these contracts 

than we were before. 

We conduct special reviews on large-dollar procurements. These 

reviews have identified procurement failures that resulted in significant dollar losses to the government. These failures were due to 

multiple deficiencies such as lack of communication, inadequate acquisition planning, poorly written statements of work, inadequate 

competition, failure to obtain fair and reasonable pricing, and poor 

contract administration. Many of these reviews involve multiple 

problems. 

The work that we do in the Office of Contract Review only looks 

at a very small percentage of VA contracts. There are large numbers of contracts at VA facilities and other VA contracting activities 

that are not subject to any definitive oversight. 

That is the end of my statement. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
264 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Regan. 

Thank you, Ms. Finn. 

Mr. Bishop, would you mind moving over? Mr. Dicks and Mr. 

Mollohan aren’t here. 

If I could ask Mr. O’Neill and Dr. Daigh to sit in those two seats, 

and then members could direct their questions to either all of the 

witnesses or to one in particular. 

Mr. Bishop, let me ask you, the Republican Conference has a 

meeting at 3 o’clock. So I was going to recognize our colleagues first 

on this round of questions, but how tight is your schedule? Do you 

need to leave by 3 o’clock? 

Mr. BISHOP. I will be flexible, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Then let me start with Mr. Wamp. 

VISN MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially for your courtesy. 

Ms. Finn, two things in your testimony we heard, but I will repeat them to ask this question. You said VA continues to face 

major challenges in financial management, as it lacks an integrated financial management system and has material weaknesses 

that impact VA’s ability to safeguard and account for financial operations. And then you said VA cannot effectively manage its contracting activities because it has no corporate database that provides national visibility over procurement actions or identifies contract awards and individual purchase orders, credit card purchases, 

or the amount of money spent on goods and services. 

You know, at the budget request that we see, and then to hear 

these words, obviously that is a troubling statement. I just wonder 

if you can recommend solutions for this problem to us. 

Ms. FINN. Solutions to correct VA’s system issues? 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. FINN. System development issues are a very tough problem 

all across the government. The department had a historic effort to 

create or develop a new financial management system that was 

called the Corel FLS. It was before I arrived at VA, but it kind of 

went down in flames, in very flagrant terms. But again, this is not 

an unusual problem across the government. System development is 

very, very tough. 

VA is currently working on a new financial management system, 

the FLITE system, to integrate the financial and the logistics information in one system. There are a lot of difficulties in that because 

they have different architecture and different systems all across 

VA. 

Mr. WAMP. For you and Dr. Daigh both, are these problems that 

you have pointed out VISN problems or national problems, or are 

there some VISNs that are worse in terms of adequate comprehensive health care delivery? 

Ms. FINN. It is a national problem, but it is worse in some 

VISNs. 

Mr. WAMP. Which ones? 

Ms. FINN. I can’t tell you specifically. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. 

Dr. Daigh? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
265 

Mr. DAIGH. My concern is that VISNs are not involved enough 

in ensuring that hospitals in their VISN provide quality care. I 

think they clearly are on the train stop for money moving out, because I think it goes from the VISN to the facility, but we don’t 

see their involvement in the peer-review process. We will be publishing a report very soon which I think will highlight that. 

So when I see hospitals fail or have significant problems, I don’t 

see them fail by VISN. I don’t see them pass by VISN. So what I 

don’t see is adequate input by the VISNs to make sure that the 

problems are addressed. 

Mr. WAMP. In your objective opinion, are VISNs a good organizational structure? Is that a good model for the VA? 

Mr. DAIGH. My recommendation is that they be reviewed as to 

whether or not—I don’t believe they are with respect to ensuring 

quality care. So I do think that the VISN structure ought to be reviewed as to whether or not it is at this date and time providing 

the kind of oversight that we would like to see. 

Mr. WAMP. Ma’am? 

Ms. FINN. As far as acquisition, that is one of the things that we 

try to look at, as we are going to be looking at acquisition and management across the VISNs. I guess the common wisdom in VA is 

if you have gone to one VISN to see how it works, you have gone 

to one VISN. That is what you know. There is not a lot of consistency in the procedures and the processes that they follow and no 

sharing of best practices. 

Mr. WAMP. Did CARES recommend changes to this VISN organizational structure? 

Mr. DAIGH. I don’t believe so. I believe CARES is a facility-byfacility review. 

Mr. WAMP. And then, Ms. Regan, two quotes in your testimony. 

It says a lack of communication between program and procurement 

officials results in higher than necessary contract costs and VA 

health care resources contracts lack adequate oversight provisions 

to ensure VA has received the services paid for. 

What can we do in bill language to help with these problems that 

you have identified? 

Ms. REGAN. I believe that one of the things we have seen out 

there is that VA believes they are at the mercy of the affiliate— 

VA’s attitude is that we need them more than they need us, so we 

will pay whatever. So to keep everybody happy, there is no incentive to monitor procurement or anything else. 

So some of the things that we thought of is that we believe that 

because it is a sole-source contract to benefit the education mission 

that we have for residents, that we should only be paying costs. 

Why should we pay a huge profit to somebody that is so competitive that they are going to do that? So that is something that could 

be considered if we limited the type of payments that we could 

make, that we will pay for the costs of the doctor. The only reason 

we are going to the affiliate to begin with is that we allegedly don’t 

pay enough in order to recruit doctors to work at our facilities. 

The second one would be there would need to be payment for 

procedure-type contracts at Medicare rates, or adjusted Medicare 

rates depending on where it is done. Those are two things that 

could be done legislatively that we have suggested in the past. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
266 

CONTRACTING

Mr. WAMP. And a final question, does VA health care system contract enough with local providers to be efficient? Or is there still 

room for more local contracting with private health care providers 

instead of having to provide the services through the VA facility? 

Ms. REGAN. You mean sending the patients to a local provider? 

Mr. WAMP. Or contracting out. Sometimes doctors are brought 

into the outpatient clinics that are not VA doctors, to do certain 

things. 

Mr. DAIGH. I don’t like to answer questions without having a report to show the data, but I would suggest to you that if the VA 

has a full-fledged Cath lab and it is a relatively small VA in a relatively rural location, I doubt that there is enough volume of patients to make the operation of that Cath lab efficient. 

So whether or not the physicians from the outside come to the 

VA, the VA physicians have privileges at the local facility like anybody else has privileges and contracts for time in their lab. I am 

not sure what the legality is. It does seem to me that there isn’t 

an efficiency where we have a space dedicated to a use for which 

it can’t be used—so I think there is room for work there, it is just 

sorting out the best answer. 

Mr. WAMP. Ms. Regan. 

Ms. REGAN. In looking at the contracting side and what we have 

seen, I think if you have a service that is needed intermittently, 

for example you need a dermatologist once a month or something 

like that, that they do try to use local people to come in and do it 

or send patients to private facilities. 

But I also think that you have a problem when you have fulltime people coming into your hospital to provide care to veterans, 

and they can’t act as our employees, because VA doesn’t have personal services authority. We have recommended in the past that 

they get personal services contracting authority, so that we can supervise these people and we can monitor the care provided, and we 

can take action if they don’t provide quality care. 

So I have a little bit of a concern from the health care standpoint 

of just bringing people in and out, who see our patients without VA 

having some control over what they do when they are there. That 

is where the full-time people come in. 

There are a lot of mammograms done outside a facility. A lot of 

radiation oncology services are being done under contract. A lot of 

radiology now is being done via telemedicine that is contracted out. 

So there is a lot of that going on out there. You have full services 

coming in to VA facilities—surgical services and anesthesia, ophthalmology are some—all of their services are provided by contractors at the VA. 

Mr. WAMP. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Since Mr. Crenshaw hasn’t had an opportunity to ask questions, 

Judge Carter if it is okay with you—— 

CONTRACTING WITH PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
267 

Let me just follow up on that line of questioning about contracting with private health care providers. I have heard discussions—well actually, I think there is some legislation—if not, it has 

been talked about—about in an area, say, where they didn’t have 

a rehab hospital or an area where it was a large community where 

the rehab hospital was overcrowded. I have heard veterans groups 

talk about it, and heard some of the private rehab hospitals talk 

about it, the possibility of contracting with those private facilities, 

either because you don’t have the service or it is hard to get because of the overcrowding. 

And then listening here and reading the testimony about the inspections that you all go about are really important in terms of 

looking at the VA facilities and carrying out the proper inspection. 

Is that one of the impediments to doing that? You mentioned contracting more bringing people in. 

I am just thinking, and I think some of the proposed legislation 

speaks to actually utilizing the separate facilities that are in these 

overcrowded areas or underserved areas. Is that something you all 

look at? Is one of the problems making sure that you are able to 

inspect those as you would your own facility? Where are we in that 

process? 

It does seem to maybe make sense from time to time, rather than 

having somebody drive a long, long way, or wait a long, long time 

if there are other facilities. And what would you think about doing 

some sort of pilot project? The only reason I mention the rehab is 

because I have heard the veterans talk about that. Is that an area 

that we ought to pursue, do you think? Or are there problems inherent in that? 

Ms. REGAN. They have contracting authority to contract with private facilities or public facilities, to send our patients someplace 

else. And there are some areas—Reno for example is one where 

they have a number of contracts with private hospitals because 

they don’t have enough providers at the VA. So they can do it, and 

they can always build into the contract that we would be able to 

come and inspect. We can go and inspect nursing homes that we 

have contracts with, private nursing homes. So it is a matter of a 

contractual issue. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is it being done very much? Is it working? 

Ms. REGAN. I haven’t seen that many contracts with private facilities for anything other than—well, we usually see the affiliate 

contracts where VA is sending somebody there for cardiac surgery 

or other health care. We have seen some nursing home contracts, 

but I haven’t seen that many. For example, I have never seen one 

for a rehabilitation center. So I don’t know if it works—but anything is possible from a contract standpoint—authority, so they can 

contract—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But would that be a way to save money, instead 

of building a facility in a small community, to serve those individuals, that if there was a private entity there? I mean, is that something that you all think about? Or do you kind of watch what the 

VA is doing and saying we can’t build facilities everywhere; if they 

are already there, we will contract with them? Is that something 

you oversee, encourage or discourage? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
268 

Mr. DAIGH. Well, sir, in my office, we focus on the quality of the 

care provided. Care provided off-site or off of the VA facility, I am 

not sure that I have the authority to go off of a VA facility and review the care provided, as you are envisioning. Certainly, where we 

have had cases, and hotlines, where they have received care both 

on the civilian side and in various other places, we have gone and 

talked to civilians and gotten the records, but we have done it completely collegially. We could look at this and talk with you about 

the authority we have at the VA. 

[The information follows:] 

The OIG can review quality of care that veterans receive from non-VA facilities 

only when VA reimburses the facility for the care provided. However, non-VA facilities are regulated by the states, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

also have oversight authority over these facilities if they receive Medicare and Medicaid funds. 

The other point I need to make is that we don’t, in my office, 

make decisions on these issues, nor do I. So it would be very difficult for me to advise if one is better than the other. It just seems 

to me that there is in fact space that could be better used. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But the inspection you undertake, that can be 

part of the contract. That wouldn’t be a particular impediment. 

Mr. DAIGH. It would not be, to me at all. We just need the authority. I think I would need the authority to do that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Ms. FINN. My office would potentially review make-or-buy decisions, and also the oversight of facilities. But we haven’t done too 

many, at least not to my knowledge, we have not done any particular reviews on make-or-buy decisions for facilities. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Carter. 

BENEFIT OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. CARTER. I want to change questions a little bit. In 2007, we 

talked about benefits overpayments. The reason I have concern 

about benefits overpayments is I look at this overpayment to the 

VA regional office report. The chairman and I share a VA facility 

in Waco, where our soldiers go, and we have the largest percentage-wise of benefit overpayments in the nation at the Waco facility—two benefits overpayments on first-party notification in the 

amount of $159,000-plus, and 11 benefit overpayments of thirdparty notification to the tune of $404,000-plus. Looking up and 

down the list, we are the champs. 

Now, I don’t want to be the champs in benefit overpayments. We 

have added 3,100 new claims processors. My question is, are you 

seeing improvement because of what we gave to try to fix this problem? And what else can we do to try to fix the benefits overpayment problem? 

Ms. FINN. Presently, I can’t tell you that we have seen improvements because we haven’t been able to get back out there and start 

looking. Plussing-up your workforce 3,100 people presents a number of issues in recruiting and training, which is why we plan to 

look at the training program, especially for the new-raters over the 

next year. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
269 

But certainly the overpayment issues resulted because you were 

diverting all the workforce trying to get at the backlog of claims, 

and therefore you didn’t have as many people taking a look at 

those compensation benefit issues that resulted in the overpayments. We plan to take a look at that training program to see how 

effectively that new workforce is to be developed, and we will go 

back in the future and hopefully assess the effectiveness of that 

workforce in reducing the backlog and improving the overpayments 

issue, too. 

Mr. CARTER. This issue is not only an issue to those of us who 

are trying to be good stewards of the federal dollar. It is also an 

issue that when the find the benefit overpayment, then they go to 

the veteran and say, oh, by the way, you owe us $85,000; pay up. 

And they come screaming to their congressman saying, what am I 

going to do? I didn’t know I was getting a benefit overpayment; I 

just took what they gave me. 

Ms. FINN. Exactly. 

Mr. CARTER. It makes a real crisis in the life of veterans when 

they get these notifications that they have these huge payments 

they are expected to return to the federal government. So it is important that we police this before the fact, not after the fact, if we 

can, as good as we can. 

Ms. FINN. And we did provide recommendations to VBA to monitor the timeliness of the processing, because we didn’t have any incorrect decisions. These were just the time it took the process. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, judge. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Let me welcome you. I would like to follow up on Mr. Wamp’s 

question relative to the effectiveness and the proactivity of the 

community health clinics. I have a pretty spread-out district which 

in land area takes up probably about one-fifth of the land area of 

the state of Georgia. It is the southwest portion of the state. We 

have veterans that are served by three community clinics. 

In Valdosta, there is one that is apparently a subsidiary of Lake 

City in Florida. In Albany, there is one which operates under Dublin, which is about 11⁄2 hours or 2 hours away. And then in Columbus, which is the other major city, there is Tuskegee/Montgomery. 

All of those seem to serve some purpose as a primary care center, 

but the veterans are very, very dissatisfied because anything other 

than rudimentary stuff, they have to go to one of the hospitals, 

which requires a great deal of inconvenience and travel. 

How effective are those clinics? I think several years ago when 

we established them, it was expected that a veteran could get to 

some primary care within 40 or 45 minutes from anywhere. It was 

designed to be from anywhere in the country. That doesn’t seem to 

be working well. Have you considered co-location of some military 

facilities and VA facilities? 

For example, I think you have some hospitals at some military 

bases where there are a great deal of retirees around the military 

base who could get some of their heavy—I guess you could call 

them med centers—and could get some heavy treatment, specialist 

treatment at those if, for example, they were co-located with some 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
270 

military facilities. Of course, we have a hospital in Atlanta also, 

but southwest Georgia, it has put a heavy burden on our veterans. 

Mr. DAIGH. Sir, I just would have to answer it this way. I have 

57 or 60 people working for me, something like that, and there are 

800 clinics, CBOCs out there. So I guess when you ask what would 

I do with additional resources, it is try to take a look at what is 

going on at these 800 CBOCs and 200 Vet Centers. 

So we simply have not had the people to address the issues that 

you are talking about—I just simply haven’t been able to do that. 

There are 155 medical centers out there. So we have unfortunately 

not attended to this issue like I think we should. 

Mr. BISHOP. When you come before the committee, have you requested those additional people? 

Mr. DAIGH. Well, sir, in the normal budget process, the idea that 

we would spend more time looking at CBOCs and Vet Centers has 

been forwarded in the normal chain of command. I address the priorities that I am given with the people I have, and I just haven’t 

been able to address the 800 CBOCs out there at all like I wish 

we could. 

Mr. BISHOP. You could do it if you had additional resources? 

Mr. DAIGH. If I had additional resources, the care provided at 

CBOCs and Vet Centers would be the number one new item that 

we do not currently look at in a comprehensive way. And we would 

also be able to look at mental health issues in more detail, and 

apply the data capability that we currently have in more detail to 

the problems the VA faces. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop, could I pull you back just for a second? 

Would you be able, Dr. Daigh, to give our subcommittee over the 

next several weeks just a good-faith estimate of if you had how 

many more dollars, how many more people could you hire to oversee the CBOCs and the Vet Centers, and how many visits could 

you make with those employees. 

Mr. DAIGH. I would be more than happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

The Office of Inspector General would need an additional $4.5 million for 20 fulltime equivalent positions to review the care provided by the more than 800 community based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) and 200 Vet Centers. These resources would 

provide for a review of these facilities on a 3-year cycle. For many veterans, especially those in rural areas, these facilities are their primary access to medical care. 

It is only through a review of the medical needs of this population can we ensure 

they are receiving quality care. For example, these reviews would assess mental 

health care provided at CBOCs and Vet Centers to ensure that veterans receive the 

same standard of care that they would receive at a primary medical clinic. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Please go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

One of the two other areas I would like to explore, one is the colocation issue. If you have a major DOD facility in an area where 

there are lots of retirees, for example, and lots of veterans, at one 

point there was some consideration given to co-location of veterans 

hospitals/clinics and military facilities. Is the VA still open to some 

memorandums of understanding on co-location of facilities so that 

if you have a facility there, that it could also serve veterans as well 

as DOD personnel? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
271 

Ms. FINN. We did a little bit of review work last year looking at 

the department’s use of interagency agreements with DOD and 

found they were not using them very much at all. They were very 

rare. 

Mr. BISHOP. Who are the ‘‘they’’ now? 

Ms. FINN. The VA. I am sorry—VHA. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

Ms. FINN. They really were not using the agreements for a lot 

of reasons. It didn’t seem to work out well for them. The larger 

issue of determining the allocation of health care resources for 

areas and stuff is, as I think I said, really complex. Changing demographics make it complicated, VA’s uncertainty of where the 

population is going to be from year to year. So this is one of the 

things I am hoping to take a programmatic look at over the coming 

year to see how VHA is allocating its resources across the country. 

Mr. BISHOP. You do have a facility, at least one in Texas, I believe, where—— 

Mr. DAIGH. El Paso is a dual. Las Vegas has also been an Air 

Force/VA. We do in our hospital inspections cycle do go inspect the 

VA portion of that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have those worked fairly well? 

Mr. DAIGH. Again, from our point of view, yes, they have been 

working, from what we see. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. And the third area of inquiry I would like to 

ask you has to do with the VA medical health and the electronic 

records and the interconnection and interoperability with the DOD 

records. One of the biggest challenges that our caseworkers have 

in the congressional office is being able to get military records in 

terms of medical records, to have them available for veterans who 

are applying and seeking upgrades, disability services from the VA. 

The record exchanges of medical records between DOD and the 

VA medical system presents a serious problem, and also the storage of records and the care of records within the VA system, where 

veterans submit their paperwork and its gets lost or they go for one 

appointment and get referred, and of course their records can’t be 

reviewed and they can’t get the services they need because the 

records are still located at the last provider or the last place where 

they went to get some specialized test. 

How are you, and do you have the resources necessary to try to 

bring some interoperability with your own recordkeeping? Are you 

doing it electronically? Do you have the resources to convert to electronic medical records in the VA system so that anywhere in your 

system, that if a veteran presents, that you can access his or her 

records? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am going to ask you to keep it to 2 minutes or 

less, and save any additional answer for the following round so we 

can continue our rotational questions. It is a very important question. 

Mr. DAIGH. Sir, in the IG’s office we believe that the interoperability of these two records is extremely important. We have asked 

and commented on where it has failed, as you indicate, over a number of years. I have personally used the military medical records 

system when I was a doctor. I have access to the VA side now. The 

VA side is wonderful. Why—I don’t know. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
272 

It is such a huge dollar issue, actually, on the health care side. 

I am unable to force these two sides to get together and agree on 

what they are going to do. And I don’t understand why it doesn’t 

work right now. 

Ms. FINN. We have the resources. We can take a look at the 

issue. We can’t fix it within the OIG. 

Mr. BISHOP. You say you have enough resources to do it? 

Ms. FINN. If we didn’t do something else, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, in order to do what you need to do and to accomplish that, can you give us some idea of what it would require 

to do that in terms of resources? 

Ms. FINN. Can we make that for the record? 

Mr. BISHOP. Oh, certainly, certainly. I wouldn’t expect you to do 

it right now, but I would like you to put a little bit of thought into 

it. 

[The information follows:] 

The inter-operational between DoD and VA medical records present highly complex and difficult technical and management challenges, particularly since they are 

not within VA’s exclusive control to resolve. The OIG cannot effectively address 

these issues because we lack the authority to review DoD’s health care operations 

and information technology. This issue could be addressed more effectively by the 

Government Accountability Office. 

Ms. FINN. Okay. 

Mr. BISHOP. But Mr. Chairman, do you think that would be appropriate for our committee to have that kind of information and 

know what kind of resources would be needed? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I think it is a tremendously important issue. 

Chairman Murtha and I have even discussed the possibility of having a joint subcommittee hearing with your Defense Appropriations 

Committee and ours to bring DOD and VA officials together to face 

both committees, and let them know how serious we are about 

moving ahead with this, and not just keep talking it to death for 

the next 20 years. Very, very, good. Thank you. 

BUREAUCRATIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know we have a vote, so I will be quite fast. If you have been 

listening here today, I am not sure I even would want to come to 

this meeting, because I think you busted my bubble about being 

such a great advocate for VA. Frankly, the clinics in my district 

have been the best thing for veterans. 

But one of the things that I am concerned about, and it is just 

that I see this happening in the federal family, is that we tend to 

want to federalize everything. Many of us served in the state legislatures and—in California where everything is codified and every 

profession really has to be licensed and there is a lot of inspection. 

What I worry about is that we sometimes forget that these veterans, and in this case patients, all live somewhere. I mean, they 

live in a community. If we just create a federal pipeline that you 

must stay in, it is going to make it very inconvenient because some 

veterans can’t travel great distances. It is sort of like, we can’t 

solve your problem here, you have to go there. We are doing too 

much of that in government right now. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
273 

So I think this contracting out at the local level—the example 

you gave of the dermatologist—is exactly what we need to do more 

of. But I do agree with you that you have to have some quality assurance, without becoming too bureaucratic about it, because that 

may be overduplicating what states are doing. Maybe we ought to 

be working into some kind of joint inspection contracts like we 

have been doing with joint lotteries and one audit can solve a lot 

of problems, as long as you are addressing the issues, and we 

might be able to do that. 

INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN DOD AND VA

The other thing that I share this concern. We have been bragging 

about the VA’s electronic records, but what we find is that DOD 

doesn’t do a very good job of it. The VA has sort of invented for 

the medical community the state-of-the-art of electronic records, 

but they are not interoperable. 

In your report, you indicate that you made over 500 recommendations for corrective action. Did the VA—I guess those 

were in the VA in the audit and health care inspection contract review reports—did they implement those recommendations? 

Mr. DAIGH. I think they do. We make recommendations of varied 

severity, so there are some recommendations we make that we follow up on and—to see if they did do what they said they would do. 

By and large, they do do what they say they are going to do. 

VA STANDARDS OF DELIVERY OF CARE

Mr. FARR. I would like to ask a general question. You start out 

by saying that the OIG seeks to help the VA become the best-managed service delivery organization—compared to other delivery organizations, how does VA rate? We put a lot of money into it last 

year and this committee is real pro VA. 

Mr. DAIGH. I think they provide excellent care. I have said that 

here and I have said it to the House Veterans Affairs Committee. 

In the care that we see on a day-to-day basis in the hospitals, veterans are happy with the care they receive in general and give VA 

very high marks. In every CAP, we report in each of those reports 

what the patient satisfaction is for both in-patient and outpatient 

care. There are places where it is not high, but in most places it 

is very good. I believe VA provides excellent care. 

To the point that you were making earlier, when I was in the 

military, I would have liked the chance to compete, because I 

thought if our doctors actually worked or had an opportunity to 

work in other hospitals, we would have patients coming to us to 

have us take care of them. I thought we would take patients from 

the private sector. I wasn’t worried about competing against them. 

I was worried about having a quality place to work with the support staff that would let me do what I needed to do, and the efficiency to get it done well. 

So I don’t think the VA should be afraid of competing at all. They 

have very high-quality people. But you run into places where just 

on size and economics, you just simply can’t compete in certain situations. I don’t think the VA has anything to be ashamed of. In 

fact, I think they are the premier large medical system in this 

country hands down. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
274 

COST OF PRESCRIPTION

Mr. FARR. I have found that our VA clinic has the cheapest drugs 

of any system. I don’t care what it is out there. 

Mr. DAIGH. And Maureen Regan works to make that happen. 

Ms. REGAN. The issue with the drugs is that we have statute 

that sets a price. There is a formula set price for covered drugs. 

The comparisons you always see, though, are between what the 

customer pays, not what the facility pays. 

Mr. FARR. So are we in essence subsidizing those drugs for the 

VA? 

Ms. REGAN. No, we are only paying a certain amount. 

Mr. FARR. Then why can you get them cheaper than the Medicare program? 

Ms. REGAN. Well, the Medicare program is set up much different. 

It is a different formula. 

Mr. FARR. It is the same taxpayers’ money. 

Ms. REGAN. But you don’t know at the point what the actual cost 

is, because you would have to compare, for example, what the hospital pays. If you are going to look at Georgetown, how much is 

Georgetown paying for the pills versus what you pay in Georgetown for the pills, because I can’t tell you there is a whole lot of 

difference between our prices and theirs, if you look at how the 

manufacturers’ sell to somebody. 

So the comparison is not with the customer base. It is going to 

be what the actual price is for a manufacturer to the customer, 

which is the VA or DOD or any government facility, versus a hospital or buying group. 

Mr. FARR. Do you think that the VA model for drug acquisition 

is probably the best we have? 

Ms. REGAN. The VA model is working very well now. We have 

it pretty homed in and we have a good price. Is it the same model 

that should be used for Medicare and Medicaid, I don’t think so. 

I think there are some differences in the way the two programs are 

run. 

Maybe what the government would pay, but you are going to 

have your markups because you have middlemen in there. You 

have physicians giving the drugs in some cases, and in some cases 

you have pharmacies involved. And those mark-up costs are not included in the costs that you see for us. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Will you yield for just a moment? 

Mr. FARR. Sure. 

Mr. BISHOP. Isn’t that difference in terms of the VA—doesn’t the 

VA negotiate with the manufacturers or the wholesalers for the 

price of the drugs? 

Ms. REGAN. No. Actually, if it is a covered drug, covered under 

the statute, it is a formula that sets the price. They have to offer 

the government on a federal supply schedule contract a price that 

is not higher than what this calculated price comes out to be. If 

they don’t have a federal supply schedule contract or they haven’t 

offered that calculated price, then they can’t get paid by any other 

government entity. In other words, they can’t get Medicare dollars, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
275 

even though it is not all for contract, no other government money 

can go for it. But it is actually a calculated price. 

Now, we could try to negotiate better prices, but technically they 

don’t have to give us a better price than the—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But you have a formula which results in a low price. 

Ms. REGAN. Right. It is a formula that results in that price, but 

it is not a negotiated price. It is statutory. 

Mr. BISHOP. But other agencies don’t have that kind of formula, 

though. 

Ms. REGAN. Nobody has the same formula that we do. Medicaid 

has a formula that comes up with a base price, and then quarterly 

they have to use best price. One of the two differences between us 

and Medicare and Medicaid and HHS is our statute gives us oversight. We conduct audits of the pricing. The VA Secretary has the 

authority and we do the audits. Medicare and Medicaid do not have 

the same authority we do. So you don’t know if manufacturers are 

cheating or not. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. That is the report I was trying to read. Thank 

you. 

Mr. FARR. This is a welcome discussion. I think we have learned 

a great deal today, and it would be very helpful for me and the 

committee if you could prioritize one or two or three most important things that this committee ought to be doing. We can write report language that the agency has to work on, and I would really 

appreciate your suggestions of what are the priority things that we 

need to do. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I agree. In fact, I was going to ask, and will just 

ask for the record, if each of you could put together your top 10 or 

20 recommendations. If you could implement them, you would do 

it, in descending order of priority, with top priority one, second priority two, on down the list. These would be recommendations that 

have not already been implemented. 

Ms. FINN. To improve VA operations. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. I think this has just been one of the most interesting, productive hearings we have had. There are 1,001 questions I have. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
276 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 42754B.012
277 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 42754B.013
278 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 42754B.014
279 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 42754B.015
280 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 42754B.016
281 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 42754B.017
282 

Just so you know, members, we will have to go up and vote. This 

is the end of a 15-minute vote. There will then be a 10-minute debate. I know Mr. Wamp can’t come back, and I understand if the 

two of you can’t come back. I will stay here with staff and continue 

on. I promise everyone on both sides of the aisle, I won’t do anything dramatic by unanimous consent while I am here by myself. 

[Laughter.] 

With that, why don’t we stand in recess until after the beginning 

of the 15-minute motion to recommit. I will be back down, so please 

relax and we will be back. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me go back, as we call the subcommittee back 

to order, and ask, does that put any of you in any kind of a difficult 

situation for us to ask as a follow up on our request to give us 10 

or 20 of your top proposals for changes, whether it is ensuring 

quality of care or management efficiencies? 

Mr. DAIGH. I will give you a list that has the data that I think 

can support it, and then there will be some that I don’t have data 

on. 

AUTHORITY OVER INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I think that would be helpful. 

I was talking to Mr. Wamp when we went out to vote. I know 

you are constantly sending us reports, but one of the things we 

don’t do very well in Washington is let the taxpayers know when 

we do implement efficiencies. So maybe from time to time when the 

VA does implement efficiency programs that save tax dollars, particularly when we put a dollar number on it, perhaps we ought to 

communicate in a way that maybe some of us in Congress can help 

get that word out. I think it is important. 

I think it is particularly important since we have just provided 

the largest increase in history for the VA, that we are not just 

going to make this a one-way street. We are providing the money, 

but we are going to ask for accountability as well. 

Let me ask you, too, explain the level of independence that you 

have. Or maybe put another way, does the VA secretary—what direct authority does the VA secretary or deputy secretary or the central office have over either your positions or your office operations? 

Ms. REGAN. None. 

Mr. EDWARDS. None? 

Ms. REGAN. I guess I will speak as the counselor. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right, Ms. Regan. [Laughter.] 

Ms. REGAN. Under the IG Act, the secretary has general authority over the IG, but not any specific authority. The Secretary is specifically not allowed to tell us to start or stop a review or issue a 

subpoena. 

We have over the years become very, very independent. I know 

when I started in 1989 and the general counsel assigned one attorney to work with the OIG. Now, we have an independent counsel’s 

office and we are independent. We work with general counsel, for 

example, but they don’t represent us in any of our cases. We represent ourselves in any case, even if Justice has the case and it involves the OIG. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
283 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Ms. REGAN. We issue our own subpoenas. We now have our own 

performance review boards. The only thing that—if somebody is 

nominated for one of the rank awards, that has to go through the 

secretary. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Ms. REGAN. We are very independent. We make our own hiring 

and firing decisions as we are allowed to under the IG Act. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about your budget submission to OMB? Is 

that done through the secretary? 

Ms. REGAN. It has to go through the secretary. That is required 

by law. There is no other way to get it done. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So if I were to assume a world where a VA secretary is wanting to send a message to an effective, aggressive, 

independent OIG, then I guess the secretary could cut your budget? 

Ms. REGAN. That has happened in some agencies. I can’t say it— 

but it has happened in other agencies. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. So does that answer pretty well reflect all 

of you? 

Mr. O’NEILL. I can tell you that in the 41⁄2 years I have been involved with the Office of Investigations, they have not interfered in 

a single investigation. 

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT

Mr. EDWARDS. That is great to know. 

What kind of whistleblower system do we have within the VA? 

Are there clear protections? Or do you have any recommendations 

for better protections? Do we even go so far as to provide monetary 

benefits if somebody comes up with an idea that helps us bring 

about deficiencies or stops criminal actions, Mr. O’Neill? What are 

the whistleblower protections within the VA? How good are they? 

Mr. O’NEILL. I can answer some of it, but I guess in terms of 

whistleblower protection, that would be more in Maureen’s backyard. 

Ms. REGAN. Well, the Whistleblower Protection Act covers all VA 

employees, including physicians, because I think there was an 

amendment to the original statute that would include our Title 38 

employees. There is policy. People have to take training every year 

on the issue. 

How effective is it? That is an individual case issue. I mean, it 

is going to be the managers and the supervisors at the lower level 

and whether or not whistleblowers are retaliated against. Whistleblowers first have the right to go to the Office of Special Counsel 

to seek relief. We don’t do as many whistleblower cases because we 

can’t give the whistleblower any relief. 

We can issue a report but the Office of Special Counsel can mandate corrective action and take the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of the individual employee and MS&B can 

order disciplinary action against the people who retaliated against 

the whistleblower. So the protections are there and the system 

works as it should. I think it works just as well as it does in the 

other agencies. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. DAIGH. Can I make a comment, sir? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
284 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Daigh. 

Mr. DAIGH. I have a current case that may be of some interest. 

A gentleman called in and made an allegation that monies—were 

not being spent appropriately. The VA then subsequent to our 

starting a hotline, basically started a board of investigation regarding those allegations and others about the person who called in to 

us on that hotline. 

So I then called the under secretary of health to say this is not 

right. And so they then agreed to stop the board investigation until 

after they had done a report. So there are some informal mechanisms. We are aware of that and where it interferes with—we will 

try and make sure that that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, good. 

Staff, was that a new vote? If somebody could get me a note 

when we have 3 minutes left on the final vote, that would help. 

PATIENT ADVOCATE SYSTEM

Okay. How about the issue of getting a key part of the checks 

and balance system. Since you, no matter how much funding we 

gave you, you couldn’t have a large enough staff to be a complete 

check and balance as you would want to be, if you didn’t have help 

from the actual veterans themselves. 

Dr. Daigh, when a veteran goes to a VA hospital and has problems, how good or bad, in your judgment, is the feedback system? 

Is it readily available in most hospitals to find an 800 number or 

a patients’ advocate they could contact? Is the patient advocate system working well? What happens with those? 

For example, does the complaint go to the local hospital administrator, who might have every incentive to want to bury that in a 

trash can when we do our feedback? We follow up on our casework 

with a questionnaire in my congressional office once or twice a 

year. The answers don’t come back to the caseworkers that do the 

work. The answers come back to our office here in Washington. 

So I would welcome your feedback on that. 

Mr. DAIGH. Yes, sir. I would say that in the hospitals that are 

functioning correctly, and that would be most of them, the patient 

advocate system works. They should have a database of the complaints that they have seen. They should maintain that database 

and there should be records that they have presented that data 

once analyzed to management. Most of the time, we see that ongoing. 

As an organization, we get 10,000 or 20,000 hotlines a year. So 

veterans have our number. That would be veterans calling in or 

their families calling in with complaints. So in that way, there is 

a process. So I think that most of the time the advocate system 

works. We do go to facilities occasionally where it is broken. In our 

CAP report, we say it is broken, so fix it. And I believe they do take 

steps to fix it most of the time. So I believe it is an active and usually successful program. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good, good. 

Have you looked at the Internet? Many veterans are very literate 

on the Internet, and go to the VA website. I know at one point in 

this past year I looked at it. It is pretty difficult for me to find 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
285 

where I would go on the web on the VA site to lodge a complaint 

if I had been a patient. 

Mr. DAIGH. There are two sites. One is on our website where you 

can lodge a complaint, and we do take hotlines by email, so we do 

that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. DAIGH. I would also agree with you that VA website have become much more user-unfriendly in the past couple of years. You 

used to be able to log on and see who was the leadership and who 

was working there, and click and find their office phone number. 

So I could navigate my way around the system more easily, so that 

has become much more difficult. 

I put all of my reports on the web to the public, so you can get 

all our reports anytime. I hope that helps answer the question. 

HIRING PERSONNEL

Mr. EDWARDS. Very good. That is helpful. 

Ms. Finn and Ms. Regan, I want to be sure I am clear on what 

with the additional budget funded by Congress last year, how 

many employees did that allow you to be able to hire? Have you 

hired those? And how many will you have to let go if you go back 

down to the proposed president’s budget for 2009? Tell me as best 

as you can what would be the kinds of initiatives you couldn’t take 

if you don’t maintain inflation-adjusted current services in the 

budget in 2009, compare to 2008. 

Ms. FINN. In the Office of Audits, our staffing increase with the 

additional funds for 2008 was a little less than the rest of the organization proportionally because we have had a great deal of attrition during 2007, and we are down already about 15 positions. Hiring auditors can be very difficult because we are looking for people 

with an accounting background, and those people are in high demand and they can make a lot more money elsewhere. So it is a 

difficult thing for us to hire auditors. We also try to hire analysts, 

but it is still a difficult issue. So we have been slowly trying to 

hire, and that is why for us the impact is only about four positions. 

Okay? 

Mr. EDWARDS. The impact being, what you have already hired or 

what you would hire once you use all the money allocated to you. 

Ms. FINN. The difference between our 2008 and 2009 allocations 

on paper is only about four positions. However, how an actual reduction would be allocated across the board could be a much more 

severe impact on us. Certainly, it is going to mean that some of our 

more difficult, more theoretical, longer-term work, we might not be 

able to do because it is not going to be quite as productive. 

For example, trying to look at the department’s enterprise architecture systems, and really help them come up with the hardware 

and software architectures that will help them to manage their information management more effectively. We may not be able to do 

that. In every case, we would have to look at our priorities and see 

what can we not afford to do. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Ms. Regan. 

Ms. REGAN. My contract review group is not affected at all because they are paid for by the VA Supply Fund. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
286 

Mr. EDWARDS. They are paid for. 

Ms. REGAN. Yes. It is a reimbursable agreement, so all the 

money we put back in is—some of that goes to pay for those people. 

In my own legal office—an attorney, a paralegal, the FOIA officer 

and I am not sure at this point if a change in the budget next year 

will affect that work. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So who actually decides your budget level for your 

office? 

Ms. REGAN. The IG. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The IG does. 

Ms. REGAN. Yes. I mean, what funding out of our appropriation 

I get? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Ms. REGAN. Yes, the IG does. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Ms. Finn, on the issue of reviewing the training within DVA, 

given we provided so much money for so many new hirees. Have 

you started that? 

Ms. FINN. No, we have not. We hope to start that later this year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have any idea how long you think that will 

take? 

Ms. FINN. We will do it on a national basis where we will try to 

look at a number of regional offices to have a systemic picture. So 

our goal is to complete all of our audit work within 10 to 11 

months. So I know it will be sometime within that time window. 

And that is the best estimate I can give you right now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I might ask you, if you wouldn’t mind, 

sometime in late summer or first of September, July to the first of 

September, if you are at the point where you are getting some anecdotal feedback that seems to be consistent, I will understand that 

you have to draw limited conclusions from limited data, but even 

some anecdotal feedback would help us. 

We really want to reduce that backlog, but we worked with the 

VSOs last year. They had some recommendations on a huge number of increased employees. We talked to them and said our concern. We liked the goal, but the concern was what do you do if you 

are taking people off of healing cases and train a new employee, 

where is the right balance between getting those new people in the 

pipeline, versus taking too many people out to train them. So I 

hope we keep going in the right direction before we have another 

huge increase in employees. It would be nice to at least get some 

anecdotal feedback about how we are doing. 

Ms. FINN. I will make it a point to plan our work so we can provide you some feedback at that time. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, great. I will welcome that. 

I would just say, I know there has been dialogue between your 

offices and our staff and my staff, but I think my colleagues would 

agree that you guys are a gold mine of experience and knowledge, 

and you can provide the kind of objective, well-informed information that we desperately need if we are going to be part of this 

check-and-balance system. 

The truth is, we have been so busy over the last several years, 

it has been hard for us to exercise the kind of checks and balances 

system. So I hope we can continue an ongoing dialogue, and not 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
287 

just at formal hearings, but in just informal discussions with all of 

you as we come across some issues. And we may follow up with you 

after you have presented what you think are your best proposals 

to us. 

Mr. O’Neill, do you ever find as you are investigating these criminal cases, do you come up with systemic problems where it wasn’t 

just an individual who was a crook, but a flaw in the system, and 

therefore we need to correct that flaw so it doesn’t happen over and 

over and over again all over the country? And if so, how has the 

VA been generally about looking at those recommendations? 

Mr. O’NEILL. When we conduct a criminal investigation that has 

that sort of systemic ramification, we do provide the department a 

memorandum that outlines what we have found. To be honest, we 

just don’t have the resources to follow up to see if they corrected 

it, but we have at least provided them information, when it is an 

issue that we think will impact other areas. 

We arrested two different directors in the mail out pharmacy 

program. That led us elsewhere, and we are working with the department. In fact, there is going to be an audit of the whole program. 

Ms. FINN. There is an ongoing audit. Yes. 

Mr. O’NEILL. So basically, if there is something, I will go to Audit 

with it, and then if it is not something that would merit a full-scale 

audit, then we would share it with the department, so they can fix 

the problem. If there is money going out the door and we can stop 

it, that is our effort to make sure it doesn’t continue. 

DRUG DIVERSION

Mr. EDWARDS. How large of a problem is drug diversion in the 

VA? 

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, it is hard to quantify how big a problem it 

is. I can tell you that over the last 4 years, we arrested about 430 

folks for drug diversion offenses. It is a wide-ranging thing. You 

have a nurse or pharmacist who is either stealing the drugs from 

the inventory, or worse yet, from the patient, and may be diluting 

it. We even had one withdraw Fetanol from a patch that was on 

a patient and things like that. 

So when we get these indicators, when we get allegations, and 

frequently they come from either patients who say that they are 

not getting the proper medication, or are still in a lot of pain and 

the treating physician thinks that they are getting the dosage that 

they prescribed. So I would say that if you look at arresting 400 

people over 4 years as a significant problem, which I do, but I 

couldn’t quantify it because it is a crime that you can subject easily 

to, say, data-mining as much as you can line up individual—programs and help give you some leads, but you get an awful lot of 

false positives with those. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. O’NEILL. So each one has to be investigated individually, unlike the death match where they can really fine-tune your work to 

maximize your effort. Here, you have to look at each one individually. So I don’t think I could fairly give an accurate answer in 

terms of how widespread a problem it is. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
288 

You collect money as a result of your investigations. Where does 

that money go? Does that go back in the general treasury? 

Mr. O’NEILL. It depends if the funds can be returned to a revolving fund issue. In other words, if the funds can be returned to VA 

to some revolving fund, because most often when we get these settlements, it is years after the money has been spent, then it is returned. But probably the fact is, if you are talking about court-ordered restitution and recoveries of benefits, it is money that we get 

because the payee is deceased and it has been sitting in a bank. 

There is no criminal behavior, but we find the money has been piling up. I think it goes back to Treasury, if I am not mistaken. 

Ms. REGAN. The rule is that anything other than single damages 

has to go back to Treasury. If it is the actual damage amount and 

it is an expired appropriation that hasn’t been closed, you can put 

it back in there if they have some basis to use it. If there is a revolving fund involved such as the Federal supply fund, and I think 

there are some better benefits funds. I think there is a loan guarantee fund when we had some loan issues, we put money back in 

there. 

So each time we get a settlement, we look to see if there is someplace we can put it in VA, but a lot of times it just goes back to 

Treasury. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Ms. REGAN. Now, the recoveries we have almost always to the 

supply fund. If it is a contract issue, if it was coming out of general 

contract, you can try to get it back there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Dr. Daigh, one of the questions I have had as we begin to go out 

and visit VA hospitals, and I think we are going to get subcommittee members doing that more than we have done in the 

past, would you please at my request present to our committee the 

best 10 or 20 questions we ought to ask? It is so easy for us to walk 

through a hospital. They have cleaned the floors. They have fixed 

the restrooms and they put on a good show. I was pretty good when 

I knew my mom was going to check my bedroom to see if I had 

made my bed. 

I want us to get out in the field more and see what is going on 

first-hand. But it would be helpful to know some of the things to 

look for, that you would look for as you are going out there, so we 

don’t have to reinvent the wheel that you have been able to build 

with all of your expertise and experience. 

Mr. DAIGH. I would be more than happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
289 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 42754B.018
290 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 42754B.019
291 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 42754B.020
292 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Could I also ask you, Dr. Daigh, about the LC data program? 

Perhaps we need to change the name. I have heard there is an interesting explanation for that. But give me an example of what is 

wrong with the present system and specifically what you would 

like to do to change it. 

Mr. DAIGH. If we take the issue of veterans who commit suicide. 

I get a complaint or a hotline or notification that a veteran is a suicide. The allegation is that the VA didn’t provide proper care. That 

is one tragic event. Does that tragic event mean that the VA is failing in delivering mental health to returning veterans or not? You 

have to have a universe that you understand, that you can sample 

in a statistically meaningful way, to understand whether those discrete events that you see represent the behavior of the entire population, or are they really a random event. 

So by obtaining access to DOD data feeds, so that we have a list 

of everyone who left DOD in a given year, we have a universe that 

we understand. We know what their health care history is, because 

we have access to that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Since DOD doesn’t have electronic patient data 

systems, do they? 

Mr. DAIGH. Well, they do. They have TRICARE records, so they 

have in-patient records. They have CHCS. They have in-patient 

records, outpatient records. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Computerized? 

Mr. DAIGH. Computerized. Well, you really just need the business 

records to do most of what we are doing, because diagnosis is made 

in ICD–9 codes or CQT–4 codes. So with the business data that is 

available at a hospital, to understand what they are doing, you can 

describe patients or populations in terms of the disease burden 

they have. 

So for this group, we know, for instance, who DOD diagnosed 

with PTSD on their side of the wall before they left DOD. If you 

have that kind of information, then you can begin to make meaningful statements about the quality of VA health care. Right now, 

I am limited to what happened to the patient at one facility, where 

people who are enrolled to that facility may not get their care at 

that facility. They may get their care through—enrollment just 

means you are privileged to use it, not that you use it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you hold that thought, and then we will get 

in to what you would do, what it would take to provide an adequate system of information. 

Let me go vote and I will be right back. 

Mr. DAIGH. Absolutely. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Daigh. 

Mr. DAIGH. The House Veterans Affairs Committee is very supportive of our effort in this, and we currently are working with VA 

in putting together an organizational group that would include 

DOD, VA, the IG, and VBA to take what is a very elegant, but simple, formulation that we have published, and turn it into a relational data set so that government users, or the appropriate people 

then, can use that information and turn that data into information. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
293 

So that process right now we are driving as fast as we can with 

VA to make this an operational and usable data set that builds cohorts backward and continues to build cohorts forward. What I 

crave are the few people to help me do the analysis from that data. 

You know, you get information and you need to understand what 

that is. So where I have taken a few precious resources and invested them in this is to help us, again, understand the data, make 

sense of the data, and then work to offer reports that drive change. 

So that is my goal in this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How soon should we be able to implement a new 

system that does what you would like it to do? 

Mr. DAIGH. I believe, and I will provide you with what I got from 

VA on this, but I believe that within the next year, this should be 

up and going, and probably within the next three quarters. My 

staff meets with the developers on this on a regular basis, and we 

are trying to get them as quick as we can. So this is in real-time 

moving forward. Geoff Bester, who is a staffer on the House Veterans Affairs Committee has a meeting on Monday with me, Dr. 

Clegg, VA, to see where we are on this proposal. He is very interested that this move forward also. 

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. 

One last question I would like to ask you, and that is, I came 

across a case where I think he was an OEF veteran came back to 

my district and he had clear need for PTSD counseling. At one 

point, he was even suicidal. But because he hadn’t kicked the 

drinking problem, he was in effect locked out of the PTSD program 

at the Waco VA. Haven’t you made a recommendation that would 

not require a sobriety test to be passed in order to work and help 

the veteran with his or her PTSD issues? 

Mr. DAIGH. Yes, sir. The sustained sobriety requirement, that is 

that you be basically sober when you get mental health counseling, 

has been a tenet of many, both VA and civilian mental health programs harken back to the veteran population which is now much 

older, and many civilian facilities won’t really accept you for mental health counseling if you are not sober or you are not free from 

drug abuse. 

In a number of the suicide cases that we have reported on in the 

last year or two, sobriety has been a problem in addition to 

suicidality. When patients have at times presented to the civilian 

component, outside of VA care, they have been refused care if they 

weren’t sober. 

So we made the recommendation through a number of hotlines, 

and then in our review of VHA’s mental health plan, they agreed 

that they would remove the requirement that patients be sober, 

and allow patients to get both mental health care and sobriety 

treatment at the same time, which I think is important and which 

I hope makes a difference. Although, that combination is a very lethal combination and difficult to deal with. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for that. 

Well, you have been very patient in being here a long time. I 

want this to be just the beginning, and not the end of our dialogue. 

So we will draw the subcommittee hearing to a close. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
294 

I will just finish with a thought. I just feel personally very grateful that we have people of your caliber and your experience and 

your dedication in these vitally important jobs. I was so thrilled 

last year that working together we were able to add $11.8 billion 

in funding to the VA. But you, as Zach Wamp said, this is a covenant and you are the guarantors of the covenant. 

If we don’t oversee the VA programs and weed out the mistakes 

and spend the dollars wisely, then we won’t get a second or third 

opportunity to keep increasing VA funding. It would only take one 

60 Minutes program and one 20/20 program to convince Americans 

that we are lavishing waste on the VA programs and the money 

is not helping veterans. 

So not only the direct dollars you save, the crime you stop, but 

all the other benefits of your work, I am deeply grateful for that. 

Thank you for being here. We will make this a tradition of our 

subcommittee. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr.] 

QUESTIONS FOR DR. JOHN DAIGH, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR HEALTHCARE

INSPECTIONS

I. VET CENTERS

I have heard from some employees at the VA that some older veterans are being 

turned away or put to the back of the line in favor of veterans from the Global War 

on Terror (GWOT). The last thing we want to see is vets competing for services 

among themselves. 

A. What can you tell us about access to care being received at local Vet Centers? 

We have not done any work regarding access to care at Vet Centers due to other 

higher priority work. With additional resources, we would review access to care at 

Vet Centers. 

II. SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN VA AND DOD

When an active duty soldier is honorably discharged, the Department of Defense 

(DoD) must transfer that soldier’s records to the VA. There have been problems in 

the past making this a timely action, and some soldiers discharged with a serviceconnected disability have discovered that the DoD and the VA do not always use 

the same disability ratings ystem. 

A. Does the IG have any recommendations to improve sharing of medical records 

or disability ratings? 

DoD and VA have different goals in the determination of disability ratings. However, the medical examination for disability determination should be the same, that 

is, providing a single examination for the collection of data required for the disability determination for continued employment by DoD and a general disability 

evaluation by VA. The Office of Healthcare Inspections (OHI) has not evaluated the 

technical issues that must be resolved to improve this process, and thus have no 

specific recommendations. 

B. Do you think that the VA and DoD are making progress connecting their disabilities ratings? 

VA and DoD are making progress in the transfer of medical information. We have 

seen progress in the flow of medical record information from DoD facilities to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities in connection with medical treatment. 

The Office of Audit recently noted an issue with the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) not receiving information from the DoD that identifies seriously disabled 

OEF/OIF veterans. This lack of information means that VBA cannot readily identify 

all veterans who need expedited processing on disability claims. We expect to issue 

a final report concerning this issue in June 2008. 

III. VISN STRUCTURE

As you are aware, the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) is the system 

that oversees the operation of regional veterans’ hospitals and outpatient service 

centers. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
295 

A. Dr. Daigh, please tell the committee your views on the effectiveness of the 

VISN structure for providing health care. 

I do not believe the current VISN structure is as effective as it should be in assuring that veterans receive quality health care. VHA provides veterans with quality 

health care. However, the variation in quality among the many facilities is a recent 

concern to me. Our Combined Assessment Program (CAP) reviews of VA medical 

centers continue to report problems with the peer review process, credentialing and 

privileging of physicians, and adverse event disclosure. In addition, we continue to 

find individual facilities in noncompliance with VHA policies in the area of environment of care on mental health wards that place patients at risk of harming themselves. 

Recent complaints to the OIG Hotline have identified quality of care issues in 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, San Antonio, Texas, and Marion, Illinois. From the 

data at my disposal, the VISN’s impact on medical facilities is limited to management of financial resources; I do not see a significant effect of the VISN upon the 

quality of care provided at medical facilities. 

B. If you think the structure is ineffective, please explain why. 

A central tenent of the current management structure is the idea that health care 

is best provided at the local level. Thus the chain of command extends from VACO 

to 21 VISNs with each VISN responsible for their share of the 150 medical centers, 

800 community-based outpatient clinics, and 200 Vet Centers. VHA therefore has 

an organizational bias in favor of local decision makers over national leaders which 

impedes the provision of one standard of excellent medical care for all eligible veterans. The lack of a standard organizational structure leads to differences in financial systems, medical data systems, and management and committee structures 

from VISN to VISN. 

VISNs are important control points in the financial chain of command. The result 

however is that there are now more than 20 entities within VA that must come to 

agreement on business practices that address common issues. This duplication 

seems unnecessary. 

In OHI’s report in January 2008 on the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Marion, 

Illinois, we identified several issues that the Undersecretary for Health agreed to 

address on a national level. Our report identified a dysfunctional facility quality 

management structure. The Undersecretary for Health agreed to create a uniform 

structure to be used at each facility to manage the quality assurance process. Our 

report demonstrated that the Marion VAMC was performing surgeries where the expected risk to a patient at a smaller hospital with limited staffing is significantly 

different for the same procedure performed at a more sophisticated medical facility. 

The Under Secretary for Health agreed to review the method used to determine 

which diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are appropriate to perform at VHA facilities, and to ensure that the privileging of physicians for these procedures is 

matched with available resources. 

Both of these issues are symptomatic of the current structure that tilts in the 

favor of local control of resources and decisions. With changing conditions, organizations need to adjust. The current organizational structure needs to be adjusted to 

more efficiently ensure veterans receive quality health care. 

C. What recommendations can you give to the committee to improve the VISN 

system? 

I believe that the current management structure would not be the best for VA 

health care in 2015. I would engage management experts to review and affirm the 

mission of VHA (health care, training, research, emergency medical preparedness) 

and suggest alternatives to the current structure of VHA to accomplish the desired 

mission as envisioned by national policymakers. Veterans receive their health care 

from a variety of sources that include VA, TRICARE, Medicare, Indian Health Service, Medicaid, and third party insurance. A review that considers the interaction of 

these sources of funding and community needs would, in my view, ensure that veterans get excellent quality health care and that taxpayers get the maximum return 

for their dollar. 

QUESTIONS FOR JAMES O’NEILL ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS

IV. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Your office is responsible for conducting criminal and administrative investigations of wrongdoing in VA programs and operations. 

A. Has the OIG ever been refused any request for information from the VA? 

The OIG has not been refused any request for information from VA. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
296 

QUESTIONS FOR BELINDA FINN ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT

V. BACKLOG OF BENEFITS CLAIMS

Currently, it takes an average of 657 days to process a disability appeal. The VA 

is working to reduce the time for a disability claim to 145 days. 

A. Do you have any recommendations to help the VA deal with the backlog of disability claims? 

VBA needs to strengthen control processes over various aspects of disability 

claims processing. In recent audit work related to non-rating claims and compensation and pension changes, we identified avoidable delays that occur because claims 

are handled more times than necessary. We also found instances where VBA procedures did not ensure that staff processed compensation adjustments promptly. We 

have recommended improved performance measures and additional oversight to ensure that veterans and their dependents receive timely and accurate benefit payments. 

VBA also needs to ensure its Systematic Technical Accuracy Review Program provides the comprehensive oversight needed to assure the consistent application of 

policies and procedures. Lastly, the complexities inherent with the rating schedule 

need to be addressed in order to improve the consistency of claims decisions. 

Several Subcommittee Members expressed interest at the hearing on the effectiveness of funding provided to VBA for FTE to help address the backlog of claims. As 

stated in my testimony and in a later meeting with Subcommittee staff, we are currently reviewing how VBA hires and trains new claims processing personnel. We 

will share our findings and any recommendations with the Subcommittee upon completion of this review, which is expected no later than August 31, 2008. 

VI. REQUEST FOR COPIES OF REPORTS

Office of Audit mentions reports on the timeliness and quality of prosthetics provided to veterans and activation of major construction projects. 

A. I would appreciate any copies of current reports on these issues and copies of 

any future reports on these issues. 

We have no current reports on the timeliness and quality of prosthetics provided 

to veterans and activation of major construction projects. As discussed in our written statement, we believe these are high-risk areas that would benefit from future 

review, but we cannot perform those reviews with our current resources because of 

higher priority work. If we are able to review these areas in the future, we will provide copies of the reports. 

VII. BENEFITS PROCESSING

One of the ongoing top priorities for the Congress has been to see the backlog of 

claims for disability benefits reduced. Last year this Subcommittee and the Congress included funding for the hiring of 1,500 additional claims processors. The Office of Audit indicates in your testimony that for FY 2009 you plan to release six 

reports on the benefits processing process. 

A. Inspector Finn, how responsive has the VA been in implementing the OIG’s 

recommendations for addressing the backlog? 

While we have not made recommendations that are specific to the backlog of disability rating claims, during the past year we have recommended that VBA increase 

its oversight and monitoring of processing actions in other areas such as non-rating 

claims and compensation and pension changes to ensure that actions are completed 

in a timely manner. VA has concurred with our recommendations and taken action 

to institute further controls and improve oversight. Because of the recency of these 

recommendations, we have not performed follow-on reviews to determine if the increased controls are effective in improving processing timeliness. 

You mentioned that you would be doing six reports in benefits processes in FY 

2009. 

B. How many have you done in the years since the beginning of GWOT? 

We have issued eight reports on benefit processing since FY 2002. 

• Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Benefit Payments Involving Unreimbursed Medical Expense Claims (September 30, 2002) 

• Summary of the Benefits Review of the VA Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto 

Rico (March 7, 2005) 

• Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments (May 19, 

2005). 

• Audit of Adjustments of Hospitalized Veterans’ Compensation and Pension Benefits (February 1, 2007). 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
297 

• Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration’s Pension Maintenance Program Administered by the Pension Maintenance Centers (March 30, 2007) 

• Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Controls to Minimize Compensation 

Benefit Overpayments (September 28, 2007) 

• Audit of the Effectiveness of Veterans Benefits Administration Compensation 

Writeouts (December 19, 2007) 

• Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Non-Rating Claims Processing (February 7, 2008). 

VIII. STAFFING ISSUES AT VA FACILITIES

It has been brought to my attention by people within the VA that the process for 

hiring health care employees is very complicated and can take several months. Obviously this presents problems when meeting shortfalls that currently number in the 

thousands nationwide. 

A. Has the OIG recently conducted a review of the hiring practices within the VA? 

If yes, could my office get a copy of that report? 

OHI last addressed this issue in a national report, Healthcare Inspection, Evaluation of Nurse Staffing in Veterans Health Administration Facilities, dated August 

13, 2004. A copy is attached. The Office of Audit has not completed any audit on 

VA hiring practices; however, in March 2008 we began an audit to assess the effectiveness and timeliness of VBA’s hiring process and overall progress assimilating 

new employees into the claims processing workplace. We will provide a copy of our 

final review upon completion, which is expected no later than August 31, 2008. 

[A copy of the report follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
298 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 42754B.021
299 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 42754B.022
300 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 42754B.023
301 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 42754B.024
302 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 734 here 42754B.025
303 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 735 here 42754B.026
304 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 736 here 42754B.027
305 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 42754B.028
306 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 42754B.029
307 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 42754B.030
308 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 42754B.031
309 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 42754B.032
310 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 42754B.033
311 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 42754B.034
312 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 42754B.035
313 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 42754B.036
314 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 42754B.037
315 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 42754B.038
316 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 42754B.039
317 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 42754B.040
318 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 42754B.041
319 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 42754B.042
320 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 42754B.043
321 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 42754B.044
322 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 42754B.045
323 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 42754B.046
324 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 42754B.047
325 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 42754B.048
326 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 42754B.049
327 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 42754B.050
328 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 42754B.051
329 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 42754B.052
330 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 42754B.053
331 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 42754B.054
332 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 42754B.055
333 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 42754B.056
334 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 42754B.057
335 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 42754B.058
336 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 42754B.059
337 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 42754B.060
338 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 42754B.061
339 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 42754B.062
340 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 42754B.063
341 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 42754B.064
342 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 42754B.065
343 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 775 here 42754B.066
344 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 776 here 42754B.067
345 

B. Does the OIG have any recommendations to address the staffing shortfalls 

within the VA? 

With respect to nursing shortfalls, OHI has encouraged VHA to determine a staffing standard to ascertain the magnitude and location of their shortfall. VHA has 

not established such a standard for nurses, despite the requirements of Public Law 

107–135, Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 

2001. 

Where there is a shortfall, creative solutions should be explored. VA has taken 

a number of new actions, from supporting nursing education to creating a traveling 

nurse corps to address temporary nursing shortages. OHI will report on staffing 

issues and the impact of various methods to address staffing shortfalls in upcoming 

Combined Assessment Program reviews. 

Additionally, it has been brought to my attention by people within the VA that 

newly hired individuals at Palo Alto, California, and San Francisco, California, are 

receiving different levels of pay for the same work. Additionally, some newer employees are being paid more than current staff for the same work. 

C. Has the OIG investigated any reports of this nature at these locations or elsewhere? 

We have not performed any audits addressing position classification or pay issues 

as cited. 

D. If so, can my office receive a copy of that report? If a study has not been done, 

would the OIG initiate a study immediately to investigate pay disparities throughout the VA? 

We believe that a study of pay disparities across the VA is more appropriately 

conducted by VA, rather than the OIG. If VA agrees to undertake such a study, we 

are willing to discuss a possible role for the OIG. 

QUESTIONS FOR MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSELOR TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

IX. PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES

The Office of Audit is very clear in its testimony that the VA cannot manage its 

contracting activities and does not offer a centralized database of its procurement 

and contract activities. 

A. How long has the OIG been working with the VA to address this problem and 

what progress, if any, has been made? 

The OIG has identified procurement as one of VA’s major management challenges 

for many years. Some actions have been taken to address the issues but progress 

has been slow. As one example, VHA took action to centralize contracting and/or 

contracting oversight at the VISN level. However, this has not been fully implemented in all VISNs. We have not evaluated whether this action has been effective 

in those VISNs in which it has been fully implemented. 

With respect to the centralized database, VA has established a national electronic 

database, Electronic Contract Management System (e-CMS), to generate and manage new procurement actions over $25,000. On June 15, 2007, the VA Office of Acquisition and Logistics issued guidance regarding the mandated use of e-CMS. An 

OIG audit of e-CMS is currently ongoing to determine the extent of the system’s 

implementation throughout VA and whether e-CMS will provide needed information 

for VA to manage and report the cost of procurement more effectively. We will provide you a copy of the audit report, which we plan to issue in September 2008. 

B. Does it make sense that the VA would make changes to its policy for resellers 

when it’s not clear what effect these resellers have on a national level? 

The implementation of the recommendation in our report, Final Report, Special 

Review of Federal Supply Schedule Medical Equipment & Supply Contracts Awarded to Resellers, dated October 15, 2007, will not have any national level effect on 

the ability of VA or other Government agencies to purchase the medical and/or surgical supplies needed to provide quality health care in a timely manner. It will, however, ensure that VA and other Government agencies purchase these items at fair 

and reasonable prices that are comparable to what commercial customers pay for 

the same items. 

The only ‘‘resellers’’ that could be impacted by the implementation of the recommendation are those who do not have significant commercial sales. These vendors 

do not have significant commercial sales because they do not sell the items they 

offer the Government on Federal Supply Schedule contracts to commercial customers. They are used by large manufacturers to broker a contract with the Federal 

government to avoid giving the Government purchasers the same discounts and concessions that the manufacturers give their commercial customers. As a result, the 

Government is paying higher prices than commercial customers are paying for idenVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
346 

tical products. More importantly, we determined that the arrangements are not a 

commercial practice because the Federal government is the only customer required 

to purchase these commercial items through a third party. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of Questions for the Record Submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(347) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008. 

CENTRAL COMMAND 

WITNESS 

ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. FALLON, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL 

COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee to order. 

Admiral Fallon, welcome back before our subcommittee. 

Chairman Young, thank you for letting us appear in the committee room. We appreciate that very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, you are always welcome in this committee room. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I move that the classification will be Executive Session on all 

material to be discussed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. 

I would like for Members and staff to please check your cell 

phones, pagers and BlackBerrys to make sure they are turned off, 

and also remind everyone that if notes are taken of the classified 

parts of this discussion, that those must be kept in a secured place 

if you take those notes out of this room. 

Admiral Fallon, again, welcome back to our subcommittee and in 

your position now as Commander of the U.S. Central Command. 

And we were also privileged to have you here as head of Pacific 

Command. 

Today we are here to discuss CENTCOM’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for military construction as well as the impending fiscal 

year 2008 budget model. CENTCOM’s fiscal year 2009 request for 

its responsibilities is $109 million, not including the Combined 

Joint Task Force in the Horn of Africa and Djibouti, which has 

moved to the African Command area. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request is far larger, $1.5 billion, again, not including 

Djibouti. This request includes $976 million for MILCON in Iraq, 

the largest single-year request that we have received thus far. 

CENTCOM is engaged in two wars. It is also trying to posture 

itself for the long-term challenges in the Persian Gulf and Central 

Asia. We will have much for us to talk about today. And thank you, 

Admiral Fallon, for taking the time to be with us here for these important discussions. 

Before we proceed, I would like to first turn to the Ranking 

Member Mr. Wamp for any comments he would care to make. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
348 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful. I won’t take any 

time except to note that this is the portion of our hearings this year 

where the hair stands up on the back of your neck with extraordinary pride and understanding of the importance of what we are 

doing, and to be in the presence of a man like Admiral Fallon is 

a tremendous privilege. 

Thank you for your service, sir. Thank you for your appearance 

today. I look forward to the give-and-take of this discussion, and 

I appreciate you very much, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. As will be my tradition, I am honored to recognize 

Mr. Young for any opening comments he would care to make. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

It is great to have Admiral Fallon here. I take notice to the fact 

that unlike most of our witnesses that come into this room and 

your subcommittee room, he doesn’t bring a whole busload of staff. 

I mean, he is here. You will find that he is responsive, and we had 

an outstanding hearing with the admiral yesterday in the Defense 

Subcommittee room. 

Admiral, welcome. I am glad to have you back again today. I look 

forward to your testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, I am going to dispense with the reading 

of the bio of your distinguished service to our country. We are all 

familiar with your tremendous contributions to our Nation’s defense on so many different fronts. Again, welcome back. 

I would like to, without objection, say that all of your testimony 

will be submitted for the record. 

I would like to recognize you now for any opening comments that 

you would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. FALLON

Admiral FALLON. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Young, Mr. 

Crenshaw, thanks once again for the opportunity to be here. It is 

a very important subcommittee because we would not be able to do 

the things that we are trying to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the 

region without means to do it. We have got phenomenal people, but 

we need facilities, and this is how it is made possible. 

If I could, with the great tradition, if you will bear with me, I 

will start off this morning with a comment. As some of you know, 

there is this morning an article in The Washington Post that talks 

about me, alleges certain things, and it makes reference to a magazine article that is coming out in the coming days. As usual with 

these things, there is some truth, there is some fact, there is some 

fiction, and there are some twists. 

My feeling right now is one of disappointment and, frankly, disgust because the upshot of this is that it causes embarrassment, 

I believe, to the President, to him personally, to the institution. It 

also distracts from the very, very critically important business of 

trying to wrap up these conflicts in the Middle East, and it has a 

tendency—I think overshadows what is really important today, and 

that is the phenomenal work that is going on by our people and 

task in front of us. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
349 

The principal issue here is an allegation that I am in contravention or opposed to the administration policy regarding Iran, and 

that is not true. In fact, I have had several discussions with the 

President directly on this subject. It stems from a swirl of media 

activity last fall in which a big deal was being made, a couple 

statements that I made publicly in which it was construed that I 

was not going to support the President in some way in what we 

were trying to do in Iran. That is not true. This has taken on a 

life of its own; kit has been embellished to the point where it is 

pretty embarrassing. 

Just to let you know, I believe that Iran is a difficult challenge 

for us. We know that. There are lots of opinions about how we 

might be able to move forward. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but the real issue is that we have national interests here of 

the highest order with a country that is very opaque in its nuclear 

development program. ———. But the fact is, they are not openly 

forthcoming and have disdain for the U.S., the U.N. Security Council resolution and so forth. They also, by their behavior, have been 

killing and wounding our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is obvious to us. We have had fingerprints all over this. And they have 

also seemingly gone out of their way to poke their fingers in the 

eyes of other countries in the region. 

So for all these reasons, we need to have, to the best of our ability, a coordinated approach to this, and that has been my efforts 

along those lines. And so if you just bear with me, I know there 

is going to be a lot of swirl about this. There is a lot of politics at 

play here, and it is just a shame. But I didn’t want to begin this 

hearing without at least making a statement to address this issue. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Admiral FALLON. If I could move on to the business of today, 

again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am here representing our people because they are the folks who are getting the 

job done. They have just been working in a phenomenal fashion 

this year. Since I arrived here, and, of course, I was privileged to 

testify about a year ago, there has been a dramatic turnaround in 

the security in Iraq. It has been to the benefit of many of the people in that country and by virtually every single measure. Violence 

is down. Security has increased, and we are moving down the road 

to the time when we can continue to withdraw our forces, turning 

responsibility over to Iraqis, and being able to assume a more normal relationship with that country. 

Part of this directly impacts this subcommittee, because as we 

make these adjustments, you know, we are going to have to, in my 

opinion, make some adjustments to the facilities that we are using 

in Iraq. The big picture here is that we are going to come down, 

to bring our forces down to consolidate our presence there to a few 

enduring facilities, and eventually I would expect that we will reduce our presence there at some time to the point where it is relatively minimal and it is really engaged in the kinds of things we 

do in other countries around the world, training, mentoring, things 

that are supportive of them. 

The Iraqis have made some big decisions this year, particularly 

regarding their finances. This year they are putting three times as 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
350 

much money into their security than we are. And that is just in 

3 years time, it has gone from the complete opposite. 

They are buying U.S. equipment, and that is good in several 

ways. I think, first of all, it ties them much closer to us. And this 

has been made very clear by the Minister of Defense, who told me 

that one of his principal intentions in pushing the government to 

buy in the U.S. forces more cooperation, coordination just because 

of the intimate ties that will result. And I think that is a really 

good step. 

In terms of facilities, there are many, 60-some places, bases and 

other major outposts in the country of Iraq, right now that our 

forces are using. Our intention is to over the next months and 

years withdraw down to a handful of facilities, and that will, I 

think, come out in due course as General Petraeus gets back here 

and gets a chance to put his next phase, his plan in public display. 

By way of how that is working, I tasked him several—a couple 

months ago to come back to me with a plan for what we would do 

in Iraq or what he proposed to do in Iraq after July, and this is 

a follow-on to the already ongoing drawdown of the surge forces. 

And I gave him three scenarios to look at; one in which security 

continued to increase, one in which things stayed about the same, 

and one in which it might regress somehow for whatever reason; 

and to tell me in those circumstances what he would propose and 

how we would set ourselves up to be in that position. And I expect 

to get that back—in fact, sometime later today it is due back to me. 

We will then look at that ourselves. We will talk about it. They 

already have a couple of times. And we will then talk to the Joint 

Chiefs about it and to the Chairman and then the Secretary of Defense, and then, over the next couple of weeks, take it to the President, give him our recommendations, and we will also have a decision to make. 

We have heard a lot of speculation about this, what are we going 

to talk about, this cost thing? I am not sure that is really a good 

word because it brings up—everybody has got their own interpretation of what that might be. To my mind, what is probably going 

to be prudent here is in about the July timeframe, we will have 

completed a very rapid pull-out of ——— brigade combat teams 

which are now in July. At the same time we will also be turning 

over ——— other remaining combat teams of troops. Those troops 

are coming out, but there are replacements for those ——— units 

going back in, and then a host of smaller movements that will be 

under way at the same time. This will be an awful lot of movement. 

If I could try to give you an example of what this looks like on 

the ground. If you were to look at a map of Iraq, looking at it from 

a God’s-eye view, you would see coalition forces have divided up the 

entire country into regions of responsibility, given those to our divisions, brigades all over the country. As the forces come out, what 

is going to happen is that the lines that separate these units are 

going to come to change, and fewer units are going to be responsible for more territory. And at the same time, there are significant 

numbers of Iraqi forces that are being fielded and are taking responsibility for their areas. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
351 

For example, right now it is really difficult, unless you are there 

on the ground, to understand how complex this is. For example, in 

an area like Anbar Province, the largest province in the country, 

Marines are generally in charge of that. To an increasing degree, 

Iraqi Security Forces are actually doing the day-to-day things. Our 

Marines are now generally drawn back to their bases, and they certainly patrol, they certainly engage with what the Iraqis have. In 

certain cases the Iraqis are pretty much doing this all on their 

own. In other cases their companies, battalions are out there, and 

our people are right there with them. It is a really interesting 

checkered tablecloth, if you will, of all these activities. 

All this is going on this summer, and it seems to me that it is 

probably going to be prudent to let the dust settle for a bit for 

some, I would think, shorter rather than longer period to see if the 

stability is as we want it. And clearly everybody’s intention is to 

get back on drawdown and bring our forces back, but take it very 

careful—paying close attention to what frontiers are ready to expand so that we don’t lose the stability that we have got. I think 

it is quite possible; not possible, I think we are going to get it done, 

but it is very complex, and I suspect that General Petraeus is going 

to come back and say, let us have a little bit of time to take a look 

at this before we start pulling more troops out. 

We are also very mindful of the fact that the Army wants to get 

off a 15-month rotation. General Casey has made that very clear 

that we need to get off it, and I agree. So the sooner we can get 

this moving, the faster we will be able to let our people go. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you and 

to be here. I will turn it over for whatever questions you might 

have. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, thank you for your testimony and, as 

Mr. Wamp said, for your lifetime distinguished service to our country. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral William J. Fallon follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
352 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 42754B.068
353 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 42754B.069
354 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 42754B.070
355 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 42754B.071
356 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 42754B.072
357 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 42754B.073
358 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 42754B.074
359 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 42754B.075
360 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 42754B.076
361 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 42754B.077
362 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 42754B.078
363 

LONG TERM SECURITY

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me just make a brief editorial comment from 

one person in this House, and that is that I hope our military leaders always are in a position to be able to speak openly and honestly 

with the Secretary of Defense, with the Commander in Chief and 

without it always getting in the press. We know you are loyal to 

the chain of command. but we also respect the fact that whatever 

viewpoints you have offered—and I don’t want to get into the viewpoints of that today—vis-a-vis Iran, whatever views you have expressed are honest and sincere and well informed. 

And the press is always looking for conflict. If it is not conflict, 

it is just not news in this town. And that is disappointing for all 

of us. I have great respect, though, for the leadership that you have 

shown. 

Let me just ask, for the skeptics that are out there that say that 

there is more security now since we have got such a huge presence 

of U.S. forces in Iraq, but as soon as we leave, the Shia and Sunnis 

are just waiting to go after each other, and then the arms of the 

Sunnis will just be used to turn against the Iraqis. How would you 

respond to those skeptics and suggest that perhaps there is reason 

for you to believe that there would be long-term security if we pullout 2 years from now, 3 years from now or 7 years from now? 

Admiral FALLON. Well, I think that the truth is that there are 

always going to be some extremists in every society. Because of the 

situation in Iraq, there has been more of these folks who have been 

in front than maybe some other countries. 

But the situation has significantly changed now, and I think that 

it is not just the mindset that I would offer. The picture is not us 

withdrawing, and now we are just gone, and they are in charge. 

This process of gradually turning this over to the Iraqi Security 

Forces who are increasingly competent and increasingly willing to 

pick this up. Just the steps they have taken; from the investment 

decisions that I mentioned previously, to their continued build-up 

of their forces, to some really good decisions that I have seen in 

putting good leaders in charge and making assessments of how 

people have done over the past year or so and making changes 

where it is appropriate. 

In the South, for example, where we have a very, very light presence, all those provinces down there have been turned over to the 

Iraqis for their political control and security control. And a couple 

of times here in the past 6 months, there have been indications 

that trouble was brewing, that the extremists were trying to take 

back over or force things to happen. The Iraqis have dealt with 

this, and we have not had to put a significant rescue force, if you 

would, or response force in place. We have helped them. We have 

given them enablers. We have flown some troops around for them, 

and we have provided some of our Special Forces people, who are 

very effective. They are close to the Iraqi Security Forces. They 

mentor them. 

But increasingly we are seeing the Iraqis with SWAT teams, 

which they have mirrored on ours, with commandos and with some 

of the Army units that are responding. They have made adjustments. They realize that the South, it is trouble. It is not a place 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
364 

where there is a lot of open conflict, but there is a continual grinding, and most of it is Shias. It is different than other places. It is 

almost all Shia down there, and there are factions that are, frankly, vying for political domination, and so they have their times 

when they go at it and try to intimidate. But what we are seeing, 

Iraqis responding, and they are dealing with it. 

One town I will mention, Diwaniyah, I was concerned about 

twice, once in the last 6 or 8 months. It looked like trouble was 

brewing, and one time we said, oh, we will have to go down there 

and clean it up. We did not have to. They took care of it. They 

brought people in from other parts of the country, and they cleaned 

it up. 

I think they are stepping up to the plate, and if we do this in 

a smart fashion, I think we are going to be able to effect this. It 

is not going to be the U.S. It is their culture. It is going to be different. But they are dealing with things. 

SYRIAN BORDER

I will give you another example. I was out in the West in the 

Sunni area a couple of weeks ago, and the marines there had 

tipped me off that there was trouble brewing out at one of the 

entry points on the Syrian border, and the issue was that the border police, Iraqis, out there had not been paid and were given— 

they were being short-sheeted by the central government. At least 

that was their complaint. And the story was, well, the Shia government’s not paying enough attention to us. They don’t care what 

happens out here. 

Just last week a delegation from Baghdad went out there, visited 

with the gang, listened to the complaints, had the usual lubrication 

in that part of the world, a bag of money, handed it out, paid off 

all the debts, and folks were left with smiles on their faces and 

back to work and business as usual. 

In another area, Diyala Province, where you have a mix of Shia 

and Sunnis, there has been a lot of trouble. Colonel Townsend with 

the Army, who just came back from Iraq 15 months after being 

Commander out there, his troops fought the battle of Baquba this 

past summer, house by house, street by street, very courageous actions that retook the city, and now it is generally back in the hands 

of the Iraqis. 

One of the things that has been a real success is this rise in the 

citizens which stood up and said, we want to take responsibility for 

our neighborhoods, and they have been moving along. But they 

went on strike a couple weeks ago because they were unhappy with 

the leadership and the police. And again, a delegation from Baghdad went out, negotiated. They removed one of the key leaders, put 

a new one in, and they are moving on. This, to me, is the type of 

accommodation that is essential to moving forward. It is happening. It is not perfect, it is not a straight line, but it is moving. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Admiral. 

Mr. Wamp. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
365 

Can you touch on Afghanistan just for a minute? My colleagues 

that just came back echoed your encouragement about Iraq, but are 

not as encouraged with Afghanistan. Can you touch on that just for 

a second? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. Afghanistan, I believe, is significantly 

different than Iraq. I have to be careful myself that I don’t take 

whatever we are learning in Iraq and try to put it on top of Afghanistan, or to take the news clips and the snippets of information I hear from Afghanistan and put it in the same context. 

First of all, the scale of violence in Afghanistan is substantially 

less. These are countries that are about the same size of population. The number of incidents in Afghanistan are on a different 

scale, lower than in Iraq, just to set the scene. The majority of the 

violence in Afghanistan takes place in a minority of the locales. 

Our troops over there are using a figure of about 70 percent of the 

violent activity takes place in about 10 percent of the provinces. 

Now, there are reasons for that. First of all, getting around the 

country in Afghanistan is extremely difficult. Those of you that 

have been there, you know that there is really only one road, and 

you can’t call it a highway, and it loops almost a circle around a 

central mountainous area, with very few people in that central 

area. A majority of people live somewhere around this so-called 

ring road. And the contested areas, the areas where the Taliban 

who have never been completely eradicated and probably aren’t 

going to be, their heartland, if you will, is in the South, in provinces of Kandahar and Helmand. These are very populated provinces as well. So there is a continual incursion down there in that 

area. 

We have another challenge, and that is that the good news is lots 

of people have come to help. The bad news is, you know, there are 

so many people there with different agendas, some of them not necessarily nefarious, but they come from different perspectives, and 

they are trying to achieve different things. The coordination on the 

ground is challenging, and particularly regarding the development 

aspects of the country. So lots of folks here to help, in many cases 

tripping over each other, in my opinion, and, frankly, distracting in 

some regards, because everybody wants to go see President Karzai. 

And this is a fragile government with very immature institutions, 

so the amount of time he has to spend, I think, every week—because he wants to—he is a very outgoing, charismatic guy who 

wants to listen to all the stories—how do you run the country? And 

it is still running in many cases by a cell phone call to the Governor to done. 

That said, the future of Afghanistan is going to be two things. 

One is the development of the government and their ability to actually govern. This is a challenge because traditionally the place has 

been very locally governed and locally run by tribal chiefs, elders 

and villagers. I think we have to remember that 70 percent of this 

population is still illiterate. They don’t know anything except what 

they hear. Most information comes from word of mouth and rumors. 

And but that said, I believe that the majority of people still support President Karzai as their national leader, and that is really 

a very strong plus. You don’t have this extreme factionalism that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
366 

we saw in Iraq, which is also being mitigated, but you don’t have 

it in Afghanistan. 

The other thing is that the Afghan Security Forces, they are 

much smaller than Iraq. The army is building towards a goal right 

now of 80,000. That is probably not enough, but we are trying to 

do this smarter and more methodically than we did in Iraq. And, 

by the way, we are paying for it. U.S. taxpayers are very much 

footing the bill for the Afghan Security Force. I think it is a good 

investment, in my opinion, because we could use stability in this 

country. And, frankly, the more they do, the less we have to do. 

And the cost of putting U.S. forces over there is much greater than 

these things. 

These guys are coming along. I like them a lot. They have a good 

leadership. They are tough guys. These are really rugged people, 

as you might expect growing up in that environment. The leaders 

are all veterans of the mujahedin wars against the Soviets, so they 

know how to do business. They have a good vision, and they want 

to do things smartly. 

Another thing I like about it, when you go down and see the average unit, you will see Pashtuns, you see Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, 

these various sects. They are integrated, and they work together 

inside these units, and they have taken pains to make sure that 

it is a well representative institution. 

So I think the army has really come along, and they want desperately to be in charge, smartly. They want to take responsibility. 

They actively seek every day more and more responsibility. You 

have got to love it. 

I will be frank with you. The police are a different matter. The 

police are about 80,000 and the Army is about 50,000 now, climbing to 80,000. Police are about 75,000 or so folks on the payroll 

right now. A lot of them are the wrong people, in my opinion, or 

they need to be trained to a much higher degree of competence. 

Corruption is endemic. It is just the way life is. Very little by the 

way of economic activity in the country other than subsistence agriculture, and if you can’t grow your own food, raise the money to 

feed your family that way, you have to get it some other way. So 

sticky fingers are widespread. 

This is a big challenge. It is related to the drug culture. Why 

poppies in Afghanistan? Because they grow there like wild flowers 

do in Montana, and they just bloom, and it is an engrained cultural 

activity. So that has got to change. 

Activity, the other negative thing that is getting a lot of press, 

in the past year the bad actors over here have realized the value 

of suicide bombers. They have gone from a dozen or so incidents 

last year—the previous year in 2006 to last year about 140 

throughout the country. Now, just to put this in perspective, every 

day in Iraq we are dealing with 40, 50, 60 a day. There were 140 

the entire year in all of Afghanistan. Nonetheless this is troubling 

because this rise in this kind of activity is certainly destabilizing, 

and frankly, in my opinion, as I walk around Afghanistan and talk 

to people, they are concerned about it. I can sense their nerves. 

They don’t like it; they just feel uneasy. If you are in Kabul, 4 million people or something, the odds of you getting blown up by an 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
367 

lED are pretty slim, but it is still unsettling for people. They have 

never had this before, and they don’t like it. So that is an issue. 

The flip side of that, in my observation, the Iraqi—I’m sorry, the 

Afghan intelligence folks are pretty darn good, and several times 

this year they have actually come to us and said, we have got a 

tip that there is a bomber out there, and he is driving a white Toyota, and we are on the lookout for him. And they have in many 

cases cut this stuff off when they knew about that. 

Probably too much rambling here, but it is very complex. The 

number of incidents is clearly up, but the scale of these incidents 

is, I think, not even close to Iraq. And there are a lot of things that 

are moving forward to try to snuff it out. We still have a lot of 

work to do because this is not just Afghanistan. You cannot, in my 

opinion, isolate this country. The Pashtun tribal belt includes a 

good chunk of Pakistan. They don’t recognize the border. They feel 

that they need to come back and forth all the time. And the 

Taliban are really Pashtun-centric. They take advantage of this. 

They know that the western part of Pakistan is basically 

ungoverned, it is really rugged, and so they hide out and take advantage of it. 

The good news here is that in the past 6 months or so, the cooperation between the Pak military, Afghan military, there has 

been a lot of friction in the past, it has got a lot better, and the 

reason is because we are in the middle of it, and we are bringing 

them together, and this has been very, very helpful to us. In the 

east of Afghanistan where on paper it will be the worst, toughest 

territory because of the proximity of these sanctuaries and traditionally a lot of kinetic activity, the violence levels have come down 

significantly in the past 4, 5 months, and I am convinced that a 

big piece of that is better cooperation between the two countries 

along the border. 

What we are looking for this summer, I went to the Secretary 

and asked him if he would consider putting additional troops into 

the country. I know we are stretched really, really thin. I looked 

at it, talked to folks who thought we might be able to identify a 

couple of Marine units that could do this. Secretary agreed, President okayed it. And so we are going to deploy a new Marine maneuver force with all of their enablers, the aviation and artillery 

and all those things that can make them very effective, and I think 

that is going to be a real boon for NATO. They are going to work 

for NATO, for General McNeil and the ISAF chain of command. 

There is another battalion of Marines that are going to work for 

me, the U.S. chain of command, and their mission is to train Afghan Security Forces. That is it. And to the best of their ability, 

this is not an ideal match-up. A lot of young Marines. But we are 

going to figure out how to make this work, and they will be over 

there working through most of this year and should give us a boost, 

and again try to make them more competent. 

That is Afghanistan, and I pretty much touched every aspect of 

it. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, am I on the 5-minute rule, or can I 

ask another question? 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is your choice. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
368 

Mr. WAMP. Just briefly I will say, I had a nephew in Iraq, and 

as of last Friday my nephew, who just graduated from boot camp 

in the Marines, said he is going to Afghanistan by the summer. So 

I will have both these theaters covered by relatives, which many 

of us have. That was a great comprehensive answer. 

But on the CENTCOM organization, we are going through some 

changes with AFRICOM. And the President just got back, talked 

about mil bases. You shared a little bit of this. I am very interested. 

COUNTRIES IN CENTCOM

First, I am fascinated, have you been to all the countries in 

CENTCOM as you have been Commander, one; and two, give us 

a little of the needs through this transition, talk about Djibouti and 

where the line is. And I know we are all supposed to know this, 

but just kind of go through the basics of the CENTCOM reorganization. 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. I have been to most of the countries. 

There are a handful that are either not hospitable or impractical. 

I haven’t been to Iran, haven’t been to Syria, and have not been 

to Eritrea or Somalia, but I think just about every other place I 

have been to on several occasions. 

In Africa, the northeastern part of the continent, the so-called 

Horn includes Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, and Eritrea, and Egypt. Egypt is going to stay in CENTCOM. The other 

countries that are now in CENTCOM are going to transition to 

AFRICOM. But we have in place over top of all of these countries 

except Egypt another command subordinate to me called JTF, Joint 

Task Force, Horn of Africa, which works this region. Our intention 

is to transition that command to AFRICOM, that Commander to 

AFRICOM, and so he will report directly to them in a new arrangement next year. 

But our intention is to stay connected because, frankly, we have 

a lot of resources that AFRICOM is not likely to have any time 

soon, and we will try our darnedest to continue to do work as we 

are going on. 

I have to tell you that in, I think, probably 6 years now since 

that joint task force began operations, there has been a very, very 

substantial growth and affinity between the countries of that region and this task force. Every one of the leaders in the countries, 

except Eritrea and Somalia, tell me they are very, very happy with 

what our people are doing there. Most of what they do is not military, direct military things. They are supporting, they are doing 

medical things, they are trying to train their military, they are 

helping in schools and so forth. That is going to continue. 

But the key enabler for all that activity is this base. It is an airstrip. It is called Camp Lemonier. For those who haven’t been 

there, it is really an airstrip with a small area around it in which 

all of our people, a couple thousand of them, are embedded down, 

and the critical feature there is the airfield. It is a single runway, 

doesn’t even have a taxiway. It has got a parking ramp. It is 

shared with the French. It has squatter—fighters there. It is 

shared with the Djibouti Government and their commercial air terminal and our people. And this is the one facility. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
369 

And I think it is most pertinent to your committee here that we 

really need to, I think, transition from really expeditionary, rudimentary, not particularly people-friendly to something that is more 

appropriate to our people being there for a while. 

So we would hope they are going to be there for a while. They 

are very welcomed. The country of Djibouti welcomes them. I have 

met with the President several times. He is very supportive of our 

presence, and this is the enduring location. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IRAN

Thank you, Admiral, for your service. It is great to see you again. 

We kind of touched on the present issues that you deal with, and 

you have got—obviously you have got your hands full not only with 

Iraq and Afghanistan, but I wanted to ask you a little bit about 

your thinking as it relates to Iran and what kind of changes we 

might need in terms of force structure, in terms of MILCON, but 

primarily just how you see that developing. 

As we rotate ships through there, are we going to need any kind 

of different aspects of that? The issue back in January, I guess, 

early this year, the Straits of Hormuz, I guess those kind of ships 

we have got over there, they are kind of fast-moving. They don’t 

have the protection maybe that they need. And maybe get to that 

kind of engagement, kind of speed up your thinking about how we 

handle it, just your overall view, because I know you have to balance the knowledge of present what you are dealing with, but I am 

sure you spent a lot of time and energy thinking about the future 

because of all the difficult hot spots there. Can you talk about that 

and some of the thoughts you have about how you are dealing with 

the future? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. 

A couple of things that are pertinent to remember; first, that we 

have had no relationship with Iran since 1979, no formal way to 

engage to discuss, no ambassador, no embassy, none of the normal 

ways in which countries communicate. And during that period of 

time, there has been a pretty obvious friction, to put it mildly, between the two countries, and that has continued unabated. The 

vocal rhetoric out of Tehran is U.S. go home. It has been the same 

since 1979, and this stems from the perception among the segment 

of the population that the U.S. supported the Shah. He was corrupt. He was deposed by the ayatollahs. And it has endured. 

However, my observation is that a large number of Iranian people, the individuals, have a great affinity for the U.S., and that is 

demonstrated most obviously, I think, by the number of people that 

are here in the U.S. who have come from Iran and live here. Nonetheless, we have got this enduring public distaste and continual 

friction. 

There are issues of Iranian behavior that I think are really important. Their nuclear program, which they claim is for peaceful 

purposes, very opaque. ———. They still kept their nuclear development program coming, which will enable them to use it for 

peaceful purposes, and that was their choice. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
370 

It is curious, because this country has huge energy reserves of 

oil and gas, and of all the countries in the world that might need 

nuclear power, it doesn’t seem like this ought to be the top priority, 

given their other challenges, ———. 

The other issue is the way they engage in the world. The Iranians have a curious behavior, bad behavior pattern of using surrogates to cause trouble. Why do they do this? In my opinion, this 

is a Shia-Sunni thing again. The Iranians and the people who live 

in the southern part of Iraq are predominantly Shia. They are a 

distinct minority in the greater Arab world, and there has been 

friction for a long time. Aside from that, the history is that when 

they want to, they can live and they can accommodate what they 

have. there are many exteriors there, but there is a perception 

among the Sunnis that the Persians who are not arab—most of 

those ayatollahs are not Arab, they are Persian, different ethnic 

background—that they would love to recreate the Persian Empire 

and be the kings of the Middle East again. Who knows? 

But that is a fear in the minds of the neighborhood. So the Iranians for their part have an open campaign of, we are the nice 

guys, we are only here to help, we love you all, our neighbors. But 

their actions belie that. They have instigated trouble in Iraq. It is 

very clear. They have propagated weapons into Afghanistan, even 

supported the Taliban, who are ideologically the other extreme. 

Taliban are Sunni extremists on one side, and the Shia extremists are on the other. They are meddling in a really negative way. 

Hezbollah is a clone of Iran, surrogates. And Gaza Strip same 

thing, Hamas. They get most of their support from Iran. And the 

Iranians have installed a group within their country, within their 

security apparatus, called the Iranian Guards and the external aspect of that they call Quds Forces. These are the people who actually do the dirty work in all these countries. It seems to us that 

they have a very strong voice in decisionmaking inside of that 

country. 

It is really difficult. I had a tutorial from some British diplomats 

several months ago, and my head spun as they tried to explain to 

me how the decisionmaking is actually done inside the country. It 

is a Ph.D.-level exercise, believe me. 

Anyway, that is Iran. Difficult for the neighbors to figure it out. 

Most of the neighbors are suspicious, and this includes neighbors 

from Central Asia as well. Their demonstrated behavior, whether 

it is contested naval presence, ours or anybody else in the Gulf, to 

the way they engage the neighbors, decidedly unfriendly. The 

things they do are destabilizing to the neighbors. They persist in 

this activity. 

My opinion is that we need to come at this in a comprehensive 

manner. We need to maintain a strong demonstrated ability to 

withstand their pressure. We ought to stand tall with the neighbors who are looking for our help in standing up to Iran. At the 

same time, we have got to figure out a way to deal with these guys, 

because they are probably going to be around for a long time, and 

they represent a significant number of people as well as a big economic force in that region. 

So it is a difficult chore for us, and we have got to figure out a 

way to move ahead on it. All this swirl about Iran policies and stuff 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
371 

is trying to figure out what is—how do you do this? I don’t think 

anybody has the perfect answers. So there is lots of discussion, lots 

of debate. That is my assessment of Iran. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Can I have a quick follow-up? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will ask staff how many minutes we have. 

We have 6 minutes. About 3 more minutes or so. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You mentioned in Iran there is kind of a group 

who are really friendly toward the U.S. You know, you have the 

students, you have women, upper middle class, and I know that the 

reformers, you know, over the years have kind of come and gone. 

And it seems to me that the thing that I can understand right now 

is there is kind of a renewed suppression of some of the reform 

movements. 

As you plan kind of how to deal with this, what is your sense 

of the people within Iran in terms of—as I understand it, they don’t 

have very much refining capabilities. So they—gasoline, inflation 

ramp. Ahmadinejad is not doing everything he says he is going to 

do, so it seems there is more or less right now—but it seems there 

is more kind of suppression of the unrest. 

In your judgment, do you see a time when you know there could 

be, you know, within the country the kind of reform that began to 

take place and then gets pushed back, or is that almost kind of impossible? Are we looking at too much money and too strong a military, all these kind of things for us to kind of have any kind of 

hope that someday within that country there would be folks rising 

up and maybe make a change? 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t know, to be honest with you, whether 

that is wishful thinking. There are clearly other voices in the country. There was ineptitude apparently from the outside in running 

aspects of the country like the economy; might be the thing that 

instigates more unrest within and among the people. It is really 

difficult for us to tell. 

What I am learning from looking at decisionmaking, and it is 

very different from ours, they have all kinds of layers of groups 

who meet. One common thread is mullahs have put a lot of their 

own people at these different levels. They really keep good control 

of this. How long it might take to develop some kind of an internal 

resistance that might be effective in changing I don’t know. I suspect at the end of the day the best bet will be to work hard at opening the country to as much interaction with others outside, and 

thereby forcing the regime to change and giving people options. 

The more they know, they more they might be inclined to kind of 

do things a little differently. This is including what is going on 

now. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Members, why don’t we take a brief break. We have got a previous question vote that is kind of winding down now, then a 5- 

minute rule vote. Maybe we could vote early in the rule vote and 

continue on. Mr. Young will be next. Okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I call the subcommittee back to order. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
372 

DJIBOUTI

Admiral, in looking at your military construction request, I find 

that actually your request for dollars is not all that big, but most 

of the construction that you request is not within the United 

States, in some of your outposts stations around the world. 

I want to ask you specifically about a comment you made in your 

prepared statement about maintenance facilities in Africa and the 

bad weather and the temperature extremes, that you don’t really 

have adequate facilities to protect the aircraft that you might be— 

that might be maintained there. Let’s take Djibouti, for example, 

one of the cases you mentioned in your prepared statement. Does 

your budget provide what you think you need for that type of maintenance facility in Africa? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir, Mr. Young. The issue in Djibouti is 

that there really isn’t any hangar facility except for one of these 

temporary things they call a clam shell, and it is not big enough 

to take a C–130 or the heavy helicopter, the 53s, that we have 

down there. This place is hot and dusty, sandstorms. It is a tough 

environment. So to do the maintenance, you have to actually fly 

the aircraft out somewhere else. Now, if the aircraft can’t be flown 

out, then you have a problem, and you have to figure out how to 

do it in pretty bad conditions. So that is why the request for a 

hangar. 

My sense of this before I got here was that the view had always 

been that this is just a real temporary place and may be gone tomorrow literally, so don’t put anything in there. And I have to tell 

you I agreed with it a couple years ago, but now I think we are 

at a point where this is the one location we have in all of Africa. 

It is critical in the Horn, and I think we ought to start thinking 

about some of these events. So the answer is yes, we do have some 

of these things in. The hangar is one that is definitely needed. 

Mr. YOUNG. We are, the committee, the whole Congress is pretty 

much concerned that we don’t want to establish permanent bases 

in a lot of different parts of the world. So what we are talking 

about here would not be considered a permanent base of any type, 

just to take care of us while we are there? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. The only permanent bases I think we 

ought to put in that category are bases in the U.S. or our territories. All these other facilities are, I believe, at the option of the 

governments that host them. Some of these facilities I would anticipate certainly would desire to be able to have access to or use 

longer than others. Djibouti, the more we operate there, the more 

I think this is probably one of those places. So doing a couple of 

things, some of the things—the dining facility there is pretty decrepit. I was in there a couple weeks ago. We need a few of these 

things. And, again, it is not big money. But I understand the issue 

is it is a foreign place, how much do we really invest there, and 

my sense is we ought to certainly desire to have that kind of construction. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. YOUNG. Admiral, with the 3,200 Marines increased in 

strength in Afghanistan, do you need any military construction to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
373 

care for them, to house them or to feed them? Is there anything 

in your budget request that would relate to those 3,200 Marines? 

Admiral FALLON. The short answer is no, but I think if I can use 

this to maybe illustrate one of the items that we would like for you 

to consider. 

In our MILCON budget process, you know that it takes really a 

couple of years from the time we conceive of an idea to get it all 

through the process and then get it moving into construction. In 

the very fast-paced environment which we are operating in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, other locations, there are things that will come up inside that cycle, that window, that really need action. And we have 

been using the provision of CCA, the contingency support option, 

to take operations and maintenance money and convert it into—for 

us to be able to use these things. 

These things are being used all the time, and there are two issues that have come to the fore here. One is there is a $200 million annual cap. Now, most of these projects are nowhere near $200 

million, but there are enough of them that come up. 

I will give you one that has just come up in Afghanistan. We 

have a detention facility there in which we have kept the bad actors that our Special Forces and other folks have rolled up in the 

country. The numbers are a fraction of Iraq. But we have got pushing 800 of these people in our custody now. It is a long process to 

get them dealt with through the judicial system, either ours or the 

Afghans’. 

I went in to look at this facility last month, and it needs to get 

fixed. We will have to physically replace it for a number of reasons. 

We are going to have to do this right now, in my opinion. I don’t 

want to wait. And so we are going to have to reprogram money 

within our own assets, and we would do this. And so this $200 million cap a year is something we would really like you to consider 

pushing up to something higher, anything. 

The other aspect is that in the language there is a use of the 

word ‘‘enduring’’ facility. And I understand the rationale that if it 

is an enduring facility, it is going to be around for a while, the desired process would be through the regular MILCON system. But 

there are some bases like Bagram in Afghanistan which is our 

main base that we envision as enduring, but there is so much going 

on so quickly now, we really need an exception. I would ask you 

to consider an exception. I would ask you to consider an exception. 

So if you could look at this word and maybe contemplate giving us 

a little more room there, because as soon as—it is a kind of an immediate lightning rod here, and also at OMB and other places. 

Even at OSD they said, well, we are not sure we can support this 

because it will be viewed as enduring, and the Congress isn’t going 

to like it. So these are the two aspects of it. 

But back to your immediate question. We can deal with the Marine deployment this year within the existing authority to meet our 

existing needs. 

PARKING AT CENTCOM HEADQUARTERS

Mr. YOUNG. Admiral, 2 weeks ago I was at MacDill, drove by 

your headquarters. I didn’t visit your headquarters. I was going to 

another location at MacDill, a lot of activity, and I know that the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
374 

last previous 2 years we appropriated funding for your new headquarters. Talking to some of the folks there, as I say, a lot of activity and a lot of people, a lot of vehicles, looked like it was pretty 

crowded with vehicles. Do you have a parking problem there? Are 

we going to need to do something to help ease the parking problem? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Because people come to work, and they need somewhere to put their cars. 

Admiral FALLON. Sir, when the original headquarters were put 

in, it was up at the front end of the base. As you know, it wasn’t 

very large, not many people there. Now the staff has expanded by 

three, four times what it was originally. We have cars parked allover the place. They would be in my driveway if they didn’t have 

a wall to go through to get there. 

Yes, we could use the facility. We have looked at the construction 

plans. We think that would be something that would be very, very 

helpful, and we probably can’t get to it until maybe 2 years down 

the road. But that would be very helpful. 

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I think we should visit that issue. 

There is a lot of activity at MacDill. I don’t know if you have been 

there or not. I would like to suggest that you take the subcommittee to MacDill and see what this is and what happens there. 

The Central Command operation is unbelievable; the Special Operations Command, which is also located there. There are some unbelievable things that we couldn’t even talk about in this room, and 

I think Members would really have an eye-opening education there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I look forward to that. If you lead that effort, I 

would be proud to join with you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Admiral, thank you very much. 

Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, last year the committee was told that 

CENTCOM’s consolidation plan for Iraq ultimately involved drawdown in four major contingency operating bases, I think was the 

term: Camp Victory, Balad, Al Assad and Camp Speicher; plus four 

convoy supports centers. Is that still basically your plan? 

Admiral FALLON. I think so. When I say ‘‘I think,’’ it is because 

General Petraeus has not come back to me with a modification. We 

talked about this extensively during the past year. They seem to 

be the most logical places to do it. Big bases all have an airfield. 

We need that kind of access in and out. They have reasonably large 

perimeters, so they ought to be pretty defensible. And I have seen 

nothing to change that. 

U.S. FOOTPRINT IN IRAQ

Mr. EDWARDS. Without getting into a debate of when we draw 

down troops, this year, next year, go out into the future, whether 

it is—we won’t be time specific—whether it is 10 years, 20 years 

or 30 years from now, what is our footprint? What is our final footprint in Iraq after the country is stabilized and we put security 

back in the hands of the Iraqi leadership and Government? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
375 

Admiral FALLON. I would think that we will get to the point over 

time, if this moves in the direction that I would like it to go, that 

the bases in Iraq will be Iraqi bases, not ours. We might share in 

a couple of these facilities for exercise activity or facilitating our 

training and equipping of the Iraqi Security Forces, but my sense 

is that these—as our footprint comes down, the Iraqis will assume 

responsibility for these bases, and they will become, over there, 

their facilities. 

DAILY LIFE IN IRAQ

Mr. EDWARDS. I think it is important as we make MILCON decisions to understand what is going on from your perspective in Iraq. 

What is life like for the average Iraqi? Power, how many hours per 

day; unemployment levels, has the professional class started coming back in; can you get a doctor? The things that we care about 

for our families, our day-to-day lives, health care for our kids, and 

schools, and a job and electricity, what is the status for the average 

Iraqi family right now compared to where they were 4, 5 years ago? 

Admiral FALLON. It is different depending where you go in the 

country. If you were in the north in the Kurdish area around Irbil, 

it is very nice, really no security concerns. They go about, it is 

booming, construction everywhere from the airfield to downtown. 

In other parts of the country, less visible. 

But the average person that I engage, and I do this every time 

I go over there, every month, voices virtually no concerns about security today to me. And last summer, this time last year, it is all 

I got: You have got to stop this killing. You have to help us. 

That is not their concern now. It is about day-to-day things, their 

lives, the economy. Jobs are, I believe, the number one issue. They 

are scarce, lots of folks that don’t have enough to do, lots of people 

running around, and that is, I think, the number one issue in 

terms of the future. 

There are other things that are aggravations, electricity. 

First of all, they have enough food. That is not an issue. There 

are two reasons for that: One, they have a system. Saddam was 

pretty clever. That is how they kept control. He instituted a system 

of subsidies nationwide all over the place, and that works. It still 

works today. Every week they come in, they give them the basics, 

the rice, the cooking oil, things like that. But as I walk through the 

cities and towns now, increasingly they are loaded with fresh food. 

I ask, where it is coming from? A lot of it from Iran, Syria, things 

they grow themselves. I see more and more of that going on. Our 

AID people are giving them seeds, and things are booming. Food 

is not a problem. 

Electricity is probably the most common complaint. It bugs me 

because I have been pushing this button myself now most of the 

time. I think we are-poised to see it increase substantially. It got 

to the point where in fall, October sometime, it reached an all-time 

high. It had never been that high during Saddam’s era. And then 

it dropped off. Some of it is seasonal because they do a lot of maintenance when the temperatures cool off. It is coming back. That is 

the number one issue. 

But there are a number of projects under way to address this. 

A lot of them are security related because, frankly, the bad guys 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
376 

went off after this with a vengeance. They started blowing up towers all over the country, the pylons fell down, the power grid. It is 

an antiquated system. Maintenance was almost nonexistent in the 

Saddam era, and so the infrastructure needs a lot of work. 

There are some new power plants coming on line. There were 

some power plants that were never functional they’re coming on 

line. I could bore you for an hour. That is the issue. 

The one thing if I had a wand to put on top of this, if we could 

fix electricity in a major way throughout the country, I think people would be very happy, and a lot of other things would happen 

because it is so essential. They spend a lot of money on fuel for 

generators. Fuel is scarce, and the price is high, and everybody 

knows it, so it gets to them. 

I walked through the streets in a neighborhood in Baghdad back 

about a month and a half ago. I was there last summer just after 

some pretty horrible bombings. Buildings were still broken and 

shattered. I walked down the street, and I found booming activity, 

people out of their shops, out of their stores, working themselves, 

putting new storefronts up, a lot of construction. The center of the 

street was a mess. There were piles of dirt and mud for good reason. They were putting in a new sewer into the street, and the reason they needed sewers is because when they put the new water 

lines in, they discovered the sewer couldn’t handle it. So this was 

ongoing. 

People came up to me on the street. In fact, a woman came up 

to me, which was really unusual in this area. She pulled out an 

ID card and said basically, I am a city council member here in this 

part of Baghdad. I would like your help. The sewer over here is 

wonderful, but we need one over here, over here; can you help me? 

They said, see these kids over here? They need a job. 

One of the things that has been most helpful in the country has 

been the initiative of the people to join us in these things that we 

call CLCs, concerned local citizens. The name has been changed 

now to Sons of Iraq. They are all male. About 80 percent of these 

folks are Sunni, and it started in Anbar Province, but now increasingly the Shia are picking this up. These people are deputy sheriffs, if you would. They are in the neighborhoods. 

Everybody—by the way, this is interesting—everybody has a 

gun. You are authorized in Iraq to have one AK–47. So they are 

authorized to do this. They bring their own weapons. We outfit 

them with ID cards and rudimentary equipment and some kind of 

way to distinguish them. In some cases they are just orange construction vests, sometimes it is certain kind of headgear, and they 

go out and do their thing. 

It has been the most remarkable initiative in the country, I 

think, in turning the local people. We have 90,000 of these people 

at last count. General P is trying to throttle back the growth of 

them because what are we going to do with them? A lot of them 

would like to become regular members of the army and police. It 

is not practical. Thousands of them have been brought in, but it is 

really not practical to bring them in. So what are we going to do 

with the rest of them? 

Lots of initiatives, retraining programs. There are a couple of the 

schools that have just started for vocational training to try and get 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
377 

these folks. But this is really something that is bringing a smile 

to people’s faces because it is about jobs, it is about having a future. 

And so I think that the assessment I have is that in most parts 

of the country, they want to move on. Security is much better. It 

is not perfect, but it is to the point where they are not concerned 

with that nearly as much as they are about getting a job and moving on. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

MACDILL AFB

Mr. WAMP. One specific question: If you are going to build the 

parking garage in 2011 at MacDill, don’t you need money in 2009? 

Are you going be to asking for money in 2009 for that parking garage, sir? 

Admiral FALLON. The year 2010 would be the first, because the 

ongoing construction now, we physically can’t do it or else we 

would have to shut the headquarters is my understanding. We 

have to complete the headquarters structure before we—there is 

not enough land. It has got to go in the same place. 

BEYOND 2009

Mr. WAMP. The general question is really like three variables 

that I see after talking to you this morning and then listening for 

the last hour. The variables are redeployments that are not yet official or are to come, and then the supplemental that is moving; and 

then the variable of the Iraqi Government standing up by the end 

of the year and that sandwich flipping, as you said earlier, those 

type of variables. But do you foresee for the MILCON appropriations subcommittee any specific supplemental request that we can 

expect beyond the 2009 request that we see today that are pretty 

straightforward? 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t have any visibility beyond what has already been teed up. I think that the idea is to try to put—give due 

consideration to all the possibilities, put it in a package and move 

on. I recognize this is a challenge because we are coming down, and 

that is a good thing, and at the end it will result in a heck of a 

lot less money going out to support this. But we need some construction to accommodate our ability to withdraw, and, of course, 

there are other things that pop up from time to time. We are still 

burning a lot of money in operations, but the level of that activity, 

my observation, it is really beginning to come down. 

General Petraeus made a good point. He said, you know, some 

people complain about all this money you are paying to CLCs, 

those Sons of Iraq. I look at it a different way. Look at how much 

we are not spending now to replace ripped-up vehicles, tanks, and 

MRAPs and Humvees that were shredded 6 months ago. That is 

just not happening now, not to mention the lives. 

By the way, last month was the lowest casualty figure in Iraq 

since 2004, and we still unfortunately lost 27 people, but compared 

to what it was several months ago, a year ago, it is all moving in 

that direction. A little bit of investment here relative to the big 

scheme of things enables us to do this. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
378 

Mr. WAMP. While I don’t expect the CENTCOM Commander to 

speculate, if you did look beyond later this year, do you think that 

some of those redeployments would stay within CENTCOM? In 

terms of planning for future MILCON needs, would it be logical 

that some of them would stay in CENTCOM, or would they likely 

rotate back here or to Europe, to some other place? 

Admiral FALLON. I would anticipate that most of those forces will 

come back here to the U.S. I think we are in pretty good shape. 

All things being equal, we would like to have a couple thousand 

more people in Afghanistan, but that is relatively small compared 

to other things. 

Mr. WAMP. Mostly Marines? 

Admiral FALLON. For now, and some force replacement next year 

primarily for training. But most of these forces are coming back. 

They are Army forces, Marine forces that are based in U.S., and 

that is where we want them to come. 

Mr. WAMP. Does AFRICOM mean an increase in troop strength 

in AFRICOM or just an organizational—— 

Admiral FALLON. The idea here would be they will need some 

staff personnel, but that is really small potatoes. The forces that 

would engage in Africa would be deployed periodically from other 

places, just like in the Pacific a lot of the force that is engaged in 

countries like the Philippines and Southeast Asia were based in the 

U.S. They just go out, do their missions and come back. 

Mr. WAMP. If you had to guess at the cost of making Djibouti 

from temporary to more permanent, but not permanent, what kind 

of costs do you think would be involved in that? 

Admiral FALLON. Certainly in the hundreds of millions, I think, 

at the top end. These are 20-year, 15-year; these are not huge investments. 

Again, we have to balance this one. I am not looking to build big 

facilities. I just want things so our people can live in something 

other than tents, they can eat in a decent facility, and they can 

move aircraft around on the field. 

Mr. WAMP. And the President made clear no permanent bases in 

Africa. 

Admiral FALLON. No permanent bases, in my opinion, anywhere 

except in the U.S. 

HOST NATIONS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I have 

conflicting hearings this morning, and I had to use some information about the border. It is my understanding you gave testimony 

mentioning OSD approved a master plan that leverages host nations in these construction contributions. Now, can you tell me exactly what will be the contribution of the host nation and how 

these agreements work? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. I will give you an example, probably 

the best one. We have been allowed by the Government of Qatar, 

in the center of the Persian Gulf, to use two facilities there. One 

is an airbase that was originally built for them which has now become our principal hub for land-based air operations in the entire 

region of—both in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as transport aircraft. It is the airbase at Al Udeid. There is another facility in that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
379 

country called As Sayliyah about 10 miles away. Our Army uses 

that to refurbish a lot of torn-up equipment, heavy equipment, in 

Iraq, refurbish it, and send it back into the country or go back 

home once it is repaired. And I have a headquarters; forward headquarters is actually there in As Sayliyah. 

The country of Qatar spends $6 for every dollar that we spend 

on all those facilities. So, for example, we have asked for a couple 

of things. Qataris want part of the aircraft ramp back because they 

are buying U.S. C–17s, and they would like to have that ramp back 

to use for their aircraft. We have flooded the place with airplanes 

right now. So we would like to build an additional ramp. We have 

suggested—and this is not formalized yet, but it is a single runway. 

We have B–1s, we have C–17s, fighters, you name it, as they do 

as well. One runway, to me, is pretty dicey when you get that level 

of ops. They ought to have a parallel taxiway and another runway. 

They are interested in doing that. So they are going to pay for the 

vast majority of it. 

We have very few real facilities in this part of the world: Al 

Udeid in Qatar. We have naval facilities in Bahrain, and we have 

a small piece of the airfield there that we use in Kuwait, and they 

help us with that. In Kuwait we have facilities near the border that 

enable us to move our people in and out of Iraq. Kuwaitis have 

been magnificent and marvelously welcoming in allowing us to do 

this. This summer over the next 6 months, the truck traffic, the 

heavy equipment, the Humvee tanks and so forth that are going 

to be coming to that country, it is just a steady stream, they say, 

fine, go do it. We have some facilities in the northern part of the 

country, and we have a shipping facility in the port to load things 

on and off the ship. 

As I look around the region, the bases in Iraq, the bases in Afghanistan really are the only two, Bagram and Kandahar; and we 

have a facility up in Kyrgyzstan, a modest airbase, their airfield, 

they have allowed us to use, modest facilities; and then the place 

in Djibouti, and that is about it. Everyplace else over there, we rely 

on the host country for anything we need and anything we get. So 

it is a pretty modest footprint. The host either paid for it directly 

like the Qataris, but decided they would like to have the land back 

that houses my headquarters now. On their nickel entirely they are 

building the new headquarters, complete hardened facility, $150 

million, a block long, pretty ‘‘Gucci’’ place. They just said, what do 

you need? So we will put the electronics into it for communications, 

but it is their facility. They help us a lot in this region. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. The oil business is good, sounds like. 

Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. If we can take care of the wars here, 

we will be in good shape. 

Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Edwards. Ms. Granger. 

BANKING AND MAIL DELIVERY

Ms. GRANGER. Just a very short question. Thank you for giving 

us a good picture of what life is like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for asking that question. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
380 

Two things you didn’t mention, that when every trip that I have 

been there, electricity was a big problem, banking, and just delivering the mail. What about banking and the mail? 

Admiral FALLON. It is coming along. The Iraqis have not had a 

kind of banking system like we do. I just saw something, a fellow 

named Paul Brinkley. You may have heard of him or met him. He 

works for the Secretary of Defense now in development, and he has 

been over there in Iraq the better part of this past year trying to 

get things moving again, get the factories restarted, get people employed, get private investment in, and he has had remarkable success. 

He sent me a note, I don’t remember the details, but the banking 

system is coming along. He listed hundreds of places that now actually have banks facilities in cities, that they were beginning to 

pick up on this thing and come up into the modern age. Iraq had— 

it was an absolutely noncomputerized paper transfer. 

The facts are one of the reasons I have discovered after I got into 

this job that life was so challenging with the Iraqi Army, for example, is when they are paid, they are paid in cash. And I got a 

chance, by the way, some months ago to see—I was up in Baquba 

after Colonel Townsend, behind me, had liberated the place of al 

Qaeda, and a couple of these guys took me downtown to visit the 

Bank of Baquba. I was very interested. I saw a couple of dusty old 

buildings, and I said, where is the bank? He said, right here. It 

was a big Conex box, a 20-foot trailer, and it was filled to the brim 

with dinars. It is all cash and carry. 

And so the soldiers are paid once a month, and they are paid in 

a big pile of cash, and the money has to get home. They carry it 

home. They literally get on a bus or a truck, or we have been providing an airplane to fly them home, spend a week or so with the 

family, and then go back to their unit. 

So now I understand. It accounts for why we have all this activity, why there are only about 80 percent of the people who are supposed to be there are always there and so forth. 

It is going to be a slow process. It is coming along. The international community is beginning to take notice. A couple of weeks 

ago, Paul sent me an ecstatic note. He said that they had just completed the first of the private investment turnovers in Iraq; three 

big formerly state-owned cement factories in different places in the 

country had been purchased by a combination of international and 

Iraqi investors, into private hands, $3 billion, modest by a lot of 

measures, but significant. This is the start of getting this place up 

and running economically. 

Paul has been running around; while he is trying to get these big 

long-term deals going, he has been trying to jump-start some other 

things. There are dozens of old plants, factories that mostly made 

ammunition for Saddam, trying to get these converted to do something for the people; and a couple small refineries, getting them up. 

Banking has a long way to go, but at least they are getting started. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Granger. 

Mr. Young. 

MR. YOUNG. Admiral, we are going to respect your schedule and 

wrap up here soon, but if I could ask one last question, and any 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
381 

other Members will try to respect your schedule, I think if you 

leave at noon, you can make your next appointment. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp had talked about Afghanistan, and he 

went into some lengthy discussion of that. Let me ask you about 

General Jim Jones’ analysis of Afghanistan. I have great respect 

for him, his experience and judgment. In terms of his analysis, 

what would you agree with and what would you disagree in his 

conclusions on where we were and where we need to go in Afghanistan? 

Admiral FALLON. I would say that one of the things I have 

learned here in the past year is that activities are accelerating at 

a pace that is difficult to keep track of if you are not there every 

day watching it. Certainly in Iraq it has changed dramatically, and 

every visit I see more and more things going on. I believe that that 

is the case in Afghanistan. 

And there are a couple of key points. When General Jones and 

his team went over there and looked at this several months ago, 

they highlighted a deficiency in troops. That was one of their big 

points, not enough troops over here. I agree. The numbers are 

something we could debate. But, at the time, there was no plan to 

send any additional U.S. forces over there. About the same time he 

was making his assessment, I had come to the same conclusion and 

had asked for additional troops. So that number one concern of 

theirs is being addressed in a significant way by this deployment. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Did he have a specific recommendation in terms 

of the number of troops, increment of forces? 

Admiral FALLON. He mentioned to me there were two outstanding requests that were already on the books, one from the 

NATO Command to provide General McNeil with a couple of maneuver—I think a total of two brigades of troops. 

When you talk with, deal with NATO, it is not exactly the same 

as just dealing with the U.S., so he is also mindful of the fact that, 

frankly, they haven’t been particularly effective. In many cases 

they are inhibited from performing the functions that, in my opinion, they ought to be doing. They have lots of boots on the ground, 

but they are not getting the job done, and primarily because they 

are constrained by a long list of ‘‘caveats,’’ as they are called, restrictions on their activities, that range from going out at night to 

going out without certain protections, and actually going out at all 

without asking the capital back in Europe before they get permission. This really hobbles General McNeil’s ability to work. 

Nonetheless, we recognized last summer that putting a small 

maneuver unit—we put a battalion of U.S. troops in the southern 

area where we had not had U.S. troops before. Those folks did wonderful work. And it seems to me, after watching this go on, if we 

could put a maneuver unit down there, it would help out. So the 

Marine group with around 2,300 troops that are headed over there, 

they come complete with all the enablers. They have aircraft. They 

have tanks. They have trucks. They have all those things, the communications, the whole kit and caboodle, because they are designed 

to be very expeditionary. I think that is worth maybe double the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
382 

regular NATO contingency because they are self-contained. That is 

going to be very helpful. 

The other outstanding requirement for my own chain of command, about 2,500 people to help train the Iraqi Security Forces, 

that has been an outstanding request for now at least a year, 

maybe a little over a year. We have been unable to fill that, trying 

to balance the competing demands, sending people to Iraq and not 

sending them back to Afghanistan. So we are going to meet about 

half of that requirement with the deployment of battalion brigades 

this summer. 

I think those two injections of capability is going to be significantly helpful for us, because as we start this in Afghanistan, the 

weather really drives the operations tempo as the snow melts over 

the next month or so, and Taliban and other bad actors begin to 

move. Our intention is to move in front of them to cut them off, 

be in front of any annual offensive. They keep talking about their 

spring offensive. Last year it really wasn’t an offensive by them, it 

was us. Now that we have the additional manpower to work this, 

I think we are going to be ahead of the problem. 

So back to the basic question. Afghanistan is not as bad as I 

think some would have you believe. It is, however, in dire—not 

dire, it is in need of real coordination, particularly in the development phase. Too many nations are over there doing little bits here 

and there, and to make it coherent so this country can move forward. And this development stuff can fill in behind troops and put 

security in place. So I think it is coming along. 

The other major thing I highlighted earlier is capability of the 

Afghan Army and Police, our number one challenge. That is where 

we are going to spend most of the efforts to fix it. We are learning 

lessons. We brought them on, thought they were trained, put them 

loose out there in the little towns, and a lot of them turned out to 

be ineffective for different reasons. 

So what we come up with now is to go out to the most problematic areas, pull the police out temporarily, put in a special welltrained national Afghan police force to hold the fort—they are actually doing a lot better than that—immersion for a couple of 

months; the other police, put more mentors—and, frankly, it is U.S. 

people that are shouldering the burden of this—and put these folks 

back in. And we are getting really good reports. We started this 

about 6 months ago, and we are working our way around the country in the most problematic areas. 

So this combination of factors, I expect to make this much less 

of a concern. We will see as we go. I don’t want to do too much 

talking ahead of the results here, but I am very confident we will 

take a turn for the better here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral, thank for your distinguished service to our country. You 

are a tribute to the men and women who serve with you and under 

your command. We are honored to be with you today. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

Question. The four major ‘‘overwatch’’ bases in the consolidation plan are described as ‘‘contingency bases’’. What distinguishes a ‘‘contingency’’ base from an 

‘‘enduring’’ base? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
383 

Answer. Contingency bases are required to support an operation for a finite 

amount of time with access and support requirements tied to a specific operation. 

When the operation is complete, CENTCOM no longer requires access. 

Enduring bases include three categories of bases (Main Operating Bases, Forward 

Operating Sites, Cooperative Security locations). These locations provide support required to execute multiple military missions assigned to a Combatant Commander. 

Access to these locations and the establishment of steady state and surge capability 

at these locations provides the commander an ability to respond immediately and 

expand rapidly to anticipated and emergent requirements in theater. 

Question. What role would bases in the GCC countries play in an ‘‘overwatch’’ posture in Iraq? 

Answer. (S)———. 

Question. The consolidation plan does not call for any of the four contingency operating bases to be located in the northernmost parts of Iraq where Kurds are predominant. However, Kurdish leaders have made public statements indicating that 

they would welcome enduring U.S. bases in their region. Is it still your intent not 

to locate enduring bases in this area? 

Answer. I’d like to make it clear that the United States does not seek permanent 

bases in Iraq. As the situation in Iraq develops, our strategy to posture forces and 

adjust basing structure will continue to be driven by operational requirements. Currently, those requirements revolve around how best to support U.S.-led counter insurgency operations. Over the next year, these requirements will transition to optimizing support to the Iraqi forces which increasingly lead these efforts. 

To date, the situation in the northernmost, mainly Kurdish areas of Iraq have not 

required the deployment or basing of large U.S. forces there. This is likely to be the 

case for the foreseeable future. As the security situation improves and the U.S.-Iraq 

relationship matures, it is of course possible that basing locations could be adjusted. 

Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $43 million for an 

urban bypass road at Mosul. Since none of the final bases in the consolidation plan 

are at Mosul, why is this project needed? 

Answer. U.S. forces operate in and around Mosul, using Qarrayah West as the 

primary consolidation location while using various other bases in the region as required. We anticipate U.S. and coalition forces will continue operating in the vicinity 

of Mosul. 

The primary purpose, however, of the bypass is not to support sites in Mosul, but 

to support movement along our primary North-South main supply route. The project 

will allow convoy traffic to bypass the Mosul city center, where lED and small arms 

attacks are more prevalent. By providing an alternate route, the bypass will reduce 

that threat and reduce potentially contentious U.S. presence and friction within the 

city. 

Question. In a recent interview, General Petraeus stated that ‘‘There will be detainee releases on both the coalition and Iraqi side. They just passed an amnesty 

bill last week along with their 2008 budget and the provincial powers law. It will 

be a very active period.’’ (Defense News, 2/25) Other information indicates that the 

detainee population will continue to grow. Assuming that the current security situation stays roughly constant, do you anticipate that the detainee population will increase or decline over the next year? 

Answer. Over the course of the remaining year, we anticipate the detainee population will slowly decrease. This reduction however, is contingent on the Government of Iraq along with MNF–I to stabilize and restore security to the country. 

Question. Do you plan ultimately to turn over coalition detainee facilities to the 

Government of Iraq? 

Answer. MNF–I detention facilities, located at U.S. Forward Operating Bases 

within Iraq were constructed to meet MNF–I detention requirements. Facilities will 

be individually evaluated for reutilization, real property transfer, or foreign excess 

personal property transfer in accordance with the appropriate policies and procedures as part of base closures or transfers. 

Question. One of the projects requested in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental is 

$11.7 million for a Juvenile Theater Internment Facility Reintegration Center 

(TIFRIC). How do you define a juvenile for this purpose? How many juveniles are 

currently detained by the coalition? Are juvenile detainees currently segregated 

from adult detainees? 

Answer. Juveniles are defined as anyone 17 years and younger and are segregated 

from the adult population. As of 6 Mar 2008, there were 582 juveniles in U.S. detention facilities. 

Question. In a written response last year to a question from the Committee regarding Bagram, you stated that ‘‘CENTCOM sees a requirement for a permanent 

base in Central Asia to support [Operation Enduring Freedom] and the full specVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
384 

trum of military operations beyond OEF.’’ What are the specific national security 

interests that require a permanent base in Central Asia to support such operations 

beyond OEF? 

Answer. This Combatant Command, like others, is assigned specific military 

tasks. This includes, but is not limited to responding to situations where U.S. personnel must be evacuated (NEOs), humanitarian assistance and consequence management missions, and peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. Additionally, 

we anticipate requiring access in the region so that we can combat violent extremist 

organizations that are focused on attacking U.S. interests in the region and globally. 

Sustaining access is a critical enabler for an immediate response and rapid expansion as required. Access to basing in Central Asia will also be used to support Theater Security Cooperation activities in the region to advance bilateral relationships 

and garner support for U.S. policy objectives. 

Question. Bagram is highly dependent on fuel supply lines traversing the Central 

Asian republics and the northwest sector of Pakistan. I understand that much of 

the fuel for Bagram is brought in by individual contract truck drivers. If you intend 

to establish Bagram as a ‘‘permanent base in Central Asia’’, are you studying options for mitigating the fuel supply problem over the long term (beyond increasing 

storage capacity at Bagram)? 

Answer. We have studied many options but they all route through either Pakistan 

or Central Asia. With no refinery or natural production of crude in Afghanistan we 

must rely on outside sources of supply. 

When studied geographically, there are only three cost effective alternatives to 

bring fuel into Afghanistan. One alternative is via Iran which is not viable given 

current diplomatic barriers and trade restrictions. The other alternatives are 

through Central Asia and through Pakistan. 

A commercial solution may exist to improve this area of operations but will require State and USAID intervention. ———. 

Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $30 million to build 

a strategic ramp at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $6 million for a hot cargo pad. There have been tensions with the 

Government of Kyrgyzstan over recent incidents and demands from that government for an increase in U.S. payments for access to Manas. What is the importance 

of Manas to operations within the CENTCOM AOR? What are the terms of current 

arrangements with the Government of Kyrgyzstan regarding access to the base, including U.S. payments? 

Answer. (S)———. 

Question. In fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated $370 million in emergency 

supplemental funds to pave roads in Afghanistan as a counter-IED strategy. The fiscal year 2009 request includes $70.5 million for two more such projects. Have you 

seen any empirical evidence so far that this strategy is effective at reducing the frequency and lethality of IED attacks? 

Answer. The Funding for the roads did not come through until late fiscal 2007 

and IED emplacement data collected in Afghanistan thus far does not differentiate 

between paved and unpaved roads. 

However, C-IED analysts conclude that paved roads serve as a deterrent for IED 

emplacement. Coalition vehicles travel with much greater ease and speed along 

paved roads thus, making them more difficult targets for insurgents. As such, paved 

roads reduce the effectiveness of IED attacks and are an important counter-IED 

Tactic, Technique, and Procedure (TTP). Moreover, road pavement programs provide 

needed infrastructure improvements and job opportunities for Afghanis, who otherwise would depend upon insurgents for financial support. 

Question. It was reported recently that the Turkish military set up at least 11 

‘‘temporary bases’’ in northern Iraq following its incursion into Iraqi territory. (Today’s Zaman (Istanbul), 2/29) Has the Government of Turkey informed you of the 

locations of these bases, their populations, their assets, or their specific purpose? 

Answer. All Turkish temporary bases in northern Iraq were removed following the 

Turkish forces incursion in February 2008. 

Question. January 2008, France announced that it would establish a new military 

base with about 400 personnel in the United Arab Emirates, with an additional 150 

French naval personnel stationed in Abu Dhabi. Did the French military coordinate 

with CENTCOM on the establishment of this base? Will the U.S. military have access to it? Does the French military have access to any U.S. bases in the Persian 

Gulf area? 

Answer. The French are in the early stages of establishing co-use of existing UAE 

locations to support a small air, ground and naval presence. No bases are being 

built for their use in UAE. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
385 

Generally in the area, access and use are coordinated on a bilateral basis with 

the host nation. The French attache in UAE did provide information on their plan 

immediately after the announcement, but this was not coordinated with the U.S. 

ahead of time. The U.S. does not have a base in the UAE. We share existing UAE 

bases and have coordinated use of specific areas on UAE bases by use by air and 

naval components. The French do not have access to any U.S. bases in the Gulf and 

do not share any existing facilities with the U.S. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of Questions for the Record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(387) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS—MEDICAL CARE 

WITNESS 

MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS. I call the subcommittee to order. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being back and for your service to 

VA and our military throughout your lifetime. 

Mr. Kearns, thank you, it is good to have you here, as well. 

This afternoon, the subcommittee will have our hearing on medical care in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. 

Our witness for this hearing, obviously, is Dr. Michael Kussman, 

the Undersecretary for Health. 

As Undersecretary for Health, Dr. Kussman directs a health care 

system which employs more than 198,000 health care professionals 

and support staff at more than 1,400 sites of care. 

I would also like to welcome back Mr. Paul Kearns, Chief Financial Officer. 

Is Mr. Baker here, also? 

Mr. Baker, good to see you, sir. Chief Business Officer of VHA. 

Congress provided more than $37 billion to the Veterans’ Health 

Administration for fiscal year 2008. This appropriation was $2.6 

billion more than the president’s request, and this is impressive. 

It has resulted in an additional 1,335 physicians and 4,968 new 

nurses and nursing assistants. 

Additionally, the total workforce for the medical services account 

was increased by more than 15,000 personnel, a result of Congress’ 

budget increase. 

I was pleased to see that our total fiscal year 2008 appropriation 

came to the new baseline for the medical services account. Miracles 

still happen in Washington and how that one got through OMB, I 

don’t know, but I won’t ask questions. I will salute our leadership 

in the VA and those at OMB that saw the importance and Congress’ clear intent that $3.6 billion or $7 billion above the president’s request for 2008 became the new baseline, and that helped 

us greatly. 

I might just report, for those that don’t know, that at 12:30 this 

morning, we voted on a budget resolution out of the Budget Committee in the House that would increase VA discretionary funding 

for fiscal year 2009 by $4.9 billion over the historic level we set in 

fiscal year 2008. 

That is actually about $3.2 billion above the president’s request 

for fiscal year 2009. So we are off to another potentially historic 

year of standing up for those who have stood up for our country. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
388 

I do have some concerns about some of the decreases within some 

of the VA accounts proposed for 2009, but I want to salute the administration for its significant increases in medical health care 

services. 

Particularly, I do have some questions about the proposed cuts 

in medical research and construction, and we will have a chance 

to discuss that. 

Before we hear from Dr. Kussman, I would like to recognize my 

colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp, for any comments that he 

would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Just very briefly, so we can get on with it. 

I thank you for your service and I concur with the chairman on 

virtually everything he said. I am very encouraged by what is going 

on. 

But we do face many new challenges and I have got keen interest 

in continuing reforms in VA health care, as well as just the entire 

head trauma frontier that we face in the future and what that is 

going to do to our system of addressing these problems when these 

veterans come home. 

So thank you for your service. I look forward to a great afternoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Dr. Kussman doesn’t need a long introduction before this subcommittee. But for those who don’t know, he was confirmed as Undersecretary of Health for the VA Health Administration in May of 

2007. 

We are particularly grateful for his 28 years of active duty service in the U.S. Army, culminating in his assignment as a commander of Europe Regional Medical Command. 

He also commanded the Martin Army Community Hospital at 

Fort Benning, Georgia. 

Dr. Kussman, welcome back. It is great to have you here. 

Your testimony will be submitted for the record. 

We would like to recognize you for any opening comments you 

would care to make. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the warm welcome 

and it is nice to be back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is good to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN

Mr. KUSSMAN. Thank you. 

As you mentioned, sir, I would appreciate the full testimony 

being put into the record. 

I have a very short oral statement that I am prepared to read, 

and then we can go on to your questions. 

As mentioned, I have Paul Kearns, retired, Air Force—I won’t 

hold that against him—Paul Kearns, and I want to make a comment. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
389 

Paul was in San Francisco yesterday on official business and flew 

back last night. So if he falls asleep, we will give a kick. But I appreciate his dedication—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am glad he is back. 

Mr. KUSSMAN [continuing]. And his getting here this morning. 

His deputy was very frightened that he wouldn’t be here and would 

have to be sitting at the table. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, if you fall asleep, we will blame us. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. The President’s 2009 request includes total budg- etary resources of $41.2 billion for VA medical care, an increase of 

$2.3 billion over the 2008 level and more than twice the funding 

available in 2001. 

Our ongoing commitment to those who have faithfully served this 

country in uniform is clearly demonstrated through this request. 

Our total medical care request is comprised of funding for med- ical services $34.08 billion, medical facilities $4.66 billion, and resources for medical care collections of $2.47 billion. 

Our top legislative priority is implementing the recommendations 

of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning 

Wounded Warriors, otherwise known as the Dole-Shalala commission. 

VA is working closely with officials from DOD on the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala commission that do not require 

legislation to help ensure veterans achieve a smooth transition 

from active military service to civilian life. 

For example, the VA and DOD signed an agreement in October 

of 2007, creating the federal recovery coordinating program to ensure medical services and benefits are provided to seriously wounded, injured and ill active duty service members and veterans. 

VA hired the first federal recovery coordinators in coordination 

with DOD. Three of these federal recovery coordinators are stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, three at National 

Naval Medical Center, and two at Brooke Army Medical Center in 

San Antonio. 

They will coordinate services between VA and DOD and, if necessary, private sector facilities, while serving as the ultimate resource for families with questions or concerns about VA, DOD and 

other federal benefits. 

During 2009, we expect to treat about 5,770,000 patients. This 

total is nearly 90,000 or 1.6 percent above the 2008 estimate. Our 

highest priority veterans, those in priorities one through six, will 

comprise 67 percent of the total patient population in 2009, but 

they will account for 84 percent of our health care costs. 

We expect to treat about 330,000 OEF/OIF veterans in 2009. 

This is an increase of 40,000 or 14 percent above the number of 

veterans from those two campaigns. 

We will provide timely, accessible and high quality medical care 

for those who bear the permanent physical scars of war, as well as 

compassionate care for veterans with less visible, but equally serious and debilitating mental health issues, including traumatic 

brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Our treatment of those with mental health conditions will include veterans’ family members, who play a critical role in the care 

and recovery of their loved ones. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
390 

The department’s resource request includes $3.9 billion in 2009 

to continue our effort to improve access to mental health services 

across the country. This is an increase of $319 million, over 9 percent above the 2008 level. 

These funds will help ensure VA continues to deliver exceptional 

accessible mental health care. The department places particular 

emphasis on providing care to OIF and OEF veterans with PTSD. 

Our strategy for improving access includes increasing mental 

health care staff and expanding our telemedicine health program, 

which allows us to reach about 20,000 additional patients with 

mental health conditions each year. 

In April of 2006, there were over 250,000 unique patients waiting 

more than 30 days for the desired appointment date for health care 

services. As of January 1st of this year, we had reduced the waiting 

list to just over 69,000. 

Our budget request for 2009 provides the resources necessary for 

the department to virtually eliminate the waiting list by the end 

of the year, and, I can tell you, as of the end of February, we were 

down, I think, at 37,000. And so we hope that we will be able to 

eliminate the list by the end of the year. 

Improvements in access to health care will result, in part, from 

the opening of new community-based outpatient clinics, CBOCs, 

during the next 2 years, bringing the total number to 846 by the 

end of 2009. 

The President’s budget request for VA contains $252 million devoted to research projects focused specifically on veterans returning 

from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, including research in TBI 

and polytrauma, spinal cord injury, prosthetics, burn injuries, pain, 

and post-deployment mental health. 

I look forward to working with the members of this committee 

to continue the performance tradition of providing timely, accessible and high quality benefits and services to those who have 

helped defend and preserve liberty and freedom around the world. 

That completes my statement. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael J. Kussman follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
391 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 873 42754B.079
392 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 874 42754B.080
393 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 875 42754B.081
394 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 876 42754B.082
395 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 877 42754B.083
396 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 878 42754B.084
397 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 879 42754B.085
398 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 880 42754B.086
399 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Kussman. 

Mr. Wamp, do you want to begin the questioning this afternoon? 

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. WAMP. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. 

As we go through these notes, I am open for however you want 

to tag-team this to maximize efficiency of the afternoon. Whatever 

your plan is, I am on board, and thank you for your leadership. 

Dr. Kussman, VA health care is known around the world as having maybe the most sophisticated records management system in 

health care. 

But the inspector general came to us and said that you have got 

many challenges on financial management. 

So how can the same organization that is so sophisticated on 

medical records have problems with financial management and 

what is underway to cure that problem? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Sir, thank you for the question. 

And let me just say I appreciate your comment about the electronic health record and we believe it is, arguably, the best electronic health record in the world. 

We have a ways to go in our business management. As you may 

or may not know, I have four major things that I am interested in 

in my time as the under secretary. 

One is continuing to improve patient care. The second is leadership. One is improving new performance measures, and fourth is 

business processes. 

I believe we can provide the greatest care in the world, but if we 

don’t provide this in an efficient and effective manner and cannot 

account for all the money that you so kindly and the taxpayers of 

this country give us, then we are in danger. 

So we have some material deficiencies and we are working hard. 

And I don’t disagree with the IG on this. We are working hard to 

fix those. 

Let me just say, and, in fact, yesterday, we just had a briefing 

from DeLoitte, who is the contractor for the IG, and I was gratified 

to see that they said that we are getting better. 

But we still have a very long way to go. And one of our problems 

is that we are a socially-driven system, not an economically-driven 

system, and, for a long period of time, the issues that are important weren’t important to people and to put in place the mechanisms that would allow us to answer the questions that the IG or 

Deloitte would ask us. 

And so when you are a socially-driven system and you are focused on health care delivery, some of these other things don’t get 

done. 

And I think what we have seen is that you can’t continue to run 

this business known as the Veterans’ Health Administration without starting to put processes in place that are economically-driven 

standards to account for what you do. 

And so we are working very hard to start working with the IG 

and with DeLoitte and IT and resource managers to start to put 

in place—to hire enough people to do the process the right way. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
400 

It is not that we don’t know what to do. It is just that we haven’t 

had, historically, the infrastructure to do this well. And we are 

committed to doing that. 

Mr. WAMP. Let me just say, as we leave that topic, that if we 

don’t get our arms around it and the Congress continues to spend 

these record amounts of money on these very important needs, we 

do a disservice to the veterans of the future, because there will be 

a real backlash with the kind of reporting that you have seen on 

these organizations that claim to be working in veterans’ best interest, that are serving their own self-interest, and what a tragedy 

that is. 

And we don’t want the VA to be seen as an inefficient organization. And I don’t mean to lecture. I just know this is a real problem 

as we ramp up the funding, because it will come against all of us 

that we are not efficient enough to handle increase in funding. 

So I just want you to make that the top priority as you go forward. 

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

On CBOCs, I have got a big one in my backyard, and it is a good 

one and it has improved dramatically in the last decade. And 846 

is a better number and I do agree with your testimony that they 

meet needs in a very efficient and effective way. 

I also think that we shouldn’t be caught in the you have to get 

your health care in a VA box around the country, because that has 

politically kept certain facilities open longer than they probably 

should have been open when there was a more efficient way to deliver that health care, and we have got to get over that. 

And CARES, I thought, was going to bring about more sweeping 

reforms than it did. And I want to kind of ask you, as we look at 

CBOCs and the need to fund them, are we considering further reforms? 

For instance, where we have—all of us know VA health care 

from our district first and then maybe whatever we have learned 

outside of our district. 

But in my district, people have to go from the CBOC service area 

2 hours for inpatient care in a hospital, and it is through the 

mountains and there are wrecks and it is dangerous. 

And a lot of our veterans like to have a third option besides the 

CBOC or driving 2 hours to get inpatient care, and that is to have 

the ability, with a Medicare reimbursed voucher type approach, to 

go to the local public hospital and receive their care so their relatives can come see them while they are in the hospital. 

And how much of that are we considering or is that down the 

road or are there just too many reasons why it can’t be done? Because my veterans would like to have all three options—go to the 

CBOC, if that will suffice, go to Murfreesboro and get the health 

care, if that is what they want, but, frankly, Murfreesboro stays 

full. 

Yet, there are local providers that would take that Medicare reimbursement voucher if that veteran chose to go locally, so they 

could stay close to home and get that inpatient care. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. A very complex question and I will do my best to 

answer it as quickly as possible. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
401 

I think that we are always looking at options on the continuum 

of care and, as you know, we spend—Paul, correct me—close to $2 

billion on fee-based care. 

So we are already buying a significant amount of care around the 

country. 

One of the things that we are very proud of, as you know, sir, 

is the quality of care and the electronic health record and all those 

things together that make us if not the best, clearly near the top 

of the best of health care in this country, perhaps the world. 

And one of the challenges we have is fragmented care, where 

people will, even now, use their Medicare benefit and then use the 

VA and then they may use TRICARE for things, and that care gets 

fragmented and there is no way to coordinate that care. 

And so when that happens, inadvertently, we can actually do 

harm to people, because one of the values of our integrated system, 

and keeping people in the system, it doesn’t make any difference 

where they go if you can pull up their record and find out what 

is going on, know what medication they are on. You saw that in 

Katrina and other instances. 

So we will continue to emphasize people in our system. On the 

other hand, we want to be sure that we aren’t inappropriately hurting people or creating situations that are inappropriate. 

And not only are we looking at continuing to expand the CBOCs 

and make them larger and expanding the capabilities, more and 

more care is done in this country in the outpatient setting. You 

really don’t need a hospital for something like 90 to 95 percent of 

why people go to a hospital. 

So we are looking at that to provide more services closer to home. 

We are even looking at what we call outreach clinics, smaller clinics that are open in rural areas, maybe not every day, but a couple 

days a week or a certain number of days a month. So there are 

more and more access points. 

So I think we are looking at the continuum of care to provide 

more and more services within our system, but, where appropriate, 

we don’t hesitate to buy it. 

But if you do that across the board, I worry about the quality of 

what we do will start to degenerate, because one of the big problems in the civilian community and other health care systems is 

there is no way for them to talk to each other and people get fragmented care, and I certainly don’t want to contribute to that. 

Mr. WAMP. I will yield back. 

I would just say, on my way out, we have an MG center now as 

part of our CBOC, which is exactly what you are talking about, 

more and more services. 

And I agree with you in concept, but I also believe that as we 

have the Iraq-Afghanistan veterans coming back and we have 

these long-term issues, like head trauma and mental illness and 

everything else now, we are going to have to consider reforms and 

not be quite so quick to defend the status quo or defend why things 

can’t be done and look at what the alternatives are, because the 

same efficiencies you are talking about, by having a CBOC approach, there are other efficiencies that we might want to follow as 

well. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
402 

So I would encourage you to stay open-minded and not closedminded that you have to get your care in a VA box. 

And I yield back for now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr? 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

TRANSFER OF RECORDS FROM DOD TO VA

I want to first of all thank you for your leadership on the Budget 

Committee to get that budget allocation for veterans. You ought to 

be thanked by the whole nation for that. 

I am very interested in following up on—to use the term from another committee—the interoperability of people being in active duty 

military and then, particularly with the injury cases, transferring 

out to Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I don’t need any numbers right now, but I wondered if you could 

provide for the committee how many of those new electronic files 

for these new vets are being initiated in DOD since they can no 

longer serve in the military because of their injury and then being 

turned over to you. 

How many new electronic files are just the historical veteran, the 

old vet, who had records in the VA and you transferred them to 

electronic records? 

What I hear is that the DOD has not yet got into the system. 

They are not doing their work and, therefore, this transition from 

them to you has been difficult. 

Perhaps you could get some numbers for us and tell us what we 

have to do to get back to DOD. If they are going to give you the 

patients, then they ought to give you the medical records and it 

ought to be on their dime to have to create that medical record. 

The interoperability issue is one that I would like to talk about, 

because that is the only way we are going to get local, state and 

federal government to work together. 

The individual living out there lives in a community and doesn’t 

know which government is which. They have just got a problem. 

And we traditionally have been saying we don’t fix it here, you 

have got to go someplace else. I think what we are trying to do is 

get one stop to fix many problems. In my district, we have all the 

military land from the closure of Fort Ord, and the DOD has a lot 

of active duty military families. 

DOD doesn’t have enough outpatient services for them in their 

clinic. So what we are trying to do locally is figure out how we 

could combine both DOD active duty military and veterans in 

building a clinic, an outpatient clinic. 

And I think you are aware this is a major construction project 

in the out years at the former Fort Ord, which would serve as a 

CBOC for the region’s underserved veterans. 

I want to encourage you to make sure that there is adequate 

funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget to get this joint VA–DOD 

project moving. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Sir, I am aware—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Kussman, before you answer. Rather than 

have you have to give a short answer, if we could recess just for 

a moment, go vote. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
403 

We have got a motion to recommit after this, if you don’t mind, 

if we could just go vote, come right back and have just a little bit 

of time. That way, you can give the full answer. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let’s go back. I am going to defer your answer to 

him and let me ask a question or two, if I could, and then I will 

stop when he gets here. 

The 2009 administration budget request significantly reduces 

medical construction, it reduces medical research, all relative to fiscal year 2008, and then a small reduction in the homeless program. 

Is it fair for me to conclude that it wasn’t as if the VA were saying there aren’t needs in these three areas, but I assume the administration and OMB had to set priorities and it chose to put the 

medical services account as a top priority? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. That is what takes place in all the budgetary 

planning. 

What you articulated so well already is that there may be some 

decrease from 2008 to some of the line items in 2009, but they are 

still significantly greater than what the 2008 original budget was 

or 2007 budget. 

So we are moving in the right direction and there is still a 

marked commitment to all those programs that you listed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. While we are waiting for Sam to come back, let 

me just get to what Mr. Wamp said and what you and I have 

talked about privately, and I would say for the record, is I hope 

every person within the VA health care system understands that 

this is a golden historic opportunity to raise the bar so much higher 

in terms of our baseline for VA health care funding. 

And I hope everyone who has authority over a single dime of 

spending understands that it only took one bridge to nowhere to 

taint the entire process. 

And so it is just absolutely vital and I can’t emphasize it enough, 

it is vital that not one dime of this be spent on a $20,000 mahogany desk or—and I have been out to the hospitals. It is thrilling 

to see the changes that have been done with even some of the 

minor construction, the nonrecurring maintenance money. 

And I have not heard one example yet and that is great news 

and I compliment you and your people for that, but, please, I hope 

that filters down to every level. 

If there is any hospital director that had real patient care needs, 

but they quadrupled the square footage in their director’s office and 

spent a massive amount of money on fancy furniture, then they 

will have hurt millions of veterans. 

And I appreciate Mr. Wamp emphasizing that, and I know you 

understand that better than we do, given your service in the Army 

medical program, as well—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I am grateful for that—as you know, and we 

are working hard at it. There are some admin and facility things 

that do need to be repaired, but not to make administrators better 

and it is really all related to how do we take care of the most deserving patients in the world, people who have been hurt in defense of their country, and that is what we are all about. That is 

all we are about. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
404 

Mr. EDWARDS. And do you think that sense of responsibility has 

filtered down to the grassroots level, that everybody knows how 

critical this is? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. If they do not, they are tone deaf or they can’t 

hear. Mr. Feeley, who is not here, who is the deputy Under Secretary for Operations and Management, doesn’t take too well to 

people who don’t understand our mission. 

So we are pushing real hard and, as you know, the new secretary 

is just as aggressive as we all are. So I think that anybody who 

doesn’t understand that probably needs to find a new job. We don’t 

hesitate to ask them to do so. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is good to hear. 

Now that you have answered Mr. Farr’s question, we are going 

to—— 

Mr. FARR. Wait a minute, wait a minute. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I am well aware of the issues on the—and the 

partnering and things that are going on there with DOD. 

I know that both clinics, our clinic and the DOD clinic, are kind 

of maxing out on their capability. We are sharing as much as we 

can there. 

As you know, there was a project that got put through the joint 

incentive funds, the JIF fund. 

Mr. FARR. The VA funded the feasibility study that is going on 

right now. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. No, I was just going to say. But that money came 

out of the VHA money. Who came out of Bob Weibe, who is the 

VISN director, $250,000 that was funded to look at that feasibility 

study and come back with a recommendation that we can then 

partner with DOD to move forward on that, because I think it is 

a good idea. 

Mr. FARR. You think it is a good idea. 

All these questions essentially—Mr. Wamp’s issue about where 

we have these clinics and hospitals geographically located in one 

place and we have got people into this system that is a silo system, 

essentially. 

You are in the VA and you go to the clinics and, as you say, probably you don’t need to have as many people going to the hospitals, 

and we send the serious specialty cases to a hospital. 

On the other hand, there are people who are a long way away, 

and how can we also utilize existing providers that are there in the 

community, and I think that is kind of a new area to open up. 

Last year, our bill enacted a law which required the VA to add 

a marriage and family therapist to its list of service providers, but 

I understand, to date, no action has been taken. 

And the question is really how and when will the VA add the 

marriage and family therapist to the list of service providers. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. That has been looked at critically by our people 

and there are some issues of certification and quality that have to 

be looked at when we—at our vet centers that are run by—have 

people who are trained in family counseling. 

We have people in our facilities that are in social work, psychology, are trained in that same discipline. And so from a clinical 

perspective, I think it has been determined that we didn’t think we 

needed to do that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
405 

Mr. FARR. Well, Congress has asked you to do that and the reason why, is that these are trauma issues, psychological issues, and 

a lot of vets, as you know, don’t want to go to a VA facility. They 

don’t want to go into a quasi-military situation. 

They want to have access to therapists that are in their local 

community who are licensed by their state as professional doctors, 

the same way you would send a vet to the hospital. I don’t think 

you check the credentials of the doctor that is seeing them, the 

local doctor. 

It sounds like there is more of a scope of practice issue, a fight 

between those that are in the VA clinics and those that are outside 

providers. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I would differ with you in the sense of if it 

was determined to be clinically needed and we couldn’t provide the 

services for people, then we would consider—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, that was determined and that is why Congress 

ordered it. It was required in that law to add marriage and family 

therapists to the list of service providers, and you are saying that 

you decided they don’t need to do that. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. No, I certainly wouldn’t be in violation of the law. 

And so let me go back and look and see specifically what was said. 

Mr. FARR. And would you find out how and when and if? Thank 

you. 

Another technology out there is something that has come to me 

in my district, it is called HeartMath. It is a behavioral therapy, 

with a sister technology that helps reduce stress and anxiety, and, 

as I understand it, DOD is using it to help military personnel returning from combat who may have mental health issues. 

There are 18 VA clinics around the country and 10 DOD facilities 

where the doctors are using HeartMath to assist the servicemen 

and veterans with PTSD and other mental health issues. 

However, since HeartMath is not an official treatment technology 

under the VA formulary, these doctors or patients themselves are 

paying for the treatment out of pocket. 

And I wonder if, one, you are familiar with this technology, and, 

two, as I understand, Bob Ireland is familiar with this and I wondered if you would meet with him at DOD and ask him about the 

DOD’s experiences with HeartMath. 

Essentially, what I am trying to do is see if HeartMath can be 

approved treatment. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I would be happy to do that. 

VISION-IMPAIRED VETERANS

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

And then the last one on this round is blind veterans. VA operates training and rehab centers to help blind or vision-impaired 

veterans adjust to the loss of vision. 

Palo Alto has a polytrauma center—I think you have several centers in the United States. 

I am wondering, how many blind, vision training and rehab centers does VA operate? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I don’t have the actual number. But we have four 

and going to be five polytrauma level one rehabilitation centers. 

These are state-of-the-art complexes for the polytrauma. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
406 

Mr. FARR. The National Federation of the Blind has comprehensive training facilities, and their complaint was that yours is a very 

short course. Theirs is more of a comprehensive course. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I can’t comment on theirs. We have been recognized as really a leading organization in the country dealing with 

blind rehabilitation. We have been doing that for years. 

We have several centers around the country that do the very 

complex care and then we have what we call HIST and GLOS, the 

different levels of blind—— 

And we developed a new program called coordination and continuation of care that the blind advocacy groups have asked us to 

do and are very appreciative and complimentary of the sophisticated care that we—— 

Mr. FARR. Do you know if you contract with any? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I don’t know this particular company, but even in 

our systems, we have all that available in multiple sites around the 

country. I can’t give you the exact number. I could try to find out 

that for you. 

Mr. FARR. Maybe we could just look into this training for the 

blind, because the National Federation of the Blind, who is a very 

highly respected organization, has some concerns that they think 

they can do, in some cases, a better job than the VA. They would 

like to provide those services to you, or you may already be contracted with them. I am not sure. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I am not sure. I will find out. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Zach. 

Mr. WAMP. I am going to go back to the issue, after talking with 

Mr. Farr during the vote about other options, because I want to be 

a little more graphic in the dilemma that we face, because in our 

service area, we have got 16,379 vets that use the CBOC in Chattanooga, from our whole 18-county service area. 

And a little contrary to something you said a minute ago, if they 

have a gall bladder that needs to be removed, many times, they 

have to wait in order to get in and out of Murfreesboro, 2 hours 

away, by van, driven by volunteer veteran, many of whom are pretty old, and equipment that is not exactly the most sophisticated 

transportation available to veterans. 

This is how it works. This is the real life. 

A few years ago, snowy, rainy, sleety afternoon, a van wrecked, 

veterans died. To me, it is like why is that necessary to get health 

care when—and I will just call it by name—Erlanger, the $500 million a year local safety net public hospital, not only, in 1999, it 

went into effect in 2000–2001, I set up a 2-year demonstration, like 

Dave Weldon did in Florida, like Dave Hobson now wants in Ohio, 

where, under VISN–9, a little carve-out, small amount, for the 

CBOC doctors to refer veterans that want to go and have their gall 

bladder removed at Erlanger, a public hospital, instead of driving 

2 hours to have that alternative. 

And over 2 years, a grand total of 58 patients were referred 

under this pilot program. We had a field of play of x dollars. They 

didn’t even use a small portion of it, because there was just a complete reticence, reluctance to refer anybody to a local provider, even 

though the veterans wanted to do that. They wanted to go there. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
407 

They are the ones that came to me on this. I didn’t dream it up. 

They said, ‘‘We want to be able to go and get this.’’ 

So these are real live situations. This is a safety issue, it is a 

time issue, and it is not as simple as we have quality care. If you 

have to wait, then access is an issue, not just the quality. 

I am not going to argue with you about the quality, because I 

don’t get the quality complaints that I got 15 years ago. I don’t get 

those. It is much better. I believe that. And I believe there are a 

lot of—but I don’t want to beat the drum too loud—but I can tell 

you that there are many more members like Hobson out in Ohio 

who says, ‘‘We have degraded care from an access standpoint from 

our region,’’ because there is the inpatient care that the outpatient 

clinics can’t meet. 

And then what are the veterans’ options? I just feel like these 

veterans’, our greatest citizens, need as many options as possible, 

not fewer options. And I don’t want any bureaucracy to defend 

their existence by saying, ‘‘No, that is only a VA responsibility,’’ 

when the VA, in this world, can provide some of this. 

Matter of fact, if we had telemedicine and now things that should 

not require transporting certain patients 2 hours to go to get their 

health care. It takes them out of their family, out of their community, and, I have got to tell you, through the mountains of east 

Tennessee, it is not safe. 

And I know we are an area of degradation. There were the top 

five areas in the country, we were one of them, and I just happened 

to end up as ranking member on the subcommittee, so you get to 

hear about it. 

But I hope that we can fix these problems. 

I also have a pain medicine doctor who contracts with you who 

has prescribed pain medications to veterans who then see another 

doctor in the VA system who says to them that under the VA Directive 2002–074–VHA, they do not have to take the prescription 

prescribed by this other doctor, because he is a private provider, 

which is probably one of your fee-based statements you said a 

minute ago. 

I know you all contract out services to local providers. They come 

in to the VA center. They see the patients at the outpatient clinic. 

They end up happening to be in the hospital in Murfreesboro and 

another VA doctor says, ‘‘No, you are not going to take these.’’ Yet, 

they have seen this local provider. 

And I don’t want to give his name out, but I can tell you he has 

complained now over and over that there is not a consistent standard for pain medication in the VA system. 

I would just make you aware of that. And then a whole other 

frontier of questions on head trauma, but I will get to those in the 

next round, if you want to just keep going. 

HEAD TRAUMA

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you want to go ahead on head trauma? 

Mr. WAMP. Well, I just feel like—and I will give an example. In 

Erlanger, the president of the United States came there last year, 

because they had fished out clots in the brain with this new procedure, going into the brain, and it avoided stroke and then they 

fished out the largest clots and the most clots. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
408 

It is the place in the country to go. Now, unless the VA duplicates that ability, this is going to be a great need from IED explosions and head trauma. 

You have a lot of stroke now caused in the brain from head trauma and it is an aftereffect. I am not talking about when they get 

hit by an IED, but people that are around head trauma—I am not 

a doctor, I am just telling you what I learned. 

I am concerned about this. Will head trauma lead to a lot of 

these other procedures and, if so, this is—Erlanger is the place, in 

not our region, but in the country. The president of the United 

States went there to see it. 

If they get to you in a certain number of hours and they fish out 

the clots in your brain, you recover from a stroke in 2 weeks instead of 2 years, and the rehab time and everything else, and then 

just the overall prognosis. 

Many of our agencies, we talked about this at our earlier hearing 

today, they don’t look down the road—then the next thing you 

know, they are not even set up to deal with it. 

What is coming down the road in VA health care with head trauma and IEDs and the asymmetrical wars that we are fighting now, 

given the needs of these veterans, because Walter Reed, you know, 

that was a painful experience, but what about the VA system in 

the future to keep up with the medical needs of these veterans 

coming home after experiencing the kind of head trauma that they 

are exposed to? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Complex questions and there are several aspects 

of it, sir. 

One is the standard treatment for strokes, regardless of where 

it comes from, is now known as a brain attack. They are trying to 

get people to be sensitive around the country, it is nothing new to 

VA itself, this is standard of care, to be able to assure that people, 

the physicians, the health care providers and the community realize that a brain attack is equally as critical as a heart attack. 

And the underlying pathophysiology is the same, is it a clot or 

an embolism—someplace. And so the whole evolution of the care 

for strokes is changing to try to get people within 20 minutes or 

a half-hour, just like we do with heart attack, that they can provide 

this and a lot of that care can be done in—I don’t know enough 

about the Erlanger clinic to know specifically, but around the country, everybody is moving toward that paradigm. 

Now, specifically related to OIF/OEF people and veterans, I have 

heard that term bandied about about strokes related to traumatic 

brain injury. I am not aware of any literature that actually says 

that. 

Now, I am not denying it. I just don’t know if there is any evidence that shows that. 

But if it were going to happen, it would happen more in the severe traumatic brain injury. And so far, in the whole war, and I 

am not minimizing this at all, there are under 500 people who have 

suffered moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. 

They have all come through our system. A couple have gone out 

into the civilian—they have chosen to use the civilian rehabilitation program. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
409 

The big concern, I think that what you have been talking about, 

even before and now, is the mild traumatic brain injury. And we 

were concerned about that, too. 

I mean, the civilian literature or the medical literature on mild 

traumatic injury is extremely anemic, I would call it. It is not very 

robust in the literature. And most of the literature has been done 

in car accidents and the football field—and it appears from the literature that most people who have mild/concussion get better on 

their own. Now, it may be a little bit—mild concussions, that is the 

Troy Aikman, the football player, the quarterback for the Dallas 

Cowboys, retired early because he had had eight concussions and 

the best clinical advice was, ‘‘Hey, Buddy, you know, enough is 

enough. I don’t know what will happen with the ninth and the 

tenth.’’ 

There was a very recent study that came out, it was a lead article in the ‘‘New England Journal of Medicine,’’ 30 January of this 

year, and we can certainly get it to you. I am not suggesting you 

have to read through all the medical stuff. 

But the important thing was the conclusions. This was done by 

Chuck Hoge, who works at the Walter Reed Institute of Research, 

specifically looking at the sequelli of mild traumatic brain injury, 

the aftermath of mild. 

And what he was saying is something that we have all been semi 

concerned about, is in the context of when you call something traumatic brain injury, there is a connotation of this that is pretty 

scary. 

And in the medical literature, mild traumatic brain injury is 

nothing—I won’t say nothing more, I am not trying to minimize it. 

It is really a concussion. 

And he says we ought to stop talking about mild TBI, but talk 

about concussions, because that has a different ramification in 

everybody’s mind, because many people have suffered concussions, 

including myself. 

Maybe I am not what I could have been, but the fact is that most 

concussions, people get better right away or over a period of days. 

What his study showed is that the sequelli from this concussion/ 

traumatic brain injury, he maintains, has nothing to do with the 

head bump. 

It has to do with how the individual responds to the environment 

under which that head bump took place. In other words, if the person has PTSD afterwards or is depressed or can’t sleep and has— 

it is related to the fact that he or she was in this blast or IED 

thing and they saw their friends, some of them killed or significantly maimed in this, but not due to the head trauma itself. 

And his conclusion is that under these concussions, at least one 

or two of them, there is no significant long-term sequelli from that. 

Now, time will tell about this and we are trying to put registries 

together so we can follow people, but if that turns out to be true, 

which is consistent with the civilian literature on the similar types 

of injury, then, hopefully, I keep my fingers crossed, we are not 

going to have a major, major problem of long-term neurological 

problems related to this mild TBI/concussion. 

I am not trying to minimize it. It is just this new finding in the 

literature. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
410 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if I could just close by telling you a 

quick story. 

One of our former colleagues and one of my best friends in the 

world, his name is Steve Largent, and he was an NFL Hall of 

Fame football player. He had six of those concussions in the NFL. 

In absolutely perfect health, 3.5 years ago, he had a stroke. They 

told him the same thing you just said. And then when I was in 

Chattanooga with the foremost experts on this particular procedure 

at Erlanger Hospital, they said that is not right. 

Head trauma causes clots in the brain. So if there is a warning 

flag that goes up for you to say look down the road and be careful, 

I would say the data may not be accurate and you may see other 

things, because there is no other explanation in Steve Largent’s 

case, none. 

It doesn’t meet any of the other categories, except the trauma in 

the head. And the first thing Coach Osborne said when that happened to Steve Largent was six concussions in the NFL. 

So I just think these are the kind of problems that we need to 

all be sensitive to and the data may change and I understand studies are done and you are hanging your hat on the latest that you 

have, but I am telling you, people that fish these things out, they 

see a lot of this and they believe that a lot of it is caused by head 

trauma. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you like to—could you hold any response 

to that? Are you comfortable, each of you, if we go vote, come right 

back, miss the debate on the motion to recommit—We will stand 

in recess for a few moments. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will call the committee back to order. 

Zach, did you want to followup the direct question to Dr. 

Kussman—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I don’t have—I mean, what I was trying to 

allude to is I don’t dispute what you are saying, because I think 

that time will tell and that the important thing for us is to not 

make mistakes like we did in the past and make sure that we do 

epidemiologic studies and have good registries so we can follow. 

And if it turns out, 5 or 10 years now, suddenly, more strokes 

are happening, we certainly would want to know that and be prepared to deal with it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

PRIORITY EIGHT VETERANS

Dr. Kussman, let me ask you about priority eight veterans. It 

has been since 2003 that we have said, no, that we didn’t have the 

capacity. 

My assumption would be if, overnight, we opened the doors of 

our VA hospitals to all the priority eight veterans, you could end 

up having such a dramatic increase in demand that you end up 

compromising quality, increasing waiting lines for doctors’ appointments for millions of veterans, including those presently using the 

system. 

But short of having all or nothing, does the VA have any data 

that would suggest that if you raise the income level $5,000 or 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
411 

$3,000 or $10,000, what the increased demand would be for VA 

care? 

I know under the present scenario, in some parts of the country, 

a single veteran, say, making under $30,000 would be considered 

too wealthy to get VA care if he or she is not service-connected. 

And we all know, in this day and age, that is not very wealthy. 

I know in higher income areas and higher expense areas, that that 

threshold is higher and whether they are married or single, too. 

But any data that would allow our committee to take a look at 

that and see if there is even a demonstration project approach or 

if you just incrementally raise that so we could begin to, not overnight, but over time, maybe open the doors to middle income veterans without opening the floodgates? 

Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. You are exactly right, Mr. Chairman, that we 

would predict that if we opened it the way we were before January 

2003, my recollection, and somebody can correct me, but I think we 

were projecting something like 750,000 new uniques and somewhere around 1.4 million, 1.5 million enrollees. 

But as you have articulated, that was overwhelming, the system 

in a bolus. And it is not that we wouldn’t want to take care of these 

people. The problem would be there is no infrastructure that could 

absorb it. 

Now, one other thing we are looking at, with all the largess that 

we have gotten last year and hopefully this year, is to more efficiently and better take care of the people we are taking care of. 

And as you know, we are still growing, not as rapidly as we were 

before, because the net increase is about 1.6 percent, but it is actually more new people coming in and it is because of the vets of 

World War II, the Korean veterans, and, much to my chagrin, my 

age group of people from Vietnam are starting to die. And the number of deaths is somewhere probably about 1.5 thousand a day all 

together, the majority being World War II veterans. 

So if they were all to come in, we couldn’t absorb them. And so 

we would either have to fee-base it or find some other way to take 

care of them, or let the waiting times and all those other things 

go back, which was what, as you recall, drove Mr. Principi into 

making that decision in January 2003. 

And it was a decision that Congress said that the secretary is 

supposed to do every year and decide what groups of people can— 

so I don’t think we have any specific numbers for you, but it is 

something we certainly could look at or consider what would happen and some kind of changes, but we haven’t—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. But you would agree that immediately opening it 

up to all priority eights would swamp the—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. It is not a matter of not wanting to do it. It is just 

that there is no way to take that number of patients. 

INNOVATION

Mr. EDWARDS. One other line of questioning. We have tried to resist tremendous calls for earmarking VA bills. I think I like not 

doing that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
412 

But one of the things that happens is we all have different people 

coming in, presenting ideas that they think are innovative ideas 

that could save the VA money and provide better care to veterans. 

I will give you one case, and I do not have the facts. I couldn’t 

tell you whether this particular company’s product is better than 

others or makes sense or not. 

But a Member of Congress brings a group in and they claim they 

have a system that would send out a message to either somebody’s 

cell phone or their cell phone in their home and their pager, and 

you must respond back, one, on when you have a VA doctor’s appointment, so you don’t miss your doctor’s appointment, and, two, 

when you need to take critical medication. 

In this particular company’s case, I think there are a couple of 

major Fortune 500 companies that have used this system and claim 

that it is a cost savings. 

My question isn’t so much about that particular product, I just 

use that as an example. But do you have a corpus of money where 

you can try innovative demonstration projects that might benefit 

the entire VA health care system if they worked out, but it would 

be otherwise an expense to a VISN or to an individual hospital? 

For example, if I am director of the VA hospital in Houston and 

somebody approaches me with this idea, I might think it is a great 

idea, but with budgets always being stretched, I don’t want to take 

money out of my operating expense of the Houston VA DeBakey 

Center in order to do a demonstration project that might save the 

VA millions of dollars and save a lot of veterans’ lives and improve 

the quality of their care. 

Tell me how the VA system is evaluating innovative ideas from 

the private sector and is there a system of funding when you do 

come across some ideas that really are worthwhile. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Thanks for the question. It is an interesting one. 

We get buffeted—that is maybe not a good word. We get challenged 

on this regularly. People come to us for a whole litany of things, 

some good, some not so good, and some terrible. 

Frequently, they come that the product needs to be tested and 

it is not ready for prime time and they would like the government/ 

VA to provide them dollars to test their product. 

We don’t do that. We don’t support people’s testing a product. 

What we will do is, if they have a product that has been tested and 

they want to do some research on whether that product is effective 

or not, they can apply to our research program, through DeBakey 

or the Temple VA or Waco VA or whoever it is—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. What would be? Would you go to the research program or would you go to an individual hospital? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, there are two ways to go. We want to determine if the innovation is effective, and we don’t know if it is effective, then that would be a research project, I think, and we will entertain requests for research if they can find a VA—a principal investigator at a place that would support it, and we would fund it 

and they would have to compete for other research dollars out of 

pot. 

This can be done in conjunction with industry, as well as directly 

with our—as you know, our total research budget is about $1.8 bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
413 

lion and it is a mix of appropriated dollars and DOD, NIH, and industry. 

If it is a proven product and they come to me, and frequently 

they come to the secretary or myself or somebody, and they—I am 

always willing to talk with them, because I never know when this 

is going to be a great—And afterwards, I usually will refer it to the 

subject matter expert. If it is a neurologic thing or what you are 

describing, IT and other things, to see if this could work. 

If there is good interest in that, because, as you know, this has 

been done and Fortune 500 companies and things are using it and 

it is very effective and we would like to try it, then there is money 

available either through the VISNs or through the central office for 

pilot studies. 

I have a contingency fund that we can use for different things, 

if it is appropriate, or it could be, as I said, into research. 

And so there are multiple ways that we can do it. If they want 

us to buy the product, which is a slightly different thing, then they 

frequently will come to me asking for a corporate purchase, and I 

don’t usually, at the central level, drive how the care should be 

done in one way or the other. 

And if it is a good modality, then they really need to go to the 

VISNs or facilities, who would then want to add that to their armamentarium. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If they went to the VISN, would that have to come 

out of the VISN’s operating and maintenance money? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. See, that is different than putting the product on 

the list of things that we can use versus they want us to test the 

product for them or do a pilot study. Then it would be our money 

testing an individual’s product. 

So there are different ways to do it, but we are always willing 

to consider, on a case-by-case basis, something that would benefit 

the veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And if you would have your staff look at this system, all I want to be sure of, because I don’t have the expertise to 

evaluate, when somebody comes into my office today, whether it is 

a worthwhile idea or not. 

I just want to be sure the system isn’t so biased against innovative ideas because of money coming out of a particular hospital’s 

operating budget, and if you have decided that we needed an innovation fund so it doesn’t come out of the VISN budget or doesn’t 

come out of the local hospital budget. 

That may not be a good idea, I don’t know, but—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. The under secretary—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. How much money for innovative ideas? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, it is a mix of things. If there is something 

new that happens someplace and it was an emergency, there are 

all kinds of different things—— 

Mr. KEARNS. We keep about $400 million at the beginning of the 

year for initiatives that Congress may direct, or that the secretary 

or the under secretary might direct—and unanticipated requirements, or a new idea that has merit. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you would just take the time to review the system to just be sure. You think you have got a good vetting system 

so that if there are some great ideas out there that help us save 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
414 

dollars, I think we need to send a message to the taxpayers, we are 

not only spending more for the VA, the veterans’ health care system, but we are being innovative and have a system that encourages innovation, at the same time, being able to ferret out the frivolous—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. And I think Mr. Wamp basically asked the same 

question. 

Mr. FARR. So did I, the HeartMath. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. And it is very easy to get lazy in an organization 

and just say, ‘‘Okay, this is the way to do it.’’ And part of my job 

is to be sure, and many of the people sitting here, is to be sure that 

when news ideas come up, they get a fair shake. 

But if it is a good thing, we should make it available to the veterans. The veterans should not take second-class care on anything. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Sam. 

THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE RESEARCH

Mr. FARR. Yes, please. I would just add a HeartMath to that 

same list. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. You got it. 

Mr. FARR. I want to share with the committee, I had the privilege of listening to some people that are real big thinkers of where 

society is going and combining technology with medical breakthroughs. 

And essentially, with the genome project, the future of mankind 

will be the ability to do this kind of assessment of your being and 

then come up with a plan and the idea with this plan is that you 

will heal by yourself, because you will know what you are susceptible to and aware of things that your body lacks that you need to 

be healthy. 

And the emphasis will be on that and it is fascinating. The whole 

direction of politics right now is universal health care. If you listen 

in this town, it is health care that is busting the Federal Government. It is the largest continuing inflationary cost of government. 

Without change, it is going to bankrupt us. And so it seems to 

me that one of the advantages you have in this incredible system 

is being in the forefront of the public health debate. 

Do you treat more people than the Department of Defense does? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, there are more veterans in the country—— 

Mr. FARR. Than there are active duty. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Of veterans in the country, about 10 percent are 

retirees. And then if you look at active duty and the family members and everything, I don’t know—what is it—about 10 million or 

something for the whole—but the systems aren’t too far apart. 

Mr. FARR. The retirees, if they are in places like Washington, DC 

they will go to Bethesda for space available, and they always seem 

to have it, at least when I am out there. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. TRICARE for life, which is a very good program. 

But to answer your—I think the question is—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, I haven’t asked it yet. A friend of mine created 

a company where he goes out to counties and assesses all of the 

inputs in a particular field, like what is all the mental health, 

where does it all come from, all the moneys, private, public sector, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
415 

what kind of services are out there, and provides essentially the 

service model for every kind of field and he has done this now 600 

sites in 25 states. 

And what is interesting is you can set up a case management 

system. So, essentially, you can take that electronic record that you 

have compiled and put it into this system. 

I want you to just look at this. It isn’t going to cost you anything, 

because he doesn’t charge for that. But it is a way of really helping 

case management electronically and giving-back to the patient so 

they can know what kinds of incredible options are. 

And why I think it is important for veterans is that this discussion we have had about what about this vet who is not living in 

an urban area, who lives way out on the boonies, in a small town, 

and he has come back with severe disabilities. The VA doesn’t 

know where there is a support group in that town, or what kind 

of expertise might be there. 

It is a little community. The civilian community knows that. The 

family may not, because you usually don’t know those things until 

it hits you and then you ask questions. If you ask the right question, you end up getting a lot of help. You ask the wrong question, 

you still don’t know what is going on. 

This program, called Network of Care, is that one that will allow 

every community in these 25 states, these counties, to give you this 

kind of comprehensive information. 

It seems to me it is just information that ought to go into a packet for the vet and say, ‘‘Okay, when you go home, look this up and 

you will be able to find like kinds of folks with similar kinds of 

problems,’’ and you can also find out who the docs are and what 

the specialties are there and so on. 

And I have tried to encourage you to look at it before and I think 

the department has said, ‘‘We are not interested,’’ although now 

they are just putting out grants to do this rural outreach. 

So maybe this is a way of checking out what the right hand and 

left hand want to do. 

Let me get into somewhat of a specific question, though. It is 

about the polytrauma operations at VA hospital. I understand we 

have three polytrauma hospitals that are running at full capacity 

and the Palo Alto is running under capacity. 

What is the problem there? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I don’t know if there is a problem. Each of 

our centers have, I think, 12 beds each and, at any given time, 

there may be full or not full, depending on the flow of patients and 

geographically where they want to go. 

We are in the process of building a fifth one in San Antonio. It 

will be online in 2010 or 2011. But the money is there to build it, 

I think $66 million, $67 million for it. 

So the number of people who are in there vacillates on the clinical situation. If there is a place that is filled and the next one 

comes in, we have never turned anybody away. We will create another bed for the period of time that we need it or, generally, what 

we use is one of the spinal cord beds or some other bed that is 

available in the institution. 

I am not aware that we have ever turned anybody away. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
416 

Mr. FARR. They are under-capacity at the facilities in Palo Alto, 

but at your other polytrauma—centers, they are at full capacity. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I don’t think there is any sinister plot there. I 

think it is really a matter of who wants to go or not wants to go, 

and they will take the patients as appropriate. 

Mr. FARR. Well, if we are having a problem there of not getting 

enough patients, maybe outreach could be provided in our area, because we have clinics. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I will just give you a quick little piece of information, if you don’t mind. We have transferred about 470–480 patients in the total of 5 years into those four centers from OIF/OEF. 

The total number of patients who have transitioned through 

those centers is about 1,100. And what it says is that less than 50 

percent of the patients that need this type of care are actually injured in the war. 

This is something that happens in car accidents and other training accidents and things, that is why we have this infrastructure 

that existed, to some degree, before the war, with traumatic brain 

injury centers, and we built on for this polytrauma. 

So there is a real need for this and it doesn’t appear that there 

is a huge number of—more non-combat wounded veterans that are 

in this than combat. 

Mr. FARR. Do you prioritize that? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. No. 

Mr. FARR. Because one of the other complaints—is that the old 

veterans feel that they are being put to the back of the line or 

being delayed because we are prioritizing Iraq-Afghanistan vets. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. When they are in the system, the decision what 

needs to be done is done by a clinical physician. It doesn’t make 

any difference what your priority was or anything once you are in. 

SUICIDE RATE OF VETERANS

Mr. FARR. How about measuring suicide rate? We discussed that 

in a previous hearing here. I guess the records weren’t there to be 

able to compare suicide rates among wounded warriors from different conflicts over time and that there is some work being done 

on that, but the data isn’t comparable and hasn’t been transparent. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I think this is a great challenge, because if you 

wanted to know how many veterans commit suicide, which is the 

basic question, remember, we only see a segment of the veterans 

population. 

So there are veterans who may or may not have committed suicide that we don’t have any visibility of. We have 7.5 million enrollees out of 23 million. So about a third of the people we might have 

some information on, but even the enrollees, we sometimes don’t 

know. It is the people we are seeing. 

I am not trying to obfuscate it. It is just that when somebody 

says, ‘‘Well, how many veterans’,’’ we don’t know. A lot of times, 

it is hard to collect data on suicides, because somebody might have 

driven into a tree or been drunk and they really were trying to kill 

themselves, but it doesn’t get coded as a suicide, but as an accident. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
417 

There are people who commit suicide by police, they do things, 

and it doesn’t—and sometimes we don’t even know that that happened, even though they were a veteran. 

What we have to do is we have to rely frequently on the Centers 

for Disease Control, because they keep a national death registry, 

of which suicide is part of that. 

And on all death certificates, there is a little box on the bottom 

that says, ‘‘Was this patient a veteran or isn’t this patient a veteran?’’ If the coroner or other people will check it, then we have 

a chance of finding out what happened. 

Sometimes that doesn’t happen. So we don’t know. We have 

looked very hard at this, because there is a suggestion that all 

these suicides are happening and what is going on. It is a very important priority for us. 

We have had our epidemiologists look at OIF/OEF veterans, in 

particular, to see if we can get some sense of how many of them, 

that we know of, anyway, are committing suicide. 

Now, you have got to be careful you don’t compare apples and oranges, because if you look at the national suicide rate and then 

look at the suicide rate of veterans, you get a skewed picture, because there are two groups of people who commit suicide more frequently than others. 

One is white males over the age of 60. Fifty percent of our population is over the age of 60. And so right away we have a skewed 

group. 

The other group are particularly males in the age of 18 to 25. 

They do a lot of quick—they do things, they don’t look at the ramifications of what they do. 

And so if you cull out those groups of people and compare apples 

and apples, because if you compare the whole population of the 

country, which includes, obviously, 50 percent women or more than 

50 percent women and children, they don’t commit suicide at the 

same rate that these other groups, which we have a high percentage of. 

And so if you compare and compare, the suicide rate, as far as 

we can tell, in veterans, is not significantly different than an ageadjusted population in the civilian community. 

Han Kang, who is our epidemiologist, looked back using state 

data and epidemiologic data from the CDC and looked at how 

many OIF/OEF veterans that we could find that committed suicide 

from 2001 to now, it was 114. Is that right? I think it is 114. 

And if you then do the statistics on that, there is a large variance. I don’t want to get into statistics, but because the number is 

relatively small, that you can say that the number truly would fall, 

say, between .65 and .25, with one being the—— 

Mr. FARR. Now, does that number differentiate from they are 

truly a veteran, they are not currently serving? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. That is correct. That is correct. I am not commenting on people who are on active duty in the DOD. These are 

people who were on active duty, transitioned, have a DD–214. They 

are veterans. 

And so if you look at that number, it is pretty consistent statistically with anybody else. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
418 

So it is not that this isn’t important. We think it is extremely— 

every suicide is a suicide too many. And we have put in place a 

very aggressive program where—you know of our call center, our 

hotline that is in Canandaigua, that 24/7, it is unique because it 

is staffed not by volunteers and things, which SAMHSA hotlines 

and other local hotlines for suicide are staffed by. 

These are staffed by mental health professionals and the beauty 

of this, not only are they mental health professionals who can talk 

to the person who calls, but they have access to the health record. 

So what gives us a leg up on that, that is, the person will talk 

to us besides just calling in sometimes—we have had about 20,000 

calls since last August, 20,000 calls. You say, ‘‘Why the heck didn’t 

we do this sooner?’’ But I can’t explain that. We were just stupid, 

I don’t know. 

But the fact is it is obviously a need. We have had about 500 

saves. Now, we consider a save as someone that seemed to be really serious. I mean, most people, when they think about doing something, killing themselves, don’t do it, 98 percent of the time they 

don’t do it. 

But that 2 percent is still a lot of people. And we have been able 

to find out where they were. Here is an anecdote for you. This is 

one of the great stories. 

It is an individual who called, didn’t want to tell us where he 

lived. He was talking to one of our people on the line. The conversation went on for quite a while. 

Finally, he admitted—wouldn’t say who he was, but said he was 

in San Antonio and he was on a bridge and he was going to jump. 

So while one of our providers was talking to him, one other 

called San Antonio police and said, ‘‘We have got a jumper.’’ They 

said, ‘‘It is a big city. Where would we go?’’ 

Finally, the guy mentioned his name. So quickly pulled up on the 

record where he lives and then went and Googled, got a map of San 

Antonio and looked where he lived and looked for the nearest 

bridge. 

Then they called the San Antonio police back and said, ‘‘Go to 

bridge X and see if he is there.’’ He was there. Saved this guy from 

jumping. 

Now, it is anecdotal and all that other stuff, but the point is having this service for veterans has turned out to be extremely, extremely valuable. 

Also, what we have done is we have put a suicide coordinator in 

every one of our facilities. They are not coordinating suicide. They 

are coordinating the fact that the services that are provided, we 

have educated all our primary care people and other people what 

to do when somebody mentions to you that they are thinking about 

killing themselves. 

So they have skills. It is like yelling ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded room and 

it is against the law. The same thing happens. Anybody says that, 

you have got to believe them and be very serious in that. 

So we have done a lot of things. We will never stop suicide, I am 

sad to say, because it is part of an illness and when people are determined to do it, they are going to do it. 

I have had a tragic situation in my own practice, where somebody came in, I talked to them and they were depressed. I said, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
419 

‘‘Are you doing okay?’’ ‘‘Yeah, I am doing fine, Doc,’’ and all this 

other stuff, and shake hands, ‘‘see you next week,’’ and they walk 

and shoot themselves in the parking lot. 

I said, ‘‘What did I do wrong? What did I miss?’’ Very unfortunate and we all have examples of those tragic things. 

So I believe we are really working very hard on trying to minimize suicide, though you know we—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you for that. 

We are through voting for the day and the week. They have 

pulled the bill down. In case anyone has to catch a plane or anything. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know this meeting has not 

been as specific about the funding request levels as normal appropriation subcommittee hearings. 

In a sense, it is bigger than that on some of the concerns that 

we have and there are forms that we desire. 

But I want to followup on Mr. Farr’s comments, because I think 

he and I and the chairman agree on a whole lot of things and have 

the same kind of concerns. 

To pick up on what Sam said, I think if you add people that receive their health care through the VA system, the Medicare system, Medicaid system and SCHIP, you are now above half of the 

American people. 

Fifty-two percent of Americans receive some form of government 

health care. But that is why I think it is so important for the VA 

to demonstrate, because I don’t know where we are going with this, 

this is an evolution, as Sam said, of health care. 

If we are moving to a single payer or two-tiered system or wherever we are headed, it is so important that the VA be a model for 

how you can deliver government health care in an efficient way. 

And so you almost have like a triple burden on you right now, 

not just the traditional VA paradigm and mindset, but this literally 

is going to determine, I think, whether the government can efficiently deliver it, because you have the advantages provided to you 

that Medicare and Medicaid don’t really have, because of the way 

the money passes down and the state match on Medicaid and the 

fact that Medicare is reimbursing and the fact that the Balanced 

Budget Act of 1997 has cut so many Medicare benefits. 

You have all your fingers on the buttons of the health care delivery system and if you go through reforms that make it efficient and 

prove through the VA system that government health care can be 

delivered, it changes the paradigm. 

It changes the possibilities of whether we embrace some kind of 

universal coverage. And that is why this is bigger than just your 

funding request and whether the VA works. 

But I am very interested in this committee playing a role in seeing that you are as successful as you can be. 

And to be honest with you, my history in 14 years here is that 

the authorization committee is awfully difficult to maneuver 

through. I know you have got to kind of suck up to both appropriations subcommittee and authorizing committee. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
420 

But it is easier to get things done through the appropriations 

process than it is authorization process, and there are 100 reasons 

why things can’t be done. 

I am interested, in thinking like that, in how you measure customer satisfaction, because when we have like the master sergeant 

in the Marine Corps here, his wife was back here and she had 

these meetings with the family members of people that are on active duty and keeps her finger right on the pulse of what it is that 

they need and whether or not their quality of life is acceptable and 

whether or not they might consider reenlisting. They have their antennae up. 

How does the VA really keep their finger on the pulse of the veterans to understand what it is they want, what it is they expect? 

My experience is I have been one of those people, because when 

the veterans beat my door down with our outpatient clinic, the next 

thing you know, we have extended hours and we have a larger 

waiting area and we have pharmaceutical this, that and the other. 

The dental guy works an extra day out of the week, because the 

veterans come through me and say this needs to be done and the 

representative goes there. 

But what are you doing to make sure that the VA is a state-ofthe-art customer satisfaction organization in health care in America today? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. A very important question—so we have a whole 

litany of things, advocates and facilities where people can go to 

complain about it if we are not doing it. 

We have a ‘‘secret shopper’’ program, where people go out, don’t 

tell anybody who they are, but pretend they are just a plain old 

customer and see what happens when they call for an appointment, 

and things of that sort. 

The national survey on satisfaction of people in health care that 

is done out of the University of Michigan, every year, it is done it 

and we, both inpatient and outpatient, get better scores than the 

civilian community. 

We do what is called SHEP, and, for the life of me, I can’t remember what the S–H–E–P stands for, but we send out 600,000 

surveys periodically and ask all these questions to people and get 

them back, by facility and by clinic, to determine whether we are 

doing the job that we think we are doing. 

And by the way, as you are alluding to, you can provide the best 

care in the world, but if people are unhappy about it, then shame 

on us. 

So the other part of this is just plain old traditional patient satisfaction surveys. We do that and our satisfaction rate across the 

board is about 86–87 percent, which is right in there at the top of 

most systems. 

Now, the question is what about the other 12–14 percent of people, what are they unhappy about? And you have to drill down a 

little farther to figure that out. 

But one of the questions, ‘‘Did you get an appointment when you 

wanted to,’’ and the answer may be no, but they wanted it tomorrow and we gave it to them 3 days from now. So it is very subjective, but it is important. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
421 

So we try very hard and I am very proud actually of all the numbers that we get back. It is not perfect, we have got to keep working at it, but most of the complaints that we have are really related 

to more access than they are once they are in, and people are very 

happy generally with the care, whether it is a CBOC or whether 

it is a main facility. 

And that is a problem I have been challenged with about access. 

When I took over August 12, 2006, I was acting for 9 months—I 

remember the day, the moment, the hour. 

But the truth of the matter is I have been listening to what you 

all tell me and the VSO groups. People are unhappy about this, 

they can’t get an appointment, and we are measuring it and thinking most people are getting appointments. 

So what is the disconnect? Why do you go out and have town hall 

meetings and hear that people are complaining? I am not critical 

that they are complaining. We don’t see it on the basis of the accumulated data. 

And I have been very puzzled, I am still puzzled by it, and what 

I did is we have contracted with Booz Allen Hamilton. I have asked 

them—they are going to be through in June or July—to do an assessment of our access, looking at our appointment schedule, you 

know the issue with the IG, things like that, and come back to me 

and tell me what is actually going on, because I am having trouble, 

quite frankly, getting my arms around something that the data 

isn’t consistent with what I am hearing. 

And I believe that what we are hearing is a miscommunication. 

I would ask you, when you go out and ask—go to see your constituents, when they say they couldn’t get something done, ask them 

what exactly is it. Is it an appointment or is it a procedure? 

And there is a difference here. For instance, could you—within 

30 days? It is not perfect. 

But the question then is how long does it take you to—that is 

a different question. And so now we are starting to measure hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts, colonoscopies as a performance measure. Those are four big volume things that we do. 

It is to try to take those performance measures that we have 

been using in an outpatient setting and transfer them into the inpatient setting and find out maybe that is where the breakdown is, 

that you have to wait for your procedure, and that is what the people are upset about. But it is not that they couldn’t get an appointment to see the orthopedic surgeon. 

I am not trying to split hairs. I think it is a different issue and 

we are working hard to get our arms around it. 

Sorry for the long answer. 

Mr. WAMP. I think it was an excellent answer and I thank you 

for that answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And as you begin, let me—I am going to excuse 

myself. Mr. Farr is going to continue to gavel and please continue 

on. 

Mr. Bishop, thank you for coming. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
422 

Dr. Kussman, as I leave, let me just thank you again and everyone that works within the VA health care system, for the hard 

work you do and for your particular leadership. Thank you for that. 

I look forward to following up on this and I know we will have 

a number of questions in writing—— 

Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. And I think 

everyone in this room and on this committee and I am sure everyone at the VA is primarily interested in being able to take care of 

our veterans, and I appreciate that very much. 

I wanted to ask you about one specific program that we have in 

Arkansas. One of our biggest problems is being able to get our veterans in rural areas into a place where we have got some clinics. 

But still, especially for mental health services and things like 

that, it is difficult to get them where they can be treated or where 

services are available from out in the rural areas. 

And as that has continued to develop as a result of the ongoing 

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have begun to realize that it was 

a larger problem than we realized in the beginning. 

And the private sector has risen to the occasion and partnered 

with one of our universities there that has an extensive community 

college network in northeastern Arkansas and north central Arkansas. 

And we had one particular individual that contributed $1 million 

to get this program started and they have put together an organization that helps with education assistance, all that that implies, 

rehabilitation services, mental health resources, and social services, 

and the ability to help with all of these. 

Now, their objective is primarily to help the veteran and to work 

with the VA or anyone else that is willing to work with them to 

get the job done and see that these people can return to as normal 

a life as possible. 

And they met with you and you basically told them, ‘‘We hope 

it works out for you, but we are not interested.’’ 

And my question to you is: Is that going to be VA policy? Should 

they just pursue their goals on their own without any coordination 

or cooperation from the VA or what is your thought on that matter? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I would take umbrage, sir, with the fact that I 

don’t think that was an accurate description that we are not interested. 

The issue was that they were, as I recall, and I see a lot of people—the exact everything. But they were looking for us to provide 

money to support that and it wasn’t that we weren’t interested in 

the concept, because I think it is a good one, but we don’t give 

money out to—if we were going to do it for this university, what 

about any other university? 

And so the issue was how can we work together, but they were, 

as I recall, wanting a donation to help support the program, 

and—— 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I know that that is not the case today. Do you 

outsource anything like that? Does the VA outsource anything like 

that? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
423 

Mr. KUSSMAN. We outsource—earlier, we were talking, and I was 

actually corrected. I said $2 billion was the fee-based—I have been 

told it is $3 billion. 

We outsource a lot of stuff to people where it is appropriate to 

provide the care—— 

Mr. BERRY. And you would be willing to work with these people. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. I am always willing to work with it. I think that 

what they need to do is talk to the nearest—in Arkansas and see 

what would be appropriate, because there is always—not from a 

national level, because—and I don’t mean to—49 other states that 

have the same thing. 

So I can’t necessarily condone or take one thing over another. If 

I gave a grant, then the next thing I know, we would have to have 

maybe 49 other grants. 

But I think the concept is good, because what we want to do is 

get these veterans back into school, provide them the full depth 

and breadth of resources that they need to maximize whatever capability they have. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I wasn’t in pursuit of a grant for these folks. 

If there is an opportunity for the VA and they are going to do some 

outsourcing anyway, I don’t know why these people wouldn’t be 

qualified to apply to be a part of that as much as anyone. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I think, again, when we buy services, it is 

usually for a specific service at a specific time. And so I would encourage them to continue the dialogue at the local level—see what 

can be done in a partnering locally. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, they have not been well received, I can tell you. 

And I have spent some time with these folks and I know what they 

do and I don’t see it. 

It would be pretty hard for me to find a problem with it, because 

they have done a good job. They are doing a good job for our veterans, even though they are not in cooperation with the VA at this 

time. 

So you think that they can expect to be at least heard from the 

folks in the local—— 

Mr. KUSSMAN. [Off mike] 

Mr. BERRY. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARR. You are welcome. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome. 

JOINT VA/DOD MEDICAL FACILITIES

Mr. KUSSMAN. Nice to see you again. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is a wonderful segue to my question. 

I am very interested in hearing your views on the—and the productivity of joint military-VA medical facilities, the ones that you 

now have up and operating, for example, in north central—San Antonio. You have got facilities in Chicago, Biloxi, and Alaska. 

How viable an option is it going forward, particularly as we begin 

to build more DOD military medical facilities, and there are some 

that will be coming up this year? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
424 

Are there obstacles, pitfalls, other issues that we should know 

about? 

In the other subcommittee, I had an opportunity to meet and 

talk with—the under secretary of defense health affairs, General 

Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, Vice Admiral Robinson of 

the Navy, and General Roudebush, who is the surgeon general of 

the Air Force, and all of them expressed very strong support for 

VA–DOD cooperative efforts. 

Is there a way that we can work together to try to facilitate 

that—we expect that Martin Army may be getting a new hospital. 

It is a 50-year-old facility, as you are aware, and we expect that 

this year they may be building a new hospital. 

The closest VA hospital is Tuskegee, which is aging, and, of 

course, they have to send people to Montgomery if it is anything 

other than a cold and if it requires any specialty, to Birmingham. 

I am from Georgia and, of course, that is Atlanta or Augusta or 

Dublin, and, of course, Dublin has downsized its—the southern 

part of my district with the state of Florida. 

If we were—I should say, when we build this new military hospital at Martin Army, is there a possibility that we could get some 

kind of memorandum of understanding so that it could be a joint 

facility with VA? 

We have got a tremendous number of veterans in a 50-mile radius that could make good use of that right there at Fort Benning. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. The issue of DOD–VA sharing is—part of the reason I came to the VA was to work on that and it is a very important issue. 

We stand ready in any way, shape or form to partner and look 

at it. I know that DOD is starting to look at its aging infrastructure or its medical hospitals. 

We have the same problem. We have 153 hospitals, average age 

is 57 years, and the challenge of building new full service hospitals 

is money—for us, it is anywhere from about $750 million to $800 

million to $1 billion a hospital, and, actually, we are worried it is 

pricing us out of business. 

I mean, how do you deal with that huge amount of money for 

one—and when the examples of north Chicago and Biloxi and other 

places, I think that we—I know all those people you talk about 

very, very well and—— 

I believe that the partnering with DOD–VA—there is a lot of 

interaction and we are looking at partnering. 

So particularly at Fort Benning, that hasn’t—I am not aware 

that that has come up on the radar screen of DOD wanting to build 

a hospital, requesting a partnering. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, DOD hasn’t requested the partnering. But as 

the representative for Fort Benning and for the surrounding areas, 

with lots of veterans who are requesting a veterans’ hospital, it 

seems to me like it would be economically feasible to, one, give the 

services to the veterans and DOD save the taxpayer dollars, if that 

was—to have a joint location there. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, there are all kinds of other options. We 

asked about—should be expanded and then partner with the new 

hospital—— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
425 

I don’t know the answer to that, but certainly we stand ready to 

work with DOD. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sir, I don’t want to take up any more of this committee’s time, but I would like to get with you or someone, your 

designee, probably ASAP, because I know that hospital building 

program is going to be—at this time. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. We will get somebody to contact you, the appropriate associate, to get some insight—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

The last question, Mr. Wamp, and then I have one quick one, 

and then we will adjourn. 

Mr. WAMP. Just a technical kind of question. The $3 billion that 

you referred to on private contract, does that include veterans that 

go get emergency are? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Sometimes. 

Mr. WAMP. Does the $3 billion that you referred to— 

It includes the emergency care. So it is basically all non-VA healthcare is in that $3 billion category you have, because I figured 

that would push it way up. 

How much of that is emergency care and how much of it is actually contracting? And I say that, because like in our outpatient 

clinic, more and more, rightly so, you are contracting for services. 

So you don’t have to keep doctors around for these particular procedures that you are able to get a guy to come in and do with a 

certain amount 2 days a week and you pay him or her, and that 

is the contracting. But wouldn’t a majority of the $3 billion be emergency room care 

for veterans that just go and get health care or not? I am just asking. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. We can get back to you. It is a mix. When we have 

a contract with somebody—— 

Mr. WAMP. Because, see, like in a lot of these areas, and this is 

what gets to the CBOC challenge, if you are a veteran in my area 

and you need emergency room care, you are not going to the VA 

hospital, because it is 2 hours away. 

So by definition, you are going to be—that is going to be a big 

ticket item at a CBOC with a large service area, because they are 

going to go and get that at whatever hospital the ambulance takes 

them to when it is time to have an emergency exception here to 

the VA delivery system. 

Anyway, I think this committee maybe understands you all pretty well and I am really looking forward to working on reforms even 

through our bill to try to help you do your job and to improve the 

way you do your job and even maybe to set the new paradigm into 

the future as to the role the VA plays in the whole system and the 

new world that we live in, because wars are changing, veterans are 

changing, by definition. 

The challenges of keeping veterans or keeping our men and 

women in uniform, both Guard, Reserve and active duty, or all 

three, serving our country is predicated by what they see out into 

the future. 

Is this a—not only is it a worthy vocation and is it the right 

thing to do, but is it a long-term commitment I should make, beVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
426 

cause is the country going to be there for me. So it is all really tied 

in to patriotism in a big way. I don’t mean to give a speech. 

But I thank you for your appearance here today. I think it has 

been helpful to everyone. 

And, Mr. Farr, I want to thank you especially, because I think 

you and I share a lot of the same goals here. 

ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE

Mr. FARR. I want to echo your sentiments. I think this committee, in the House and Senate, the incredible increased appropriations we made last year and, as Mr. Edwards said, we are 

going to continue it again with some additional money this year, 

the whole concept there is that we move VA from sort of that other 

organization to being probably the most respected medical service 

provider in the United States. 

What all states and providers are struggling with is: How you do 

this in a cost-effective manner that gives quality care and is using 

all the adequate technologies that are out there. 

So my last questions are essentially along those lines. 

One is as you expand your tele mental health care to people who 

do not live in the area that offers the broadband connection services, how are you going to do that? 

We struggle with this broadband issue here and what we find is 

rural America just gets screwed. 

Your effort is to expand your tele mental health. And have you 

got a system that will reach beyond the broadband service area? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, I am not an expert on those particular 

issues, but as you know, we stood up our new office of rural health. 

Our director is here with us today. 

And we are going to spend this year about $22 million looking 

at the whole concept of rural health—and, also, how we can outreach more. 

Mr. FARR. Some of those things we suggested will hopefully be 

looked at. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. That is exactly correct. 

Mr. FARR. What about the non-institutional long-term care? As 

I understand it, the number of the non-institutional long-term care 

patients in the VA is expected to grow in the next several years. 

You mentioned that VA is expanding the services provided by organizations and the community, essentially, contracting out. 

If you expect, as your testimony pointed out, approximately a 40 

percent increase in the number of patients receiving non-institutional long-term care, what criteria are using to project that increase? How do you determine that? 

And can you tell the committee, as a percentage, how many veterans receive some form of non-institutional long-term care? 

Also, how does this care, cost-wise, compare per patient to provide in-home services to veterans? Do you have any comparison? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. What the cost is related to? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. We can certainly get that for you. But the important thing here is that, as you know, the fastest growing part of 

our multi-pronged approach to long-term care is the home health 

care, going up, I think, 28 percent in this year alone. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
427 

We provide long-term care in our own bricks and mortar. We 

have community nursing homes and state homes. And now the biggest and fastest growing is people staying at home, because we talk 

to the veterans, they would like to do that. 

They would like to stay home as much as possible, stay in their 

own communities, not have to go someplace where we have bricks 

and mortar or whatever it is. 

And so we are working very hard to be able to provide them, in 

conjunction with the communities, day centers and other things, including foster homes and other things, where people can stay in a 

much more conducive area and environment than to go to a traditional—— 

Mr. FARR. It is a very cost-effective medicine. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. It is both cost-effective and it provides a better 

service for the veteran. I mean, we are not doing it just because 

we want to save money. 

Mr. FARR. And I think what is going to happen, as you do more 

of that, is that you are going to have a lot of other service providers 

coming up and saying, ‘‘We can do this more cost-effectively for 

you.’’ 

How are you going to select these service providers? I think that 

is the question we have been asking all day. How do you verify the 

quality of service from a non-institutional provider? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Well, we have our office of long-term care and 

geriatric care that sets standards and we then go out and check 

both the state homes and our own homes. 

When we have somebody enrolled in the community-based longterm care, it is done at the local level, not from a central. They 

have the standards that we put out and the policies and procedures 

that are supposed to be done, and they will monitor that with their 

social workers and other people to ensure that the people who are 

providing the care are continuing to do that. 

If they don’t, they won’t get the contract or won’t work, but there 

is a lot of granularity in the contract of what we expect them to 

do. 

Mr. FARR. Mental services, the licensed care providers, is there 

a federal standard that might be different from a state standard 

California is always arguing they upgrade these standards and the 

California standards are higher than the fed’s. Is that true? 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Which is a national standard. We would work 

with the standard—I mean, if there is a better standard of care in 

the state, we would certainly consider using that. We wouldn’t use 

a worse standard. 

Mr. FARR. It is always these minimums. We know now that the 

military has to follow building codes of a local community. For a 

while, they didn’t have to. 

They built a hospital in my district at Fort Ord and then when 

they closed, nobody wanted it, because they didn’t build it to earthquake standards, because they just felt the federal standards were 

all they had to meet. 

I want to just thank you. We have had a long day. I am sorry 

that others missed it, because it is not often in these congressional 

hearings that you get as much interactive dialogue with the witVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
428 

nesses that we have had today, and I think we both appreciate the 

frankness of it. 

Certainly, it will lead to a stronger and better Veterans’ Administration and particularly the health care. We are really looking forward to working with you. 

Mr. KUSSMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

WOMEN’S HEALTH

In the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Select Program called ‘‘Women Veterans’’ was estimated at $78 million dollars. The fiscal year 2009 budget request estimates that VHA will spend $149 million for Women Veterans in fiscal year 2008 

and requests $163 million for fiscal year 2009. Can you please give us your thoughts 

on what caused the growth in 2008 and how comfortable you are with the 2009 estimate? 

Response. The growth is directly tied to the increased number of women veterans 

from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) who 

are seeking health care from the VA. Five years ago, 7% of all veterans were 

women, but 14% of today’s active duty military forces are women. Five years ago, 

12% of eligible women veterans sought care from the VA, whereas, 41% of eligible 

women veterans from OEF/OIF are seeking VA care. 

VA uses an actuarial model to forecast patient demand and associated resource 

needs. The annual patient projections generated by the VA Enrollee Health Care 

Projection Model are a function of the projected enrolled population and the mix and 

intensity of workload for those enrollees as projected by the Model. The patient projections are then adjusted to account for those enrollees who seek only non-modeled 

services such as readjustment counseling. Components of the model methodology 

and data sources are continually updated, allowing VA to make accurate forecasts. 

VA believes the 2009 budget request for this program is a reasonable estimate. 

MEDICAL ACCOUNTS

Since 2004, the Veterans Health Administration has had three medical accounts 

in order to allow for greater visibility of how medical funding was spent. Can you 

tell me why the fiscal year 2009 budget submission combined the Medical Services 

and Medical Administration accounts? 

Response. In the 2009 request. VA is proposing that the Medical Administration 

appropriation be consolidated into the Medical Services appropriation. Merging 

these two accounts will improve the execution of our budget and will allow VA to 

manage the delivery of health care to veterans more effectively. 

Prior to the establishment of the three medical care appropriation accounts in 

2004, a medical facility director was allocated a single budget that could be used 

to address local operational priorities in the care of veterans as they occurred. For 

example, funds could be used to address critical vacancies in nurse staffing or personnel performing security, patient scheduling, or the medical collections functions 

as the need arose. All of these functions are critical to the successful care and treatment of the patient. 

Under the current appropriation structure, the facility director has limited management flexibility in making operational decisions. For example, a medical center 

director may need to hire additional clinical staff, which is paid from the Medical 

Services appropriation; however, in certain cases, to accommodate the additional 

staff the medical center director may need to hire additional staff to safeguard 

against unnecessary and inappropriate medical care, conduct quality assurance, or 

perform medical coding, which is paid from the Medical Administration appropriation. However, if sufficient funding is not available in the Medical Administration 

account at the facility to hire these supporting staff, the director cannot shift funding from the other medical care appropriations to support this function. Instead, the 

director must first seek a realignment of funds between appropriations at the network level, or at the national level if network funding availability and flexibility is 

also limited. If funding is not available at the national level, VA must notify the 

Office of Management and Budget and the Congress of an appropriations transfer 

request. This is one way the current multiple appropriation structure has added 

complexity to the management of health care at the facility level and increased the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
429 

amount of time it takes to implement operational changes. By combining the two 

appropriations, the facility director could immediately hire additional clinical staff 

and the appropriate supporting staff. 

In addition, the multiple appropriation structure has significantly increased the 

volume of financial transactions needed to administer VA’s health care system. Each 

appropriation is allocated to approximately 150 separate facilities or program offices. For example, in 2003, there were approximately 30,000 funding transactions 

to support the single medical care appropriation structure. In 2005, there were over 

55,000 funding transactions required to support the three appropriation structure, 

and this has grown to about 91,000 in 2007. The significant growth in transaction 

volume has also increased the risk of errors and the potential for anti-deficiency violations. 

Can you help us understand why it has been so difficult for VHA to submit accurate budget requests for these accounts? 

Response. Since the creation of the three account structure in FY 2004, there has 

been a series of significant changes that have made it very difficult to accurately 

estimate the exact amounts required in each appropriation approximately 23 to 24 

months prior to the end of the execution year. For example, in FY 2004 it took until 

the start of the fourth quarter (July 2004) to fully implement the new three appropriation structure. The FY 2005 President’s Budget request had already been submitted in February 2004 prior to any operational experience at the facility level 

under the three account structure. The FY 2006 President’s Budget was submitted 

in February 2005 based on less than 6 months actual experience under the three 

account structure. Subsequently, an additional $1.5 billion was added to the FY 

2005 Medical Services appropriation and an additional $1.452 billion was provided 

by Congress to the FY 2006 Medical Services appropriation. 

In addition, we have had to continually adjust our estimates for the three medical 

care accounts to reflect actual operational experience in delivering care to veterans 

at the local level. 

If the accounts are combined, can you tell me what safeguards will be used to ensure that spending on Medical Administration does not grow at a greater rate in 

proportion to medical services? 

Response. VA already has cost centers established in its financial system that 

would allow us to monitor costs associated with Medical Services and Medical Administration. VA can separately identify the costs for Medical Administration and 

would be able to provide cost information to Congress upon its request. 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY HOSPITAL

Mr. Secretary, last year the CARES priority list for major construction listed the 

Louisville, Kentucky project as #4 and this year it is #7. What has changed in the 

last year that would justify moving this project down the priority list? What is the 

status of the site selection process for this facility, and how quickly do you expect 

to be able to finalize site selection? 

Response. As part of the annual VA capital investment process, projects that have 

not received any funding through the appropriations process are resubmitted and 

evaluated along with any new projects that are added for the next budget cycle. This 

resubmission gives the medical centers an opportunity to update their application 

or provide a new one based on any policy changes regarding the delivery of health 

care and other external factors such as changes in workload projections. 

The main reasons Major Construction project submissions moved up or down in 

the ranking between FY08 and FY09 were due to the updates or changes that were 

made to the applications, new projects that were added, and adjustments that were 

made to the evaluation criteria definitions to include the latest special emphasis related programs such as traumatic brain injury and polytrauma care. 

The Louisville site selection process will begin when this project is prioritized for 

funding within the annual planning process. 

HOMELESS

Can you tell me why, after the fiscal year 2008 appropriation included $130 million for the Homeless Grants and Per Diem program, funding it at the fully authorized level, your fiscal year 2009 budget submission estimates $107 million for fiscal 

year 2008 and only requests $122 million for fiscal year 2009? Can you tell me what 

process is used to determine the priority of funding for additional grants? 

Response. Based on VA’s review of homeless care programs in the private sector, 

as the FY 2009 President’s budget was being developed, it did not appear that there 

were enough programs that meet VA standards for homeless care to effectively obligate $130 million in FY 2008. Funding up to $130 million is available for the Grant 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
430 

and Per Diem (GPD) program in FY 2008, and any unobligated funds will be carried 

over into FY 2009 to be available for the GPD program. In addition, VA plans to 

spend $2.5 million to improve the infrastructure of the GPD program by adding 

GPD liaisons, program development specialists, and training initiatives. 

PTSD

The fiscal year 2008 budget submission included an estimate of $171 million to 

treat all veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The FY 2009 budget submission estimates that VHA will spend $45 million in FY 2008 on Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder for OIF/OEF veterans and $55 million in FY 2009. Can you tell me 

why this year’s budget submission only addresses OIF/OEF veterans and what the 

numbers are for all veterans for 2008 and 2009? 

Response. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) estimates for all veterans are 

included in the Mental Health estimates found on page 1H–13, Volume 2, Medical 

Programs and Information Technology Programs, but not as a separate line item. 

The estimates are as follows: 

PTSD Estimates, FY 2008–FY 2009 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2008 FY 2009 

PTSD (All Veterans) ................................................................................................................. 265,633 319,032 

DUAL DIAGNOSIS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

In 2007, the Office of Inspector General reviewed the Veterans Health Administration’s Mental Health Strategic Plan. The Office of Inspector General recommended that VHA should not require sustained sobriety for treatment in inpatient PTSD programs for returning combat veterans. Can you tell me what progress 

you have made in implementing this recommendation? 

Response. The Veterans Health Administration issued a memorandum to the 

Field in November of 2007 establishing principles for the assessment and treatment 

of all veterans presenting with a substance use treatment need. The memorandum 

clearly stated key principles that highlight VHA’s recognition that substance use 

disorders (SUD) can be acute, episodic/recurring, or chronic conditions. The memorandum reaffirmed VHA’s commitment to treat veterans appropriately during acute 

states of intoxication or withdrawal, whether at risk for suffering a withdrawal syndrome, whether abusing or dependent, and whether the SUD is co-occurring with 

other physical or mental health concerns. Key principles in the memorandum included: 

(a) VA facilities must not deny care to an enrolled veteran on the basis of intoxication, active abuse of or dependence on an illegal substance or alcohol, or withdrawal. 

If it is clinically appropriate to delay certain services or treatments because of these 

conditions, other services and treatments must be provided both to address the veteran’s immediate needs and to promote his or her engagement in ongoing care. 

(b) All facilities must make medically supervised withdrawal management available as needed for enrolled veterans with substance use disorders. Although withdrawal management can often be accomplished on an ambulatory basis, facilities 

must make inpatient withdrawal management available for those who require it. 

This support can be provided in VA facilities or by referral to other facilities on a 

contract or fee-basis. 

(c) Facilities must not deny or delay appropriate care for substance use disorders 

to any enrolled veteran on the basis of the length of current episode; number of previous treatment episodes; use of prescribed controlled substances; legal history, or 

other mental health disorders. When it is clinically appropriate to delay a specific 

service or treatment, another must be provided that is specifically targeted to treatment of the current needs of the veteran. 

(d) Every medical center must have services available to meet the care needs of 

enrolled veterans with both substance use disorders and PTSD or other mental 

health conditions. When active treatment is required for both conditions, it can be 

provided in specially designed dual diagnosis programs with treatment planning, 

care coordination, and collaboration between providers or through services provided 

by both substance use disorder and mental health programs. 

These principles codify the requirement for patient-centered care. VHA facilities 

and providers can never adopt the position that a veteran is untreatable because 

substance use or dependence precludes addressing mental health conditions or that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
431 

concurrent or complicating mental illness make it impossible to also address substance abuse or dependence. Services must be available to provide care for veterans 

with substance use disorders and mental health conditions, alone or in combination, 

regardless of acuity or chronicity. The services offered must be appropriate to the 

needs of the veteran suffering an SUD. 

VHA is in the process of making the principles of the memorandum a VHA Directive. VA also is in the process of doing site visits to monitor how this guidance is 

being implemented in the field and to help sites work out any problems in full implementation of this guidance. 

MEDICAL RESEARCH

We have heard in the past that most Medical Research projects last at least 3– 5 years. We appropriated $480 million for Medical Research for fiscal year 2008. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request reduces this amount by $38 million and applies 

that reduction to the research areas that most effect the OIF/OEF veteran population (for example, trauma and mental health). Can you tell me what steps you are 

taking to mitigate the impact of this reduction on research for these veterans? 

Response. VA remains committed to increasing the impact of its research program. VA’s strong commitment to research that addresses the needs of veterans of 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) has been reflected in 

the growth in the number of projects and project funding over the last few years. 

As a result of the supplemental appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and additional emergency appropriations in FY 2008, there have been considerable investments for expensive equipment such as high-resolution magnetic resonance imagers 

that will be used to enhance VA’s OIF/OEF-related research. Over the next few 

years these investments will payoff in better understanding and treatments of these 

important disorders, but the very large increases were ‘‘one-time’’ expenses that 

have effectively met the immediate needs for enhancing the strong ongoing research 

programs. 

We have carefully prioritized our research projects to ensure they continue to address the needs of veterans of OIF/OEF in addition to other veteran populations. 

The FY 2009 budget request includes $252 million for research directed at the full 

range of health issues of OIF/OEF veterans, including traumatic brain injury and 

other neurotrauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and other post-deployment mental health, prosthetics and amputation healthcare, poly trauma, and other health 

issues. Additional research funding priorities covered by the FY 2009 budget request 

include chronic diseases and health promotion, personalized medicine, women’s 

health, and aging. Our ability to achieve the level of $751 million in other federal funding will be 

contingent upon the relative availability of the research funds and the degree to 

which our research proposals are accepted and funded by the other organizations. 

LONG-TERM CARE

In your statement you mention that the FY 2009 budget will support an average 

daily census of 61,000 for non-institutional care compared to a census of 44,200 in 

FY 2008. This would be a remarkable 38% increase in noninstitutional care while 

institutional care remains essentially flat. What could explain this remarkable 

growth in the use of long-term care resources? Is there really such an incredible 

waiting list for these services? And if so, why was it not addressed earlier? 

Response. The growth in non-institutional long-term care in the FY 2009 Congressional Budget Submission reflects VA’s long range plan to shift resources to home 

and community based services, while maintaining capacity in nursing home care. 

VA believes that a comprehensive approach of noninstitutional care can limit increases in the demand for nursing home care. This approach also reflects veterans’ 

preference for home based services. 

VA’s estimates of the demand for home care services are based on a model which 

measures actual home care utilization by age, disability level, marital status, and 

veterans’ use of these services. Demand is expected to grow steadily for a number 

of years. 

The FY 2009 increase appears particularly strong because, for the first time.in the 

Congressional Submission, VA has added the long-term care portion of its Home 

Telehealth Program to the mix of non-institutional care services. The Home Telehealth Program average daily census increases 80 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2009. 

SMOKING CESSATION

What progress has been made by the Department with regards to smoking cessation? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
432 

To address the issue of tobacco use among veterans, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has adopted a number of measures to increase access to the evidence-based smoking cessation care for veterans who smoke. 

• All FDA-approved smoking cessation medications, including over-the counter 

medications, are on the National VHA Formulary. 

• ln 2003, VHA issued national guidance that lifted previous restrictions on prescribing smoking cessation medications in order to make them available to any veteran who wanted to quit. 

• ln 2004, the revised DoD/VA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Tobacco Use encouraged integration of smoking cessation treatment into primary care, 

dentistry, and other clinical settings. 

• In 2005, a Federal regulation was adopted to eliminate the co-payment for 

smoking cessation counseling for veterans seen in VHA clinical settings. 

• VHA developed smoking cessation programs to address the high rates of smoking among patients with psychiatric disorders, as this population smokes at nearly 

twice the rate of patients without psychiatric disorders and they are disproportionately affected by smoking-related illnesses. 

• The VHA electronic medical record is an important tool to support clinical reminders and national performance measures to help identify patients’ tobacco use 

and to prompt health care providers to advise patients to quit and to offer them assistance. 

• In 2006, VHA revised the national performance measures on tobacco use. The 

national performance measures, in addition to screening for tobacco use, required 

all patients who smoked to be provided with counseling on how to quit and offered 

smoking cessation medications and a referral to a smoking cessation clinic at least 

once a year. 

• For fiscal year 2007, approximately 75 percent of smokers seen in VHA nonmental health clinical settings were provided with counseling and a referral to 

smoking cessation clinics and 71 percent were offered medications to help them quit. 

What steps are being taken to decrease OEF/OIF veteran tobacco use? 

VHA has taken the following steps to decrease OEF/OIF veteran tobacco use: 

• VHA has funded multi-site research trials looking at the linkages of 

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and tobacco use and the efficacy of a treatment model that integrates smoking cessation treatment into PTSD care to address 

the needs of these patients. 

• This year the Public Health Strategic Health Care Group has partnered with 

the Durham VA Medical Center Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical 

Center (MIRECC), which specializes in behavioral risks for OIF/OEF veterans to 

look at the unique treatment needs of this population to assist with the development 

of clinical programs that will be responsive to this veteran population’s needs. 

• Because of continuing concerns about the higher rates of tobacco use among 

both military and veteran populations, VHA has collaborated with the Department 

of Defense to contract with the Institute of Medicine to convene a study to identify 

future policies and programs needed to help address the use of tobacco. 

[Clerk’s Note.—End of questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

[Clerk’s Note.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

REQUEST TO MERGE MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES ACCOUNTS

Under Secretary Kussman, the VA is proposing legislative language that would 

consolidate the Medical Administration appropriation and the Medical Services appropriation. The budget justification says that merging these two accounts will improve the execution of the budget and would allow VA to respond rapidly to unanticipated changes in the health care environment throughout the year. 

What are the current challenges in executing the budget based on the current account structure, and how will merging these accounts improve the execution of the 

budget? 

On the point of allowing the VA to respond rapidly to unanticipated changes in 

the health care environment throughout the year, what unanticipated changes have 

you had to respond to in the past, how has the account structure hindered your ability to respond to those changes, and how will merging these accounts allow you to 

respond? 

Response. ln the 2009 request, VA is proposing that the Medical Administration 

appropriation be consolidated into the Medical Services appropriation. Merging 

these two accounts will improve the execution of our budget and will allow VA to 

manage the delivery of health care to veterans more effectively. 

Prior to the establishment of the three medical care appropriation accounts in 

2004, a medical facility director was allocated a singe budget that could be used to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
433 

address local operational priorities in the care of veterans as they occurred. For example, funds could be used to address critical vacancies in nurse staffing or personnel performing security, patient scheduling or the medical collections functions 

as the need arose. All of these functions are critical to the successful care and treatment of the patient. 

Under the current appropriation structure, the facility director has limited management flexibility in making operational decisions. For example, a medical center 

director may need to hire additional clinical staff which is paid from the Medical 

Services appropriation; however, in certain cases, to accommodate the additional 

staff the medical center director may need to hire additional staff to safeguard 

against unnecessary and inappropriate medical care, conduct quality assurance, or 

perform medical coding, which is paid from the Medical Administration appropriation. However, if sufficient funding is not available in the Medical Administration 

account at the facility to hire these supporting staff, the director cannot shift funding from the other medical care appropriations to support this function. Instead, the 

director must first seek a realignment of funds between appropriations at the network level, or at the national level if network funding availability and flexibility is 

also limited. If funding is not available at the national level, VA must notify the 

Office of Management and Budget and the Congress of an appropriations transfer 

request. This is one way the current multiple appropriation structure has added 

complexity to the management of health care at the facility level and increased the 

amount of time it takes to implement operational changes. By combining the two 

appropriations, the facility director could immediately hire additional clinical staff 

and the appropriate supporting staff. 

In addition, the multiple appropriation structure has significantly increased the 

volume of financial transactions needed to administer VA’s health care system. Each 

appropriation is allocated to approximately 150 separate facilities or program offices. For example, in 2003, there were approximatelY 30,000 funding transactions 

to support the single medical care appropriation structure. In 2005, there were over 

55,000 funding transactions required to support the three appropriation structure, 

and this has grown to about 91,000 in 2007. The significant growth in transaction 

volume has also increased the risk of errors and the potential for anti-deficiency violations 

Since the creation of the three account structure in FY 2004, there have been a 

series of significant unanticipated changes that has made it very difficult to accurately estimate the exact amounts required in each appropriation approximately 23 

to 24 months prior to the end of the execution year. For example, in FY 2004 it 

took until the start of the fourth quarter (July 2004) to fully implement the new 

three appropriation structure. The FY 2005 President’s Budget request had already 

been submitted in February 2004 prior to any operational experience at the facility 

level under the three account structure. The FY 2006 President’s Budget was submitted in February 2005 based on less than six months actual experience under the 

three account structure. Subsequently, an additional $1.5 billion was added to the 

FY 2005 Medical Services appropriation and an additional $1.452 billion was provided by Congress to the FY 2006 Medical Services appropriation. 

In addition, we have had to continually adjust our estimates for the three medical 

care accounts to reflect actual operational experience in delivering care to veterans 

at the local level. 

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

The VA budget request includes $9.5 million for Community-Based Outpatient 

Clinics. You note that these clinics have shown to be cost effective and have improved access to high-quality health care for our veterans. The budget documents 

[page 1D–3] say that ‘‘as part of the Strategic Planning process, VA has also initiated a review of nationwide access in rural areas. Nationally, VA had identified the 

underserved areas and will be developing plans to provide access in those areas.’’ 

Please tell the Committee, for the record, where those areas are located. Explain 

more about how these plans will be developed, and is there funding in the budget 

request to fund these rural, underserved areas or are you looking to fund these 

areas at this as part of the fiscal year 2010 request? 

Response. VHA recognized that delivering health care closer to the veterans’ place 

of residence was one way to better achieve our mission of being a patient centered 

integrated health care organization. As a result, one of the main focuses of the most 

recent Strategic Planning guidance cycle was improving access to care in underserved areas. These areas include urban, rural, and highly rural, but they are not 

differentiated in this process because an area often includes more than one designation. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
434 

For the 2008–2012 Strategic Planning cycle, VHA provided VISNs with data that 

demonstrated their performance on drive-time access to guidelines for primary care 

(Table 1). VISNs were asked to develop solutions to meet the needs of veterans in 

these markets where travel time exceeded the access standards. Possible solutions 

included CBOCs, tele-health, and partnerships with DoD. VHA will proceed with developing business plans for the CBOCs identified in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and 

will re-evaluate the out-year CBOCs in a future cycle. 

VHA makes continuous improvements in the process it uses to identify the need 

for CBOCs. This most recent strategic planning cycle focused on improving access 

to primary care in underserved areas. VHA is planning to increase the sophistication with which it identifies the need for CBOCs by evaluating a combination of Geographic access data and with projections from VA’s Enrollee Health Care Projection 

Model. 

Table 1:—ACCESS GUIDELINES 

Type of care Time criteria (minutes) Threshold criteria (%) 

Primary Care ............................ 30 min.—Urban .......................................................

30 Min.—Rural ........................................................

60 Min.—Highly Rural .............................................

70 

Acute Hospital .......................... 60 min.—Urban .......................................................

90 Min.—Rural ........................................................

120 Min.—Highly Rural ...........................................

65 

Tertary Care ............................. 240 min.—Urban .....................................................

240 Min.—Rural ......................................................

Community Standard—Highly Rural ........................

65 

FEDERAL RECOVERY COORDINATORS/WOUNDED WARRIORS

According to your testimony, the VA and DoD signed an agreement last October 

to provide Federal recovery coordinators to ensure that medical services and other 

benefits are provided to seriously-wounded, injured, and ill active duty 

servicemembers and veterans. I know this program is in its infancy, but please tell 

the Committee what you can about how this is being implemented. How many of 

these Federal recovery coordinators have been hired? How are they being paid? How 

many Federal recovery coordinators is there a need for, and how much funding is 

in the budget request for these coordinators? 

Response. ‘‘The President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors,’’ co-chaired by Senator Robert Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, endorsed the assignment of a Federal Recovery Coordinator (FRC), to serve as the primary point of contact for coordinating clinical and non-clinical care for each Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) severely wounded, ill 

and injured servicemember and his or her family. Although the Commission recommended that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manage the 

program, VA volunteered to take the lead in establishing the program in coordination with the Department of Defense (DoD), HHS and the Public Health Service 

(PHS) Corps. DoD and VA, through the Senior Oversight Committee, established 

the Federal Recovery Coordination Program (FRCP) whose mission is to facilitate 

an efficient, effective and smooth rehabilitation and transition back to military duty 

or civilian life. The program is managed by the Care Management and Social Work 

Service, Office of Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and 

is comprised of representatives from VHA and the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA), as well as four representatives from DoD. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VA and DoD was signed on 

October 30, 2007, for the joint oversight of the FRC Program. In December 2007, 

VA hired the FRCP Director and Supervisor. In January 2008, VA hired eight 

FRCs; however, in March 2008 one FRC who was located at the National Naval 

Medical Center died, leaving the program with a total of seven FRCs in place. VA 

is actively recruiting two additional FRCs as soon as possible. These additional 

FRCs will be located at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, and the 

Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA. A third FRC will be selected to replace the 

now vacant position at National Naval Medical Center. 

Once hired, the current FRC staff attended a joint VA and DoD training session 

which was conducted over an intensive 2-week period which occurred in January 

2008. After training, the FRC staff was then located at the following Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and are currently actively receiving patients: 

• 3 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
435 

• 2 at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 

• 2 at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX 

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM/WOUNDED WARRIORS

The VA and DoD are piloting a disability evaluation system for wounded warriors 

at major medical facilities in the Washington, DC area. The key features of this 

pilot project, according to your testimony, include one medical examination and a 

single disability rating determined by the VA with the goal of simplifying benefits, 

health care, and rehabilitation for injured servicemembers and veterans. This is one 

of two pilot programs that are mentioned in your testimony, and I applaud you for 

your work on these. Is there any concern that as you try to move to a comprehensive 

program as it relates to the Dole-Shalala report that these two programs will already be stovepiped, and the systems that you are setting up to run these programs 

won’t be able to merge with some larger comprehensive program that might not be 

too far off in the future? 

Response. VA and DoD are piloting a Disability Evaluation System (DES) for all 

servicemembers referred to Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board 

(MEB/PEB) in the National Capital Region. The current pilot program utilizes a single disability rating prepared by VA that is binding for both VA and DoD. Since 

this is a pilot, there are no permanent policies or information technology changes 

that would hinder flexibility to implement future comprehensive programs related 

to the recommendations of Dole-Shalala, or recommendations by other groups. 

GAO REPORT ON ‘‘IMPROVED OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND MANAGEMENT DATA WOULD

ENHANCE VBA’S DISABILITY REEVALUATION PROCESS’’ 

As you know the GAO conducted a study on the VA’s disability reevaluation process. The GAO found that the operational controls do not adequately ensure that 

staff schedule or conduct disability reevaluations as necessary. The GAO recommended, and the VA concurred, that VA needed to modify its electronic diary system to ensure that appropriate reevaluations are scheduled to occur; develop additional methods to ensure accuracy of completed and cancelled reevaluations; clarify 

its guidance so that all regional offices use the same criteria for measuring the timeliness of reevaluations and develop a plan to collect and analyze data on the results 

of reevaluations. Please tell the Committee what the VA has done since this report 

was released to address the GAO’s findings. 

Response. In February 2008, the VETSNET suite of applications was enhanced 

to automatically establish electronic ‘‘work items’’ for maturing diaries and other 

system-generated messages. These electronic ‘‘work items’’ remain in the system 

until resolved. Documentation of the resolution of the work items (e.g., claim established, due process notification sent, no action necessary, etc.) must be entered into 

the system, providing an audit trail of the disposition of the messages and diaries. 

With this enhancement, diaries and messages may now be managed with the 

VETSNET Operations Reports (VOR). These reports also allow regional offices and 

Headquarters to assess timeliness of action and disposition. 

Diaries and system messages for claimants paid through the Benefits Delivery 

Network (BDN) are still managed using paper VA Forms 20–6560, which are mailed 

to regional offices. Currently, over 800,000 veterans are being paid through 

VETSNET, and substantially all compensation and pension records will be converted to VETSNET by July 2009. 

As data is collected and accumulated through the VETSNET reports, we will use 

the additional information available to assess the reevaluation process and make 

appropriate changes. 

CHATTANOOGA AREA HEALTH CARE AND CARES DECISION

Undersecretary Kussman, back in 1999 and I helped to create a pilot program in 

Chattanooga where the VISN 9 would contract for care locally that they could not 

receive at the Outpatient Clinic which is located in Chattanooga. The alternative 

was and still is to have my local veterans drive to Nashville or Murfreesboro for 

care the Chattanooga clinic cannot provide. For two years one of my local hospitals, 

Erlanger, participated in the pilot program, however they opted not to continue participating because the VA would not refer patients to a non-VA facility. (Over the 

course of the pilot project only 58 patients were referred to Erlanger.) 

In response to this, I worked with former Chairman Taylor to direct GAO to review the pilot project as well as access to care for Chattanooga area Vets. In regards 

to the pilot project the GAO found that the VA put significant restrictions on what 

vets were allowed to be referred to Erlanger. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
436 

Additionally, and I think what speaks to the larger problem, GAO found that at 

the time 99% or the 16,379 enrolled vets in the 18-county Chatt area faced travel 

times that exceeded the VA’s guidelines for accessing inpatient care. In addition 

50% or Chatt area enrolled vets faced travel times that exceeded the VA’s 30-minute 

guideline for outpatient care. 

As I am sure you are aware, since that time the CARES program has been developed to provide the VA with a national road map charting the way to better meet 

the healthcare needs of our veterans. 

The final CARES plan released in 2004 recognized the problems in the Chatt Area 

and recommended that the VA continue to work to contract with non-VA providers 

to meet the needs of the local community. 

Could you give me an update on two things: What the VA is doing to work with 

non-VA providers to ensure adequate local access to services? 

Response. VA has implemented a demonstration project, Project HERO, intended 

to assess VA’s ability to leverage contracts on a large scale for these needed services. This project has been implemented in four VISNs. It requires vendors to meet 

these internal VA access standards, provides facilities alternatives to care when internal resources are not available, and improve sharing of clinical documentation associated with these external services. 

Additionally, VA does contract with available community providers for case by 

case fee basis. 

Could you update me on the VA’s implementation of the 2004 CARES decision? 

Response. Campus Realignments—Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (HS) has 

moved all inpatient surgery to the Nashville Campus and completed the consolidation of all services. 

Inpatient Medicine and Surgery—The Commission recommended increasing inpatient medicine services through a mix of in-house expansions and community contracts. 

The cumulative occupancy rate for FY08 to date at Tennessee Valley HS—both 

Nashville and Murfreesboro is 76.4%. This occupancy level has not necessitated expansion of medicine beds at either facility. 

There has been a steady increase in the amount of inpatient care being contracted 

in the Chattanooga area: 

REVIEW OF INPATIENT SERVICE UTILIZATION—PATIENTS IN CHATTANOOGA SERVICE AREA 

FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 

Patients Treated in the Community ...................... 84 122 212 201 267 

Patients Treated at TVHS ...................................... 327 376 437 435 477 

Total Patients ........................................................ 411 498 649 636 744 

Percent of Patients Receiving Care in the Community ............................................................... 20.4 24.5 32.6 31.6 35.9 

With the expected growth in veterans living in the Chattanooga service area, it 

is expected the need for continued contract and fee basis inpatient services will continue to grow. 

Outpatient Primary and Specialty Care—The Commission recommended expanding services at current sites of care and use community contracts. 

The Chattanooga CBOC is the most heavily utilized Tennessee Valley HS clinic, 

serving 12,682 veterans in Fiscal Year 2007. Tennessee Valley HS has submitted 

a concept paper for a new capital lease for a replacement clinic of 50,000 NUSF in 

the Chattanooga area. In the interim they are in the process of leasing administrative space near the CBOC to allow for additional clinical space. 

The following additional staff has been added at the existing site: 

• An additional primary care team 

• 8 additional mental health providers 

• A full-time Cardiologist 

• Contract provider for Orthopedics while recruitment is underway for a staff Orthopedic Surgeon 

• Ophthalmology, Podiatry and other subspecialties are referred to community 

providers or to one of the main Tennessee Valley HS campuses. 

In response to increasing demand for diagnostic services, in December 2005, a VA 

Imaging Center was opened in the same complex as the CBOC. The center offers 

diagnostic radiology, CT scans, bone density studies, ultrasound, and complete audiology testing. Pulmonary function tests are planned for the future, and possibly cardiac stress testing. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
437 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr.] 

Last year this Subcommittee and the Congress instituted the largest funding in- crease in the VA’s history. Given that the VA had a previous $1.7 billion shortfall 

in their health care budget, • Is the VA accurately anticipating sufficient funding to meet the anticipated 

health care needs of an aging veterans’ population? 

Response. VA’s actuarial model accounts for the fact that enrollees will need more 

health care services as they age, and the utilization and expenditure projections reflect those services that they are expected to receive from VA. VA does an annual 

data match of enrollees’ actual utilization in VA and Medicare that provides a fairly 

complete picture of the health care utilization patterns of the age 65 and older enrollee population. 

VA also recognizes that there will be a growing need for long-term care services 

as our population ages. VA’s goal of improving the offering of long-term care services 

with an emphasis on home and community-based programs will assist VA in planning to meet the increasing demand for these services by our aging as well as our 

newest generation of veterans. 

To accomplish this goal, VA has increased its Medical Care budget obligation request for long-term care services, particularly home and community based services, 

in each of the past 4 years (reported in millions of dollars). VA has targeted its increased budget dollars toward rehabilitation and longitudinal home care as alternatives to institutional care. VA is also expanding existing capabilities in long-term 

care, including care coordination and telehealth technologies; and will continue to 

improve services for traumatic brain injured veterans through targeted day health 

and respite care centers. 

Is the VA accurately anticipating sufficient funding for veterans returning from 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Response. In FY 2009, VA estimates that it will treat over 333,000 OEF/OIF veterans at a cost of approximately $1.27 billion. This estimate is based on the actual 

enrollment rates, age, gender, morbidity, and reliance on VA health care services 

of the enrolled OEF/OIF population. OEF/OIF veterans have significantly different 

VA health care utilization patterns than non-OEF/OIF enrollees, and this is reflected in the estimates above. For example, when modeling expected demand for 

PTSD residential rehab services for the OEF/OIF cohort, the model reflects the fact 

that they are expected to need eight times the amount of these services compared 

to non-OEF/OIF enrollees. The model also reflects OEF/OIF enrollees’ increased 

need for other health care services, including physical medicine, prosthetics, and 

outpatient psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. On the other hand, experience indicates that OEF/OIF enrollees seek about half as much inpatient acute surgery care from VA as non-OEF/OIF enrollees. 

Many unknowns will influence the number and type of services that VA will need 

to provide OEF/OIF veterans, including the duration of the conflict, when OEF/OIF 

veterans are demobilized, and the impact of our enhanced outreach efforts. VA has 

estimated the health care needs of OEF/OIF veterans based on what we currently 

know about the impact of the conflict. To ensure we are able to care for all returning 

OEF/OIF veterans, we have made additional investments in our medical care budget 

and we monitor actual expenditures against budget levels on a monthly basis. 

VET CENTERS

I have heard from some employees at the VA that some older veterans are being 

turned away or put to the back of the line in favor of veterans from the GWOT. 

The last thing we want to see is vets competing for services among themselves. 

• What can you tell us about access to care being received at local Vet Centers? 

Response. The Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS) mission is to provide outreach and readjustment counseling to all combat veterans of any war or armed conflict, and to the members of their families. The number of Vietnam veterans served 

at Vet Centers has actually increased over the last three years, and Vietnam veterans continue to make approximately 70% of all the visits provided by the Vet Centers. Also, Vet Centers continue to report having no waiting list for new veterans, 

of any combat era, to be seen and evaluated. Veterans without appointments are 

welcome to walk into a Vet Center, and our standard is for them to be seen by a 

counselor within 30 minutes for an evaluation and to schedule follow-up appointment. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
438 

SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN VA AND DOD

When an active duty soldier is honorable discharged, the Department of Defense 

must transfer that soldier’s records to the VA. There have been problems in the past 

making this a timely action, and some soldiers discharged with a service connected 

disability have discovered that the DoD and the VA do not always use the same 

disability ratings system. You mentioned in your testimony that the VA and the 

DoD need to ‘‘continue’’ progress on interoperable electronic medical record systems. 

• What progress has been made previously? 

Response. VA and DoD have made significant progress toward the development 

of interoperable electronic health record systems. Since 2002, DoD has transferred 

available electronic records on approximately 4.3 millions service members that 

have separated from active duty. DoD transferred these records to a jointly developed secure repository, known as the Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE), 

where the records are available for viewing by VA clinicians treating these veterans 

and VBA staff adjudicating disability claims. DoD also has transferred pre- and 

post- deployment health assessment and post deployment health reassessment 

forms in electronic format on over 880,000 patients. These forms are also available 

for viewing in FHIE. 

In 2004, VA and DoD began sharing current electronic health data in viewable 

format bidirectionally through the Bidirectional Health Information Exchange. At 

present, VA and DoD have increased this data exchange to now include outpatient 

medication, allergy information, laboratory results, radiology reports, ambulatory 

encounter notes, problem lists, procedures, and discharge summaries. These data 

are exchanged on shared patients that receive health care from both VA and DoD 

facilities and are available at every DoD military treatment facility and VA medical 

center (VAMC), including key facilities treating wounded warriors, such as Walter 

Reed and Brooke Army Medical Centers, Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, 

and Landstuhl (Germany) Regional Medical Center. DoD also is sending clinical theater information electronically in order to address issues related to battlefield injuries. 

In support of our most seriously ill and injured, DoD is sending radiology images 

and scanning the entire medical record at these facilities and sending it to the four 

Level 1 VA polytrauma centers that are receiving these patients for recovery and 

rehabilitation. 

NON-INSTITUTIONAL LONG-TERM CARE

Dr. Kussman, you also mention in your testimony that there exists generational 

differences in providing long-term care to newer veterans. Accordingly, you list access to modern technologies as a means of addressing some of these generational 

differences. 

• Has the VA projected how many potential long-term care patients may enter 

the system from Iraq and Afghanistan—not 30 years from now but starting now and 

in the near future? 

Response. VA has not made formal projections of long-term care demand for Iraq 

and Afghanistan veterans. Currently, there are fewer than 500 veterans from these 

conflicts who require long-term care services. VA has sufficient capacity to meet 

both the nursing home and home and community based care needs of these veterans. 

The number of non-institutional long-term care patients is expected to grow by 

the VA in the next several years. In your testimony, Dr. Kussman, you mention that 

the VA is expanding the services provided by organizations in the community. 

• Your testimony mentions that you are expecting approximately a 40% increase 

in the number of patients receiving non-institutional long-term care. What criteria 

are you using to project that increase? 

Response. The growth in non-institutional long-term care in the FY 2009 Congressional Budget Submission reflects VA’s long range plan to shift resources to home 

and community based services, while maintaining capacity in nursing home care. 

VA believes that a comprehensive approach of noninstitutional care can limit increases in the demand for nursing home care. This approach also reflects veterans’ 

preference for home based services. 

VA’s estimates of demand for home care services are based on a model which 

measures actual home care utilization by age, disability level, marital status, and 

veterans’ use of these services. Demand is expected to remain robust for a number 

of years. 

The FY 2009 increase appears particularly strong because, for the first time in 

the Congressional Submission, VA has added the long-term care portion of its Home 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
439 

Telehealth Program to the mix of non-institutional care services. The Home Telehealth Program average daily census increases 80 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2009. 

• Can you tell the committee, as a percentage, how many veterans receive some 

form of non-institutional long-term care? 

Response. In FY 2007, fifty percent of VA’s total extended care patient population 

received some form of care in either non-institutional or enriched housing settings. 

Of the total veteran population enrolled in VA for health care, two percent received 

non-institutional long-term care services. 

• How much does it cost the VA, per patient, to provide in-home services to veterans? How does this compare to the residential care rates at VA homes? 

Response: In FY 2007, the average cost to provide in-home services to veterans 

was approximately $42 per day. The average daily rate for care in VA nursing 

homes was $654 per day in FY 2007 . VA is unable to separate the ‘‘residential’’ 

cost of nursing home care from the total cost of that care. 

• How does the VA select the service provider for these services? 

• How does the VA verify the quality of service from noninstitutional providers? 

• Does the VA rate the quality and satisfaction with in-home services compared 

to institutionalized services? 

Response. VA chooses home and community based care providers on the basis of 

quality, geographic coverage, and cost. VA uses Medicare and Medicaid certified 

agencies to provide care. Certification is the accepted standard for ensuring a quality service. VA also examines the findings of State Health Departments on agencies 

and reviews the findings on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

Website, Home Health Compare. While VA does not ‘‘rate’’ the quality of care agencies provide or veteran satisfaction, VA does measure quality through CMS and the 

States and seeks veterans’ reactions to the services provided and their satisfaction 

through telephone interviews of one-third of those receiving services. 

RURAL HEALTH CARE

Your testimony mentioned the expansion of the mental health care staff and the 

expansion of the telemental health program in order to reach additional patients. 

• How will the VA expand telemental health care to people who do not live in 

an area that offers the broadband connection necessary for delivering these services? 

Response. Telemental health services are provided by VA to veteran patients in 

two ways in areas where broadband services are an issue. First, telemental health 

services are provided between hospitals and clinics; and second telemental health 

is provided into the patients’ homes via home telemental health. In terms of services 

provided between hospitals and clinics in areas that are under-provisioned with 

DSL/broadband connectivity, video devices can be deployed utilizing integrated 

switched data network (ISDN) with 256K capacity to interface to VA ISDN gateways strategically located and consolidated throughout the VA enterprise network. 

Improvements in the past several years in video compression algorithms have provided higher quality video connection experience utilizing affordable basic rate interface lines where broadband is not available. In terms of providing home telemental 

health services directly into veteran patients’ homes, VA is developing a business 

plan and service strategy to accomplish this through a range of telecommunications 

modalities. At this time, VA does not have the definitive solution to accomplish this. 

Legal, technical, and financial aspects are being further explored and developed as 

VA endeavors to extend health care as close to the veteran community as possible. 

• What does your outreach program advertising these services entail? Can you 

provide the committee with some specific examples? 

Response. Telemental health expansion is part of VA’s overall mental health expansion. It is one way to allow veterans access to care; therefore it fits within general activities occurring nationally and locally to raise awareness among veteran patients about the availability of mental health services in VA. VA’s Office of Care Coordination and associated staff at the Veteran Integrated Service Network (VISN) 

and local facility level market telemental health services internally to staff to promote the increased use of telemental health. Nationwide, VISN and facility staff 

members promote the use of telemental health services to Veteran Service Organizations. 

VISN STRUCTURE

As you are aware, the Veteran Integrated Service Network is the system that 

oversees the operation of regional veterans’ hospitals and outpatient service centers. 

• Please tell the committee your views on the effectiveness of the VISN structure 

for providing health care. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
440 

• What recommendations can you give to the committee to improve the VISN system? 

Response. VA’s structural transformation from a hospital system to a health care 

system, commonly known as Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) has been 

a success. This structural transformation facilitated the shift from an inpatient hospital based system to an integrated patient-centered health care system, which provides the most effective and efficient care for veterans. 

The VISNs provide broad and general operational direction and supervision to 

medical center field operations, which include fiscal and personal resource management, information technology, business operations, canteen service, clinical liaison, 

planning, quality management, safety, industrial hygiene, environment management, emergency management, engineering operations and policy. The span of control is reasonable and the geographical layout has worked well over the past 10 

years. 

HeartMath is a behavioral therapy, with assistive technology, that helps reduce 

stress and anxiety. The DOD is using it to help military personnel returning from 

combat who may have mental health issues. In 18 VA clinics around the country 

and 10 DOD facilities doctors are using HeartMath to assist servicemen and veterans with PTSD and other mental health issues. 

Are you familiar with HeartMath and how it is being employed at VA sites? 

Response. A phone meeting occurred between the Office of Mental Health Services 

(OMHS) in the Department of Veterans and the Department of Defense to review 

this request. VA had no prior knowledge of the Heart Math device, other than a 

review of the website for this device. DoD has some experience with it. According 

to DoD, HeartMath provides a measure of heart rate variability and balance of cardiovascular tone. DoD has some experience with its use on a trial basis in some settings that do relaxation training. Relaxation training has various uses, and DoD has 

used it as an adjunct to PTSD treatment, although only in a few sites and not routinely. VA is not aware of any evidence supporting its use as a treatment for PTSD 

per se, and DoD has not collected evidence regarding the efficacy or effectiveness 

of HeartMath for other problems. 

VA recommends that the vendor for this device be invited to make a presentation, 

particularly focusing on the scientific evidence that would support its efficacy in relation to specific medical or mental health conditions. VA will contact the vendor 

and extend an invitation for a presentation. 

In 2006 Congress enacted law that required the VA to add marriage and family 

therapists to its list of service providers. To date, the VA has not done so. 

• How and when will the VA add marriage and family therapists to its list of 

service providers? What is taking so long to implement the law? 

Response. Section 201 of Public Law 109–461 added Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs) and Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) to section 7401 (3) of title 

38, United States Code. This gave the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) the 

option of employing individuals with these credentials under our Hybrid Title 38 

employment system. 

For many years, VHA has, and continues to successfully hire individuals with 

master’s degrees in mental health counseling, marriage and family counseling, and 

related fields as readjustment counseling therapists in our Vet Centers. In accordance with guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, these 

positions are properly classified in the GS–101, Social Science series. Qualified LPCs 

and MFTs may be hired in this series. VHA is considering the possibility of utilizing 

individuals with these credentials in its medical centers to further enhance mental 

health staffing needs. 

In May 2007, VHA provided a report entitled ‘‘Marriage and Family Therapy 

Workload’’ to leadership on the Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, 

in accordance with the requirements of section 201 of Public Law 109–461. As a follow-up to that report, a recently initiated occupational study is assessing the current and future use of therapists and counselors within VHA. During this endeavor, 

VHA has been in contact with key officials at the American Association for Marriage 

and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the American Mental 

Health Counselors Association, and VA professionals in the areas of mental health, 

social work and pastoral counseling. The information we have obtained from these 

organizations, along with a survey of facility staffing and health care needs VHA 

will undertake in the next few months, will allow us to determine the most appropriate use of these professionals in our health care system. No changes to position 

descriptions or establishment of occupational series specific to MFTs or LPCs will 

be made until a complete evaluation of the study results has been finalized. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
441 

The VA operates training and rehab centers to help blinded or vision-impaired 

veterans adjust to the loss of vision. The Palo Alto polytrauma center has one such 

center. • How many blind/vision training and rehab centers does the VA operate? 

Response. Current blind rehabilitation services are provided through ten residential Blind Rehabilitation Centers that provide comprehensive blind rehabilitation 

training. The locations are noted below: • West Haven, Connecticut • Augusta, Georgia • Birmingham, Alabama • West Palm Beach, Florida • San Juan, Puerto Rico • Hines, Illinois • Waco, Texas • Tucson, Arizona • American Lake, Washington • Palo Alto, California 

Thirty-eight blind rehabilitation outpatient specialists (BROS) provide blind rehabilitation training to veterans and their families who may not be able to travel to 

a Blind Rehabilitation Center. BROS services are provided to veterans in the most 

appropriate setting, for example, home, college, nursing home, work site, and assisted living environments. BROS are located at VAMC’s and outpatient clinics and 

serve veterans at the Vet Centers. 

One hundred sixty-four visual impairment service team (VIST) coordinators provide case management for legally blind and severely visually impaired veterans. 

VIST coordinator duties include providing and/or arranging for the provision of appropriate treatment in order to enhance a blind veteran’s functioning. VIST coordinators are located in VAMC’s, outpatient clinics, and CBOCs and serve veterans at 

the Vet Centers. 

Two Visual Impairment Services Outpatient Rehabilitation (VISOR) Programs are 

outpatient, intermediate short-term rehabilitation programs. They provide safe overnight accommodations for veterans who are visually impaired and require temporary lodging. The programs are located in Lebanon, PA, and West Haven, CT. • Do blinded veterans have the right to choose to be sent to an intensive rehabilitation program outside of the blindness VA system, and have that vocational Rehabilitation funded by the VA? 

Response. Rehabilitation services provided by VA fall into the categories of ‘‘vocational rehabilitation,’’ which is provided by the Veteran Benefits Administration 

(VBA), and ‘‘clinical blind rehabilitation,’’ which is provided by the Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA). VA continually assesses the unique needs of all blinded veterans and when this is indicated in an individual patient’s care, engages the private 

sector to provide care as a complement to the VA system of care. In circumstances 

where VA is not able to provide the needed services, or required services are geographically inaccessible, title 38 United States Code § 1703 provides authority for 

VA to contract or purchase services from non-VA sources for certain categories of 

veterans. 

• If so, how many blind Veterans have been sent for training outside of the VA, 

and has the VA funded that rehabilitation? 

Response. Since 2003, VHA Blind Rehabilitation Program has referred 228 blind 

or visually impaired veterans or service members for Vocational Rehabilitation 

training outside of the VA system. VA paid for 3 private Vocational Rehabilitation 

training programs, while 225 veterans or service members received State Vocational 

Rehabilitation training in their home environment at no cost to the veteran. 

• Can you give me some sense of the kind of training or rehab that goes on 

in the VA centers and how that compares to the rehabilitation blind-centric organizations provide to newly blinded persons? 

Response. VA Blind Rehabilitation Services are provided by employees who are 

university-trained professionals in blind rehabilitation, optometry, psychology, social 

work, and nursing. Inpatient VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers (BRC) services are 

accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). 

VA BRCs provide assessment, evaluation, rehabilitation planning and training in 

the areas of: 

• Orientation and mobility—orientation to the environment, spatial awareness, 

safe movement, travel training, use of public transportation, effective use of technology such as global positioning systems. 

• Communication—the ability to send and read written materials to self and 

others, e.g. reading; writing; using organizational strategies such as notes to self; 

the use of Braille; and speech-output technology. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
442 

• Activities of daily living—personal care, grooming, health care, care of clothing, household cleaning and management, meal preparation including shopping, financial management. 

• Manual skills—sensory integration, household repair, woodworking, small engine repair. 

• Computer technology—use of computers for word-processing, access to Internet, email and other personal uses for computers. 

• Vision rehabilitation—provision of optical and electronic devices that magnify 

images so that they can be seen by veterans who retain sufficient vision to use their 

sight effectively for daily tasks. Training in the use of vision and devices that allow 

veterans to read, write, watch television, access computers, manage money, etc., 

using vision. 

• Counseling—adjustment to blindness, peer-support, individual counseling by 

psychologists and social workers. 

• Health management—lifestyle, fitness, exercise counseling and regimens, dietary and medication management and compliance (e.g., diabetes control), oversight 

for veterans who have medical conditions that require medical support (e.g., on dialysis, COPD), mental health services for veterans who require it (e.g., PTSD). 

• Leisure and recreational activities—participation in sports, hobbies and outings that provide opportunities to use skills developed in the classroom, and socialization with fellow veterans in the program. 

• Family training programs—Family members are invited to the program for 

several days of classes in understanding visual impairment and blindness, attend 

classes with their veterans, and receive counseling and support in understanding 

issues associated with the veteran’s increased skill and independence. 

Blind-centric organizations provide training similar to that provided by VA Blind 

Rehabilitation Centers, with a similar philosophy to provide the milieu of assessment, instruction, and support services to help individuals regain skills, adjust to 

blindness, function independently. The primary differences between VA’s program 

and blind-centric organizations are: 

• VA BRC length of stay is determined by the veteran’s goals for training and 

assessment of the veteran’s current level of ability. Programs are an average of 6– 

8 weeks, and veterans may return for additional training. Blind-centric programs 

require clients to attend their centers for about 6 months. 

• VA BRCs hire only university-trained professionals in specific disciplines that 

are required for blind rehabilitation. Blind-centric programs do not require university training for their staff who provide instruction, and frequently utilize instructors who are blind as having the requisite training and background to train others 

who are blind. 

• VA BRCs are CARF accredited. Blind-centric programs are not CARF accredited. 

• VA BRCs provide medical and nursing care for inpatient veterans. Blind-centric programs do not provide medical and nursing care for their clients. 

• VA BRCs provide vision rehabilitation services for veterans with limited 

sight. Blind-centric programs do not provide vision rehabilitation services, nor do 

they emphasize the use of vision in daily life for clients who have useful vision; instead, clients with vision are blindfolded and taught to use other senses. 

• VA BRC staff provides incremental training to emphasize safety. The difficulty of lessons are gradually increased to assure that veterans are challenged to 

learn without experiencing circumstances that could be adverse, particularly for elderly veterans, or those with traumatic brain injury. Blind-centric programs emphasize a ‘‘discovery learning method’’ that allows clients who are blind to resolve difficulties on their own; e.g., getting lost on a travel training lesson. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(443) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008. 

U.S. NAVY 

WITNESSES 

ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS GENERAL 

JAMES T. CONWAY, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to our fiscal year 2009 Navy and Marine Corps hearing for 

military construction and family housing. 

Admiral Roughead, welcome to our committee. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you very much for having me. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your lifetime of service. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. General Conway, welcome back to our subcommittee. It is good to have you back. 

And thank you both, and your families, and all you do for our 

families and our country. 

This will be another banner year for Navy and Marine Corps 

MILCON, especially the Marine Corps. The total request is $3.1 

billion, a 41 percent increase over last year’s request. For the Marine Corps alone, the request is over $2 billion. I think it is safe 

to say it may be the largest MILCON budget the Marine Corps has 

ever requested. 

Many of these increases are due to the Marines continuing efforts to add another 27,000 personnel to its permanent end 

strength by 2011. The total request for growing the force in fiscal 

year 2009 is $1.4 billion. Much of this money would be invested in 

new barracks. 

We want to have a series of questions and discuss a range of 

issues today, but before we proceed with your opening comments, 

I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any 

comments he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Admiral, General, it is an honor to even be sitting here at 

the table with you. I appreciate very much your service to our 

country and the people that you represent sitting here today. 

The chairman and I have a great relationship. We are off to a 

very good start. And I am the new kid on the block, but I admire 

you, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that you 

have everything you need to meet the demands of today and tomorrow, especially given the changes that we know are underway with 

a ramped up force of the United States Marine Corps. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
444 

I have read the background and look forward to today and then 

working with you in the months and years ahead to make sure that 

you have what you need. 

We are grateful for your service, and thank you for your presence 

here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, sir. 

Admiral Roughead is appearing here before the subcommittee for 

the first time as Chief of Naval Operations. Briefly, for the record, 

let me say that he has 35 years of active service, including six operational commands, and is a 1973 graduate of Annapolis. 

He became the Chief of Naval Operations on September 29, 2007 

and was previously assigned as commander of Fleet Forces Command. He also served as the Deputy Commander of the Pacific 

Command, Navy Chief of Legislative Affairs—we apologize you had 

that responsibility—and commandant of the Naval Academy. 

General James T. Conway, before our committee once again, 

Commandant of the Marine Corps; has 38 years of service, and 

thank you again for that service. 

He was commissioned as an infantry officer in 1970. He has been 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps since November of 2006. He 

commanded the first Marine expeditionary force during two tours 

in Iraq. He served as president of the Marine Corps University at 

Quantico and commanded a battalion landing team in Desert 

Storm. A native of Walnut Ridge, Arkansas. Now, where is Walnut 

Ridge, Arkansas. 

General CONWAY. It is up in the northeastern part of the state, 

probably closer to Jonesboro. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. I used to spend summers in a little town 

called Warren, Arkansas, pine and tomato countries. 

Without objection, your formal testimony will be submitted for 

the record, and I would now like to recognize you, Admiral 

Roughead, for any opening comments you would care to make and 

then General Conway to follow. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Chairman Edwards, Representative Wamp, 

it is my honor to appear before you today, representing the dedicated Sailors and civilians of our Navy who are out and about carrying out our maritime strategy and doing essential work for our 

nation around the globe. 

For our Sailors to be forward, they must be individually ready 

and mission ready, and shore infrastructure is essential to their 

success. To support our mission, our bases must have scalable, 

agile and adaptive capabilities for our warfighters, our ships and 

our aircraft. 

For warfighters, that means facilities that provide innovative 

and relevant training. For our ships and aircraft, it means the ability to properly maintain, equip and prepare today and tomorrow 

the force structure, the force laydown and the operational concepts 

that we are going to use. 

To optimize individual readiness, shore installations must provide an environment which enables two things: A quality of work 

and a quality of life that our Sailors and Navy civilians deserve. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
445 

Maintaining quality of work means we provide our Sailors and 

Navy civilians with the facilities and support to get the job done 

efficiently and effectively, such as optimized maintenance facilities, 

communications infrastructure and pier and airfield upgrades. 

Sustaining quality of life means that we must address not only 

the needs of the Navy Sailor and Navy civilian but those of our 

families as well. Those resources include quality medical facilities, 

fitness centers for health and physical readiness, child care facilities and housing where Sailors can enjoy their time at home and 

the assurance of safety of their families when they are far away. 

In recent years, our shore facilities deteriorated as our investments focused on field readiness. This deterioration impacts our 

ability to support our Fleet and thereby affects our Sailors’ quality 

of work. Sailors need the piers and shore repair facilities to keep 

the Fleet ready. 

It also has a direct effect on our Sailors’ standard of living. Housing is a crucial element to this, but lack of available, affordable 

child care is consistently ranked as a top readiness and retention 

issue. 

To address this need, we have requested funding for an additional 1,320 spaces at our child development centers and homes 

this year. We are grateful for your support of our public-private 

ventures, which satisfy critical housing needs. These and other important initiatives will improve recruiting and encourage Sailors, 

Navy civilians and their families to stay Navy. 

To recapitalize our facilities and sustain our operational requirements today and in the future, we must make the right investments and the right capabilities and services at the right installations now. Navy Installation Command has made progress by 

leveraging best practices and consolidating budget development. 

The Shore Readiness Board of Directors that I created in November, shortly after I became the Chief of Naval Operations, will further allocate funds to the appropriate capabilities. 

With the 2009 budget, we will have the necessary resources to 

maintain our readiness. 

I thank you and the committee again for your time today and for 

your continued support of the 600,000 Sailors, Navy civilians and 

our families. 

I stand ready for your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral Gary Roughead follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
446 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 986 here 42754B.087
447 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 987 here 42754B.088
448 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 988 here 42754B.089
449 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 989 here 42754B.090
450 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 990 here 42754B.091
451 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 991 here 42754B.092
452 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 992 here 42754B.093
453 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 993 here 42754B.094
454 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 994 here 42754B.095
455 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 995 here 42754B.096
456 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 996 here 42754B.097
457 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your comments. 

General Conway. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES T. CONWAY

General CONWAY. Chairman Edwards and Congressman Wamp, 

it is my pleasure to always provide you with forthright analysis assessments here at the Marine Corps. I bear that in mind as we appear before you today. 

The Marine Corps retains the mission to provide a multicapable 

force for our nation, the two-fisted fighter, if you will, able to destroy enemy formations with our air and ground team in major 

contingencies but also able to fall back on our—and warfare skills 

all over decades of conflict. 

Our magnificent patriots have been extremely effective in disrupting insurgents and the Al Qaida in the Al Anbar province. In 

the spirit of jointness, I would note that it has been Marines and 

soldiers and Sailors in a composite effort over time that has 

brought success there. 

We are still supporting a surge in Iraq, and we have already 

shifted from population protection to transitioning security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, and Iraq will be stepping up to the 

task. While it may not be our core competency, Marines have addressed the nation-building aspects of our duties with enthusiasm 

and determination. 

In answer to the most recent call from the Secretary of Defense, 

we are also deploying more than 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan. 

There, Marines will assist the joint force in either gaining or maintaining momentum there. We fall in on our expeditionary ethos of 

living hard and fighting well as part of an air-ground team. 

We do, however, have a significant issue with our families, 

though the Marines are doing extremely well. Simply put, they are 

proud of their contributions to this war, but they are tired. We owe 

it to those families to put our family service programs onto a wartime footing. For too long, our programs have been borne on the 

backs of volunteers, perhaps acceptable during peacetime, but untenable during a protracted conflict. The Congress has been exceptionally supportive in enabling us to make good on the promise to 

do more. 

Of course, we look forward to our obligations to the nation, and 

we have learned lessons in trying to build a force as we fight. We 

are growing our force, but it is more than just manpower. This 

growth requires training, infrastructure and equipment to meet the 

needs of our country. You have helped us meet those requirements 

with steady support and encouragement, and for that, we certainly 

thank you. 

For our infrastructure, the Marine Corps has dedicated funding 

more than eight times our historical average—your point earlier, 

sir—for barracks and construction; however, this increase is the result of more than just our growth. For the longest time, we placed 

some of our operational priorities above these projects. Frankly, we 

put ourselves in—with regards to our barracks. We now have a severe backlog of repair needs and construction requirements. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
458 

I think the photos in my written statement will provide you an 

appreciation of the conditions of some of our most dire barracks, 

some of which were built actually during the Korean War. 

We are committed to providing adequate billeting for all of our 

existing, unmarried, junior enlisted Marines and non-commissioned 

officers by 2012 and for our increased end strength by 2014. 

On behalf of your Marines, I extend a great appreciation for your 

support this year, and I thank you in advance for your efforts on 

behalf of our brave Servicemen and women who are in harm’s way. 

I assure you that the Marine Corps appreciates the increasing 

competition for the nation’s discretionary resources, and we will 

continue to provide a tangible return on every dollar spent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of General James T. Conway follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
459 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1000 here 42754B.098
460 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1001 here 42754B.099
461 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1002 here 42754B.100
462 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1003 here 42754B.101
463 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1004 here 42754B.102
464 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1005 here 42754B.103
465 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1006 here 42754B.104
466 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1007 here 42754B.105
467 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1008 here 42754B.106
468 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1009 here 42754B.107
469 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1010 here 42754B.108
470 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1011 here 42754B.109
471 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1012 here 42754B.110
472 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1013 here 42754B.111
473 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1014 here 42754B.112
474 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1015 here 42754B.113
475 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Thank you, both. 

SINGLE VS. MARRIED SERVICEMEMBERS

Could I ask you, both, just for the record, what percentage of 

your personnel are married versus single? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Mr. Chairman, for us, it is in the—I want 

to say in the 70 percent range. I can find you the exact number, 

but it really is around 70 to 80 percent. And many of them, as you 

know, are dual-income families, which really is the driver behind 

a lot of the child care initiatives and family support programs. 

General CONWAY. And for us, it is much less than that. It is 40 

to 45 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Forty to 45 percent? Okay. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

One of the questions that I ask every year, and I want to establish a track record so we can trace it, is based on DOD definitions, 

how many personnel do you have in families living in inadequate 

housing and/or inadequate barracks today? 

General Conway, you mentioned 2012 and 2014 as the end goal 

for having them in housing that meet standards. Could you tell me, 

if you have access to that, how many personnel are living in housing or barracks that don’t meet basic DOD standards? And would 

you define what those standards are? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. For our family quarters, the definition of inadequacy is any unit that requires over $50,000 in repair. 

In the continental United States, we do not have quarters that fall 

into that category, but we do have quarters outside of the continental United States that are considered inadequate, specifically 46 

in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 736 in Sasebo, Japan and six in Guam. 

With regard to our single accommodations, single Sailor accommodations, the requirement for us is a one-plus-one configuration 

for our barracks with a 90-square-foot per person square footage. 

At the end of this year, we will have eliminated the inadequate accommodations for our permanent party Sailors. 

As you know, we are working to move our E–3 and below and 

E–4, less than four years of service, off of our ships and provide 

them with a homeport ashore. At the present time, I have 9,000 

Sailors who do not have accommodations. By the end of 2010, I will 

have that number down to 2,100. That does not mean that they 

will be in a one-plus-one configuration. My priority is to give them 

an option off the ship first, and so that is what we are continuing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, just for the record—and this is now a 

DOD-wide definition of adequate family housing, not a Navy unilateral decision—but, technically, under the definition of adequate 

family housing, a family, mother and dad with two children under 

the age of 10, could be living in a home, say, a two or three-bedroom home, and that home might need $49,999 worth of repairs— 

a leaky roof, dishwasher and dryer don’t work, floors are warped— 

but for $49,999 you could fix that home. But even if the Navy had 

no intention of fixing that home, that would technically be defined 

as adequate housing. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
476 

I hope there are not many cases like that, but is it correct that 

technically that home would be defined as adequate housing, because for just $50,000 you could fix it and it would meet standards; 

is that correct? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. That would be the technical definition. It 

would technically be under the adequate standard. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I hope we can work with you on this. I just think 

for obvious reasons that standard doesn’t really give the services 

or the Congress the data we need to figure out how many people 

are truly living in housing that they shouldn’t be living in. But I 

think you told me earlier, on average, you are putting about 

$8,000—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. On average, it is about $8,000, which I 

think speaks to the quality and repair of the homes that our folks 

are living in. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. And also, as we spoke, the authorizations 

that we have been given by the Congress to pursue public-private 

ventures has, in my entire time in the Navy, which is, as you so 

kindly mentioned to be about 35 years, I have never seen our Sailors live in the kind of housing as they currently are. And I believe 

that has been made possible through your endorsement and approval of the public-private ventures. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is great news to hear. Thank you. 

General Conway? 

General CONWAY. Sure. I will get back to you, if I can, with the 

exact numbers, but just to give you an overarching perspective, let 

me say that we do have substandard housing in both the United 

States and overseas for some of our families that are based there. 

[The information follows:] 

As of January 2008, there were 69 families remaining in inadequate governmentowned family housing. There were another 2,915 families remaining in inadequate 

privatized housing. 

As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007 contracts were in place to eliminate all inadequate units. As of January 2008, there remained 175 inadequate governmentowned family housing units scheduled to be demolished as part of an FY 2007 

MILCON project. As of the end of January 2008, there remained another 4,349 inadequate homes that are scheduled to be demolished through privatization. 

As of January 2008, there were 2,278 Marines living in inadequate, ganghead 

troop energy/surge barracks at Camp Pendleton (Camp Horno) and Camp Lejeune 

(French Creek). 

As of January 2008, there were 4,233 inadequate barracks spaces. 

But I would hasten to say that we are fast overtaking those 

issues with the public-private ventures. By this year, we are at 

about 96 percent of those public-private ventures that are effective, 

and in another couple of years it is going to be at 97 percent. And 

the few exceptions that we have in the United States will be conscious exceptions for valid reasons. So this whole public-private 

venture concept has just been a tremendous windfall to us. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
477 

When a Marine sergeant with four children can have a 2,300– 

square-foot house overlooking the Pacific, you know that things are 

definitely looking up. 

I would add that I don’t know how many Marines I have talked 

to overseas who say that they had a level of comfort leaving their 

families back on the base now because it is such a nicer community 

and a nice place, and the family is not thinking about going home 

for the duration of the deployment. So it really helps reduce the 

consternation given the tempo that we are experiencing. 

I wish I could say the same about the barracks; I cannot. We 

have barracks that were built well before the Korean War and 

World War II. I am not proud to say that as an institution we have 

done this to ourselves in a very real sense, to the degree that we 

have taken available monies and simply not put them against the 

housing. We have prioritized other things ahead of housing now for 

a long time to the point where we are currently, as I said in the 

statement— 

Unlike the other Services, we look to billet our young Marines, 

E–1 through E–3, in two-man quarters. After they become an NCO, 

then they can expect a single room with a head facility. But until 

that time, we think it is good for us as an institution, because we 

are the youngest of all the Services, by far, and it is also good for 

the nation, because we save some monies in not asking for that single-man kind of capability. 

We have a program that is built through 2012 that will take care 

of those billeting concerns. My predecessor finally slapped the table 

and said, ‘‘We have got to do something about this, the time is 

now,’’ and here is a program, certainly, that is underway. 

As you mentioned, sir, in your opening statement, we also funded 

now for some of those additional quarters we are going to have to 

have by 2012, 2014 as we bring new Marines onboard, those additional 27,000 Marines. 

So we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination, 

but I think, comparatively, we are much better off than we were 

at one time, and we see some definite lights on the horizon. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you have a ballpark guess as to how many 

barracks right now don’t meet what you would consider to be 

standards for Marines? 

General CONWAY. Sir, I would say it is probably at least half. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Half. What would that number—in real numbers, 

how many barracks would that be? 

General CONWAY. Sir, the program for new barracks is calling for 

30, I think, so I hate to give you a rough estimation but if you are 

looking at essentially half of that being substandard at some point, 

you are—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. 30 barracks? 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Different barracks projects? 

General CONWAY. Different buildings; yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. You meant in terms of the number of individual Marines that are living in barracks that we don’t believe 

meets modern standards. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
478 

General CONWAY. Well, part of that would be a distortion because we have got so many people overseas, and so that would not 

be a correct detail. I can get all that for you—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you? 

General CONWAY [continuing]. And lay out those that are deployed and not—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. If you wouldn’t mind giving us the hard 

numbers, because I think each year we just want to compare how 

we are doing this year, and I think we are making progress. Everybody deserves credit for that, but if you could follow up with the 

hard facts, that would be great. 

General CONWAY. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

As of January 2008, there were 69 families remaining in inadequate governmentowned family housing. There were another 2,915 families remaining in inadequate 

privatized housing. 

As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007 contracts were in place to eliminate all inadequate units. As of January 2008, there remained 175 inadequate governmentowned family housing units scheduled to be demolished as part of an FY 2007 

MILCON project. As of the end of January 2008, there remained another 4,349 inadequate homes that are scheduled to be demolished through privatization. 

As of January 2008, there were 2,278 Marines living in inadequate, ganghead 

troop emergency/surge barracks at Camp Pendleton (Camp Horno) and Camp 

Lejeune (French Creek). 

As of January 2008, there were 4,233 inadequate barracks spaces. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, both. 

Mr. Wamp. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, I think the chairman gives us a very good forecast on 

things, and I know that last year’s bill and the coming budget request are favorable, but BRAC is still an issue in terms of meeting 

our 2011 deadline, and I know that the Navy shows in the outyears some savings that will be derived from BRAC, yet in the 

2008 budget request versus the actual omnibus appropriation bill, 

there was a delta between the request and the final funding 

amount. 

What does that do to your schedule? Does that put a pinch on 

you? And is your 2009 BRAC request actually just trying to catch 

up with what you didn’t get in 2008? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. Because of the rescission, we have 

put in jeopardy being able to fulfill the requirement to be complete 

by 2011. And it actually affects two projects: One for me in Seattle, 

and then Jim has one in Quantico. So that is very important to us 

if that could be restored. 

Mr. WAMP. General, do you need to speak to that or just, ‘‘Ditto’’? 

General CONWAY. Pretty much the same, sir. We do have one 

other BRAC issue. There are only two, really, that affect us. The 

one that would bring together various intelligence agencies in 

Quantico, with BRAC already being looked at with regards to that, 

not the least of which is the traffic, because Quantico is a pretty 

busy place already. 

But the other thing is that we have a facility in Kansas City that 

is getting ready to move from there this year down to New Orleans 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
479 

ostensibly, but there will need to be construction started on the federal city in New Orleans or we won’t be able to go there in town. 

We will wind up moving out. 

So both of those issues are BRAC-related and both—— 

MOVING FROM JAPAN TO GUAM

Mr. WAMP. I am also interested in this Okinawa to Guam piece 

of the big transformation, and I say tongue-in-cheek, make sure 

that the island of Guam doesn’t sink with all this construction and 

concrete going into it. Give us an update on that from your perspective in terms of the transition because it is a major shift, and 

a huge investment over the next 5 years. 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir, it really is. And let me start with the 

investment aspect of it, sir. The reason, I think, that our government finds it so unattractive is that there is estimated to be a bill 

somewhere between $10 billion and $11 billion, and the Japanese, 

at this point, are signed on to pay for $6 billion plus of that, and 

we would pick up the remaining $4 billion plus. 

What it would entail is, essentially, the movement of about 8,000 

Marines from Okinawa onto the island of Guam. Our major headquarters would go, the—headquarters would go, as would both 

the—and division headquarters. 

What we consider to be, I think, earnest money is the Japanese 

commencing construction on what we call the Futenma Replacement Facility. The Futenma Airfield right now is in the middle of 

a very popular area. It wasn’t when it was built, but it has grown 

up around there a good deal, so the Japanese want to move that 

facility, as a part of the arrangement, off what we call Camp 

Schwab on the island, and they are in the process of, again, doing 

their own environmental aspects of that construction. 

We had come upon a mild problem—we hope it will be mild—and 

that is the discovery of a little mammal called dugong, which lives 

in the coral off of Camp Schwab. Now, the Japanese are aware it 

is there, and they are not concerned about it, because there are 

tens of thousands of other dugongs elsewhere. It is actually one of 

our courts in the United States that has said that the Department 

did not give the dugong proper consideration in arriving at our negotiations with the Japanese. So although we don’t have a halt 

work, we do have some judicial issues that we have got to get over. 

In terms of our spending, sir, and in terms of what is taking 

place on Guam, until such time as the Japanese start to build, we 

are only in the planning phase. My commander in the Pacific, Lieutenant General John Goodman, is looking at developing training 

opportunities. The Navy is looking at reinforcing that with some 

interconnectors, both high-speed vessels and perhaps some 

amphibs. 

We look at establishing some training bases around the Pacific 

region that will help us with engagement but also help to get the 

Marines off the island. I think you indicated it is very small, and 

there is not a lot of training opportunity there, so it concerns us 

some that our forward forces would be fully trained and ready for 

whatever might happen. 

But I would simply finish, I think, by saying, we are not going 

to be spending much of any money until such time as we see, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
480 

again, proper investment on the part of the Japanese that would 

tell us that their series of governments now agree with it and support it. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. WAMP. General, a question in this round. Last week, we 

heard about the need for Marines in Afghanistan from Admiral 

Fallon. You are at 184,000 in 2007—184,000 on your ramp up, I 

think. What can we look for in 2008 in terms of your continued recruitment of these new Marines that are needed in the future? 

General CONWAY. Sir, we actually exceeded—our goal was 

184,000. We actually beat that by a couple of thousand. We think 

we can do that again this year based on every indication thus far. 

We think that we can be as high as 194,000 Marines based on this 

year’s efforts. Our recruiters are just doing magnificent work out 

there. 

And, of course, I think you know that we are building those units 

first that are most highly stressed. And we have built a couple of 

infantry battalions. There is a third one that will be in the rotation 

soon. Other units, MPs, engineers, intelligence folks, we are trying 

to build those units to the greatest level of OPTEMPO for the—requirements, such as the—— 

Mr. WAMP. Well, a week ago, Friday, my nephew graduated from 

boot camp at Parris Island, so my family is doing our part to help 

you all. 

General CONWAY. We will take care of him for you. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

As I recognize Mr. Farr, could I just follow up on the BRAC question, and you can have your staff submit it in writing, a summary 

of the negative impacts. You didn’t get any of the—$933 million, 

as I recall, was the amount that we used for other priorities, including veterans’ health care, and we need to try to substitute all 

of it or the vast majority of that. If you could give us, in writing, 

what the real consequences are of the issues you discussed, that 

would be helpful. 

[The information follows:] 

Navy’s share of the $939 million FY 2008 Congressional BRAC 2005 reduction is 

$143 million. The lack of appropriations will result in a delay of awarding two 

BRAC construction projects totaling $97 million (Investigative Agencies Consolidation, Quantico VA; Reserve Center, Fort Lewis, WA) and delay move-related expenditures in the amount of $46 million (Operations & Maintenance) from FY 2008 to 

FY 2009. These delays add uncertainty and hardship for the Navy personnel and 

families affected by the move. These delays prevent achieving management efficiencies and savings that were the basis for the BRAC decisions. Without the 

prompt and full restoration of funds, Navy’s ability to accomplish BRAC by the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline will be jeopardized. 

The FY 2009 budget submission does not address nor attempt to recapture the 

$143 million FY 2008 reduction. 

Mr. Farr? 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to commend both of you for your outstanding service. We 

are really proud that both of you command our military resources 

with such great capacity that you do. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
481 

I want to just mention, General, that I represent the Defense 

Language Institute, and I am—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. You do? [Laughter.] 

You have done a great, great job. 

Mr. FARR. It is all I ever talk about here, that and the Naval 

Postgraduate School. 

It is just fascinating to walk in and see those classes in—whatever language of the moment. They are small classes, but the 

young people who are there are our Army’s best resource. DLI, 

which is under Army TRADOC Command, tells me that the first 

students to come for a new language are the Marines. They call up 

and say, ‘‘We are sending seven Marines here to learn Pashtu,’’ and 

they say, ‘‘We will be ready for them,’’ and hang up the phone and 

say, ‘‘We need to better start a Pashtu class; we don’t have one.’’ 

And by the time the students get there, they have one set up. It 

is amazing. 

And I want to just tell both of you, because the Defense Department has been so supportive. We passed, last week, a ‘‘crisis corps’’ 

for the State Department and USAID to attract the most talented 

people who are interested in serving, much like your talent in the 

military. These federal government civilians would come together 

in a single command with training, not defense training, but civil 

affairs and humanitarian operations training. I think the Senate is 

going to pass H.R. 1084. The president wants it badly, and you 

really ought to help him. 

General CONWAY. We need it badly. 

Mr. FARR. I appreciate your testimony, Admiral, about bringing 

together the Navy Installations Command, the idea of a one stop 

for running installations. What you and I talked about on the 

phone is you say we leverage the best practices and successes of 

individual installations as we provide shore operations support on 

a regional level. 

And the idea is that the best practices can all be brought into 

one common command like you pointed out was a response to the 

fires in California. The problem is that a lot of these installations 

are much alike, but, as you know, the Naval Postgraduate School 

is different. It is an academic institution. 

You are going to go out and talk with the school, I know, because 

you are going to address the graduating class. I hope you get into 

that issue and where the Installation Command doesn’t follow 

through, where just small micro decisions don’t get done or the 

delays are so long. Because it is a real problem for operating the 

Naval Postgraduate School. 

I also wanted to ask you, as we execute our 2009 budget, to abide 

by the following principles. First was aggressively identify and 

eliminate infrastructure identified as excess capacity. Hasn’t it always been done internally, for instance when you got prepared for 

the last BRAC round? Do you have a lot of that information or they 

didn’t go into excess capacity? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Actually, Mr. Farr, if I could just start with 

the NPS. Coincidentally, Dan Oliver happened to be in the building 

yesterday and he and I sat down for about a half an hour and 

talked about the school and also some of the things that I will be 

able to engage in when I go out there. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
482 

But I would say, one of the things that has become apparent to 

me since becoming CNO about five months ago is that—and you 

point to an aspect of how we are managing and resourcing our 

shore installations—is that we still, even though our Installations 

Command manages the regions, within those regions, we still have 

other activities under different commands that are in there. 

And what we are doing is beginning to, still under Installations 

Command, but bringing in all of the issues of all of the participants 

and then looking at, what is the best approach given the different 

real estate tenants that exist there, and how do we make sure that 

we are covering and providing the types of services to meet the 

needs of all the various activities that may be in there. So I think 

that is going to help, getting to the point that you raised. 

The other aspect is that as we go into the development of the fiscal year 2010 budget, to be able to look at what I consider the three 

key institutions of learning and development in our Navy, and 

those are: Where we begin, which is the Naval Academy, where we 

then enhance and advance the academic qualifications, which is the 

Naval Post Graduate School, and then the Naval War College, 

where we then add the higher levels of operational art and strategic thinking to our officer corps. 

And in that 2010 budget, to look at how are we allowing the tide 

to lift all boats, if you will. So that is something that I am very 

interested in doing. 

Mr. FARR. Good. Good. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. With regard to the excess infrastructure, 

yes, we did get ready for that on BRAC, but I travel around a bit. 

I commanded the Pacific Fleet, and then I had the privilege of then 

coming east and commanding the Atlantic Fleet. And we have a lot 

of bases, and sometimes to clear my head I go for runs around the 

bases, and I will run by a building that is vacant and not being 

maintained or by some pier space that is not being used and is beginning to fall down and create problems. 

So that is the type of excess infrastructure that I am talking 

about, not necessarily closing bases but how do we really get the 

infrastructure within our bases and within our structures, that 

which we don’t need and it is either in disrepair and becomes a 

hazard or doesn’t reflect well on the Navy. What should we do to 

get rid of that? And then also on those bases how do we make sure 

that we have the right type of infrastructure to the mission? 

Mr. FARR. Well, I applaud you for doing that. Because you mentioned the academic institutions that you have, what I have 

learned is that there is some excess capacity within those classrooms, and there is a demand out there, usually in the civilian section, or other federal agencies or, in some cases, in the private sector. I think that is one place the military has to look into to see 

where can we get a better bang for the buck. Can we invite these 

civilians into the classroom? 

It is not like applying to a regular public or private university. 

This is space available where there is a decision made by the Command that this will be an appropriate person to have in the classroom. Because I think you can get a better bang for your buck. You 

may have some Title 10 restrictions on that, but we may need to 

make some exceptions to those in the modern era. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
483 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think, for example, our Chief of Naval Research estimates that we have a need for about 400 engineers a 

year, civilian engineers. And if there is capacity, for example, at 

the post-graduate school, he is an advocate of being able to bring 

those civilians in. I would say, as you mentioned, perhaps there 

needs to be some legislative relief, but, also, I believe those who are 

sending those for that engineering degree need to kick into the pot 

as well. 

Mr. FARR. Well, as we do in the IMET Program, we could do the 

same thing for civilian IMET. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. I wanted to thank you, gentlemen, for your service 

and all you do for this country. I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. He is the smartest one on the subcommittee. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

DISPERSAL OF ASSETS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I have got a couple of questions. 

Welcome back, General, and, Admiral, it is great to have you in 

front of the subcommittee. 

Admiral, as you probably know, I have had a lot of discussion 

with senior Navy officials about dispersing our assets, including 

your predecessor, Admiral Mullen. And as you know, right now, on 

the East Coast, all our nuclear carriers, which soon will be all the 

carriers we have, are home ported in Norfolk, and when you look 

at dispersing assets, both nuclear and non-nuclear, that is a lot of 

eggs in one basket. I think there are six big amphibs as well in 

Norfolk. 

And then you look at the fact that on the West Coast, the Pacific 

fleet, we have got, I guess, six carriers and, counting Japan, you 

have got three different home ports. 

So you haven’t been before the subcommittee before, and I would 

like to hear you talk a little bit about your view, what your perspective is on this whole issue of dispersal of assets, particularly 

in today’s world of terrorism and all the kinds of things. You know, 

it brings back memories of Pearl Harbor. But I would appreciate 

your perspective. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. And thank you for that question, 

sir, because it leads to something that I charged my staff to do 

shortly after I became CNO, and that was for us to take a look at 

what I call our force laydown. Where do we have the ships, where 

do we have the airplanes, what is the command structure that we 

have in place, and do we have it in the right place? Does it best 

serve our response requirements? Does it best serve the presence 

requirements that we may be called upon to perform globally? And 

are we able to support our people in a way that they are the most 

competent and then their quality of life is as good as we can make 

it? So I have my staff working on that. 

As you know, we also have about ready to be put out for public 

comment the Environmental Impact Statement, specifically focused 

on the base in Mayport and the 13 options of the different force 

packages that we could put down there. That will be out for public 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
484 

comment with a decision to be made by the Secretary in January 

of next year. 

So I believe that when those two things come together, it will 

really inform us as to, do we have the laydown right and to be able 

to base that decision on a strategic underpinning of it is the best 

thing for the country and for the Navy if we position our forces in 

this way. And I look forward to getting that from my staff. I am 

very interested in doing the same in the Pacific as well. 

As General Conway mentioned, with his moving Marines there, 

what do we in the Navy have to change to be able to support the 

missions that the Navy and Marine Corps have to be performing 

in the next couple of decades? 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Mr. CRENSHAW. You mentioned the environmental impact study. 

As I understand it, there is a preliminary report that is supposed 

to be made public this Friday. Is that still the plan? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, my understanding, Mr. Crenshaw, is 

we are on track to release it here very, very soon, and I am not 

aware of any issue that will be an impediment to that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And as you may know, last year, this subcommittee added language to the omnibus appropriations bill that 

said that the Navy would—as soon as the preliminary report is released, then the Navy would do a statement of just how much it 

would cost in terms of dredging and in terms of multi-construction 

if this environmental impact study, which is about Mayport, once 

that was completed, there would be a study to say, ‘‘These are the 

costs that would be involved to make the upgrades to make 

Mayport capable of home porting a carrier.’’ 

Are you aware of that, and are they getting ready to—I think it 

was a 30-day timeframe to begin that study. Is that on track? I 

mean, once—is that still—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. What would be the dredging cost 

and impact in the basin to take it down to a depth, and that process will go forward. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And any other military construction. Because 

there has been a lot of non-nuclear upgrades done in Mayport—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. But I think everything else—just 

last question, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t presume to know what 

the EIS study is going to show or what the Navy is going to decide, 

but a couple of hypothetical questions: If the decision were made 

to home port a nuclear carrier at Mayport, obviously you would 

have to have the dredging done, but some of the military construction projects, like the nuclear facility, I think it is called a nuclear 

maintenance facility, would it necessarily have to be in place if a 

carrier came and wasn’t due for an availability for a couple of 

years? 

Would it be within reason to say, once we have done the warf 

upgrades and the dredging upgrades, some of the military construction that might be nuclear-specific would need to be in place, not 

necessarily the day that the home port was announced but certainly in a reasonable time to do any availability. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
485 

I mean, that is a hypothetical question, but, in general, is that 

precedent, I mean, when you home port a carrier other than times 

when not everything is in place that doesn’t need to be in place 

until availability takes place. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. As you said, Mr. Crenshaw, that is kind of 

a hypothetical question, but we, as a matter of routine, have not 

homeported nuclear carriers in very many places. I can say that 

the work that we are doing, for example, to prepare the USS 

GEORGE WASHINGTON’s arrival into Japan, the work that we 

will have done there will be able to support the maintenance availability. 

As you know, in the Northwest, we have a nuclear certified shipyard. San Diego already has the infrastructure for nuclear aircraft 

carriers and submarines, and then, of course, Norfolk has significant nuclear repair and maintenance capabilities there. So that is 

kind of new ground that we are plowing, and we have to look at 

that very, very carefully and the type of support that would be required. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Got you. I mean, the dredging, obviously, and 

any kind of warp upgrades, but if there was something that was 

controlled maintenance facility that took a year to build that wasn’t 

going to be needed, that might—again, that is hypothetical, it is in 

the realm of possibility. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sure, but I also would say that it is very important because of very, very high standards that we place on the 

safety of our nuclear-powered warship that we really have to make 

sure that the requirement facilities are in place because of the safety issues that are involved. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Roughead, thank you very much for your service. 

General Conway, thank you for your service. 

I wanted to ask, sort of, military construction, first on that. With 

respect to housing, I know the chairman was mentioning it earlier, 

but I wanted to ask for your input on it, because it seems to be 

the big challenge in terms of moving to further accommodate our 

junior enlisted members with their barrack situations, and the 

move toward the privatization has been successful where it has 

been done. 

And, certainly, dealing with our operation and maintenance 

budget, this has been a program that has been quite successful. 

And yet because change is involved, there has obviously been a lot 

of reticence in the Pentagon to move very quickly toward expanding it all too far and wide. 

But I was wondering whether you could comment on your perspectives on it, given the fact that so far out there it has provided 

a pretty good method of providing quality housing for our soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, and yet it has certainly got a lot of potential for further application. And what you 

see is that application, and I know the Navy has done a great deal 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
486 

with it. Do you think we can expand it to some of our junior enlisted for their barracks? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. You will have to look far and wide 

to find a stronger proponent of public-private venture housing and 

barracks. 

I have seen the quality of life of our Sailors increase dramatically 

since we moved into that program. Personally, I am about ready to 

move into my own fourth PPV house, and I think it is a great success for us. 

Most recently, I was struck during a visit in San Diego with the 

new Pacific Beacon PPV venture. I would move in there tomorrow 

myself, because it really is not only a wonderful facility but it provides the types of services that young men and women expect when 

they come into the Navy, and we are able to do that through PPV. 

I would encourage continued use of the PPV for not only our 

married Sailors but also for single Sailors and the authorizations 

that we have in place for the three single-Sailor PPVs—San Diego, 

Norfolk and Mayport—but then to see if we could ride on the authorizations in San Diego should we be able to expand that singleSailor PPV. In other words, I would like to see the authorizations 

that we already have in place to be the authorizations that allow 

us to expand it in the future. It is wonderful, and it is a huge difference in quality of life for our people. 

General CONWAY Sir, we are watching it carefully. The concern 

that we have has to do with occupancy rates. 

Mr. KENNEDY Right. 

General CONWAY As much as we deploy and as much as we are 

forward based right now, we are concerned that we could build 

something that would then be unfair to the owners and unfair to 

the Marines—— 

Mr. KENNEDY Right. 

General CONWAY [continuing]. In terms of the payment arrangements. 

So we are watching the Navy experiment very closely. I think 

there is the potential there for better quality of life. There is the 

potential that maybe our supporting establishment, our bases who 

are not expected to deploy, could live in something like that. 

Mr. KENNEDY Right. 

General CONWAY But those are determinations we are going to 

have to make and I think probably maybe even before this year is 

out. 

Mr. KENNEDY Well, we certainly look forward as a committee to 

work with you and see that quality housing comes to every single 

person wearing a uniform. 

DDG 1000

Admiral Roughead, while you are here, if you could comment on 

the issue of DDG 1000 and what we see in the future as far as— 

and application of this, kind of, one-size-fits-all command and control that we have managed to finally put in place now, these new 

systems, command and control that we are off and running on but 

yet, obviously, we are facing this initial bow wave of costs, and people may look at that and say we should redo this all over again 

when all the work has been done to set us off in this course. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
487 

What is your feeling? I know Admiral Mullen was very much a 

part of the initial move to get this going. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, I am pleased that in the last couple 

of weeks we have been able to put two of the DDG 1000s on a contract and begin moving forward with that ship. Because unlike previous ships, and particularly combatants, that we have built in the 

past, where we would introduce, perhaps, two new technologies, the 

DDG 1000 has 10 that we are moving forward. 

The one that I believe is critically important, has the technology 

that has allowed us to decrease our staff, I think that what we will 

derive from the DDG 1000 is we will clearly shape the future of 

how we build the follow-on, for example, the cruiser follow-on that 

we have, but getting these ships going that will allow us to put 

those technologies into play and then from that I believe that then 

just feed future programs. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, that is encouraging to hear. Obviously, a lot 

of constraints in our capital budget for shipbuilding and so forth, 

but this is obviously a big program, and we want to make sure we 

don’t stumble as we get started, because it has been an investment 

we have made for years, and it is just about to pay off, so you have 

got to keep going. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Judge Carter? 

FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, both, for being here. I apologize for being late. Way 

too much stuff going on here. 

It is my understanding the Marine Corps has expressed a real 

desire to increase the family services support for the Marines and 

their family members, especially those folks who are coming back 

from being deployed and while they are deployed. How does this 

budget help to meet that goal? 

General CONWAY. Sir, our family services programs for years has 

relied on virtually next to nothing, $5 million a year in the budget 

for family programs. Now, to contrast that, we were spending $50 

million a year more for college education programs, assistance programs, if you will. 

So comparing the bases, you can see right away that we didn’t 

have it right. We relied on the practice of volunteers to do most of 

the heavy work, and perhaps in peacetime that gets you through, 

but that certainly doesn’t get you through a protracted conflict like 

this. 

So we recently decided to reprogram about $30 million of our 

own monies in order to be able to put more against the requirement that we saw through our family services program and then 

probably two weeks after that walked in to see the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, on something entirely different, 

and he asked me, could we use—could the Marine Corps use $100 

million of GWOT monies in order to be able to really jumpstart this 

family program. 

The Army was going to get six or seven times that, although a 

lot of theirs was associated with some level of MILCON and that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
488 

wasn’t our intent. But he said it seemed like a fair apportionment, 

and if I could spend it—I assured him we could—that it would be 

likely in fact and would really be appreciated. 

Mr. CARTER. And is this budget addressing those needs and as 

we continue down the road to approve these family services, are we 

sending it to them and do we even know how we want to go forward? Because I think this committee wants those family services 

to be there for our Marines. 

General CONWAY. Sure. My officer, my three-star general who 

works the programs and resources, said to me just the other day, 

you can see that we are creating a level of expectation here to meet 

a dependent need. But we are going to need to get some of this, 

I think, into the top line. He doesn’t think that even with the, perhaps, GWOT money this year and next that we can sustain even 

the efforts with $30 million over the course of future years. So he 

feels like we are going to have to ask for more in that context to 

be able to support our families. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I think we will certainly want to hear about 

that as it comes down the pike. 

Now, it is my understanding that the Marine Corps has been 

pretty successful in the growing the force project; kind of ahead of 

schedule. 

General CONWAY. We are being incredibly successful, and I attribute that to the great young Americans out there who want to 

fight for their country. They, I think, have that expectation when 

they join the Marine Corps. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, of course, as we do this, we want to make sure 

that we are adequately providing facilities and barracks and all the 

other things as we grow the force, because I think all of us see the 

necessity to grow the force across the board is very important. 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. And as you have said, and others have said, these 

are family folks that are fighting wars for us these days, and we 

have to provide this privatization in housing that we have been 

talking about and other things. We need to stay ahead of the curve, 

not playing catch up. This is my personal opinion. I think that 

makes a better corps, it makes a better fighting force. 

General CONWAY. I agree with you. 

Mr. CARTER. And so I am hopeful that you will highlight these 

things in this budget and other budgets to come, as we move down 

this line and growing the force so that when we put these Marines 

into fight, we also are giving them the services and the lifestyle 

when they get home. 

General CONWAY. Sir, we project that we are going to see $4.6 

billion go into the top line in 2009, and it is about that same 

amount on through 2012. Now, there is this concern that we have 

got that because of our success that we are seeing, with the additional 2,000 last year and what we think will be an additional 

2,000 this year, we are getting a little bit ahead of our planning 

curve. 

Mr. CARTER. That is kind of why I asked the question. 

General CONWAY. But, again, my three-star general who managed that thing is very good, and I think he is doing some visitaVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00488 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
489 

tions and some of those types of things to make sure that we are 

resourcing—— 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I just wanted to express my concern. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. And let me just ditto that Judge 

Carter speaks for all of us in saying this subcommittee wants to 

stay firmly committed to and focused on improving quality of life 

for families. No one is more aware than the two of you and the sacrifices that children are making and the spouses are making. 

That leads me to my question. For the record, could each of you 

submit how many child care centers would be needed to meet 100 

percent of the need? And also same question, vis-a-vis youth activity centers. 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

INFORMATION

In addition to the 13 MILCON Child Care Centers that are planned across the 

FYDP to meet 80 percent of the child care need, Navy requires 12 more Centers 

to meet 100 percent of the need. The extension and higher threshold limits of the 

expiring NDAA authority that increased the minor construction authority for Child 

Care Centers (serving ages birth through 12 years of age), in addition to MILCON, 

would greatly assist us in meeting expansion goals for our families. 

The current OSD goal for all Services is to achieve 35 percent participation for 

our Youth programs. Currently the Navy averages between 19 and 24 percent and 

we project to meet the OSD goal within the next two years. Our ongoing Youth program improvements include: (1) Utilizing our non-appropriated fund construction 

program, Navy has successfully funded/completed 22 new Youth Centers since 1997 

and we will continue to do so to meet the needs of our military Youth; (2) our national partnership contracts with organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs of 

America and 4H that allow our youths to participate in recreation center in the local 

communities; and (3) new innovative programs that capture pre-teen and teenagers 

interests, as well as programs that focus on deployment stress and specific related 

subjects. Other than our planned non-appropriated fund recapitalization construction program over upcoming years, we currently assess that no additional facility 

infrastructure footprint is required to meet our goals. 

To achieve 100 percent of potential need (the Marine Corps is currently at 71%), 

using exclusively Child Development Centers (CDC) (MILCON), the Marine Corps 

would need 22 MILCON projects to account for an additional 6,565 spaces. Of that 

number, the following projects are currently being planned: 

—In response to the President’s State of the Union guidance, we are advocating 

for acceleration of six CDC MILCON projects (one at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, 

three at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, and two at Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton). 

—In addition, four other CDC MILCON projects are also beginning initial planning (one each at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point, Marine Corps Air Station New River, and Marine Corps Base 

Quantico). 

If these MILCON projects are funded, the Marine Corps will need an additional 

twelve unplanned MILCON projects in order to achieve 100 percent of the potential 

need. Plus, in order to properly staff and operate these 22 facilities, the Marine 

Corps would require an additional $48.6M annually, based on an annual per space 

operating cost projection of approximately $7,400. 

It should be noted, however, CDC construction via MILCON will not be the exclusive means today to meet the child care needs of Marine Corps parents. We continue 

to seek partnerships with public and private organizations that meet our established standards (e.g., the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral 

Agencies) to expand our off-base care options and contribute to our space and capacity solutions. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
490 

With regard to youth activity centers, in accordance with OSD Policy, MWR Youth 

Centers must be constructed with non-appropriated funds. Marine Corps Youth 

Centers compete for funding as part of the larger Marine Corps Community Services 

Non-appropriated Fund Construction Program. There are no OSD prescribed potential need formulas or standards for program capacity as are prescribed for child development programs. Therefore, facility requirements are identified by installation 

commanders based on local assessment of need for afterschool, evening or weekend 

recreation needs of the on-base youth population. It is additionally expected that 

youth recreational needs will be supported by off-base community support programs 

such as YMCAs, local school programs, community sport programs, etc. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to ask you about inflation. I don’t 

know if in your MILCON planning process it has changed, but in 

years past OMB dictated a 2.4 percent inflation package per year 

for military construction, which, frankly, we all know doesn’t even 

meet the laugh test in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast, other 

parts of the country and the world. 

Are you still having to operate under that assumption? Are you 

allowed within the Pentagon planning process to make more realistic assumptions about inflation in the out-years? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is no question 

that inflation is having an effect on what we are able to build and 

how quickly we are able to build it. I would see it, and my staff 

engineer would reluctantly come in and tell me about the growth 

and how it was kind of pricing us out. But we do follow the templates that are provided. We plan the projects, but we are feeling 

the tension with inflation. The growth in some of the countries 

around the world in things like steel and the demands for cement 

and what have you is producing an inflation pressure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Does OMB still demand that you use a 2.4 

percent inflation factor? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. In our budgeting process, yes, sir, we follow 

the standard. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So that basically means the second, third, fourth 

and fifth years FYDP are underestimated relative to the true cost 

of construction. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. If the predictions are accurate. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General Conway. 

General CONWAY. I will say I just went to St. Louis this last 

week for a presentation, and I saw my brother-in-law there who is 

in construction. He said that raw materials are down, and we 

talked about it some. He said it runs sideways but, generally, it is 

the Northeastern, so your concern is still correct, sir, but it is seasonal, it is regional and runs sideways. So there are a lot of variables in all of that. 

REPROGRAMMINGS

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Maybe I will finish not with a question but 

just a comment to get this on the record. There has been discussion 

about seeing that all individually listed projects be put in the statute, not in the report language of our appropriations bill. It has a 

certain ring with the public, want to hide this in the report language. 

The report language is out there to the public and the press to 

see anyway, but given you have unexpected inflation in some parts 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
491 

of the country, if we put these projects in the statute, then no 

longer can we and the Senate subcommittee approve 

reprogrammings to move money from one project where one installation will say it came in under budget. 

And under the present system, you ask us to move that money 

to another project where in the Pacific Northwest you are facing 

maybe a 15 percent inflation rate per year. And in order to please 

the public out there, we put all this in the statute. We will no 

longer have that authority. 

So I say that for the record. If that is to be the case for the 2009 

appropriation bills, we need to think seriously about how we give 

you the flexibility to be able to handle that. 

You could end up with a project that is 90 percent completed, the 

day care centers or barracks, but you can’t complete it for an entire 

year, because we can’t sign our name on the letter and give you 

that reprogramming authority. So I hope we will keep that on the 

table as we move forward this year. 

Mr. Wamp. 

AFRICOM

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Admiral, we were fascinated with Admiral Fallon’s testimony 

last week. I think the AFRICOM proposal is on the table, investments in Djibouti, I think, in your budget request of $31 million. 

For a non-permanent facility, that is getting into some real money, 

and we know that there is more to follow, but you talk about securing the maritime assets. What do you foresee there? What will your 

role be? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. With regard to AFRICOM, we are 

in the process of providing the manpower to man the staff that is 

taking place and thinking through what the right command relationships are for my Naval Component Combatant Commander and 

supporting General Ward and the work that he is going to do down 

there. We have already had more activity on the African continent 

in the last couple of years than probably in the previous couple of 

decades. 

But with regard to Djibouti, I do believe that Djibouti will be a 

point of presence for quite some time. As you know, we have a 

lease there, and I think that there will be presence. It is a critical 

area and a critical fight that we are involved in. So the improvements that we are making there are to enable the joint force—and 

it is not just Sailors but Marines, Army and Air Force—to be able 

to better perform their missions that I think are important in that 

very critical area of the world. 

JOINT BASING

Mr. WAMP. Let me ask you all both a question about joint basing. 

I flew back from China and other ends of the world with Representative Clyburn in January, and we stopped at Hickam, he 

hadn’t been there before. But I remember when chief enlisted men 

came in here. The Air Force really has a beef with joint basing. 

From your perspectives, where is the joint basing process right 

now? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
492 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I will speak from some experience out in the 

Pacific, because I have had responsibility for Pearl Harbor, and, as 

you know, Pearl and Hickam are together. Also, looking out toward 

Guam. I think at the local level, we have had some good efforts by 

the commanders in doing these tabletop exercises that allow us to 

identify where some of the issues would be and how we work our 

way through the bases. Particularly, I think it is important to 

never lose sight of what the missions of those bases are and can 

we support that. 

OSD has recently issued some guidance that the Services are 

taking aboard and working our way through. I do believe that 

there are some efficiencies and benefits to the joint basing process, 

but each base is going to be different, and it is a function of mission, it is a function of population, it is a function of the location, 

where it is. And so I don’t believe that one size fits all and that 

we have to look very hard at that. 

Where we are in trying to prejudge what the standards of living 

or the core levels will be, I think it is a little premature to determine whether somebody is going to win or lose. I think we have 

to work our way through it. We have to keep in mind that the objective is to provide the right mission support for whatever that 

joint base is there to do and also to provide the quality of life for 

our people, whether they be single or married. 

Mr. WAMP. General Conway. 

General CONWAY. Sir, I was just thinking as the CNO was talking, we have very few of our bases that are joint in any way. Probably the closest you come to it is on Okinawa where we share some 

facilities there with respect to BRAC 2005—Joint Basing Guidance, 

the Corps has one participant, HQMC Henderson Hall. And as you 

were saying, I think all those factors play, as well as, sort of, the 

personalities of the local commanders and how well they are able 

to coordinate. Because it is essentially at that level where joint basing takes place. 

Now, I think in the future it is going to be more driven with us. 

We are going to be on Guam with Air Force, with Navy and, most 

recently, even some Army will be there, and I think we will look 

at Guam as one big base in some ways. 

And, of course, the Joint Strike Fighter, some of the noise factors 

and so forth, some of the closing of certain bases, the enhancements of others, we may see it more. But I still tend to think it 

will be pretty much a local type of thing as opposed to something 

of a Service headquarters or even—— 

Mr. WAMP. General Conway, in closing for my questions, Mr. 

Chairman, a new guy like me wanted to see some real needs in 

housing and child care and then even see some things that showed 

the past and the future of the Marine Corps. I think your master 

sergeant recommended Camp Pendleton. Would you say the same 

thing, that would be a good place to go to see, kind of, where we 

have been and where we need to go? 

General CONWAY. Sir, there are places—yes. If you wanted to see 

it all, the whole spectrum, Camp Pendleton is probably the place 

to go. If you wanted to see it at its worst, I am not sure that Camp 

Pendleton and our major bases aren’t the first to make some fairly 

major strides forward. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
493 

What I have experienced in my travels about the Corps in just 

over a year now is that at some of our secondary bases and stations 

they really need the most help. When we sent out word on what 

the needs were for this $100 million and how it should be allocated 

and assigned out, our secondary bases and stations were the people 

that really needed help at that point, as opposed to Pendleton, 

Lejeune or even being—— 

But I think Pendleton is still the best. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

BLOUNT ISLAND

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Conway, let me ask you a little bit about Blount Island. 

A lot of hard work went into changing that from a lease facility 

now to be owned by the Department of Defense, and some exciting 

things are happening there. There are some security challenges, 

there are some organizational challenges, but it seems that has all 

been—as I understand it, there is going to be a master plan coming 

from the Marines. 

And then can you share with us a little bit about that, and how 

it is—are there any infrastructure needs that are going to be part 

of that? The new ship is going to be part of that. Is it going to 

change anything that we need to do with Blount Island? Can you, 

kind of, just give us an overview of that? 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir, I can. Blount Island is absolutely critical to us, because even as we speak, they have got one of our MPS, 

Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons, in a rehab kind of role, and 

they do marvelous work offloading the ships and starting the 

equipment and getting everything back up to speed. 

When we offloaded that equipment in 2003, about 95 percent of 

it was just ready to go. So they do marvelous work between them 

and the squadrons, and so therefore it is an absolutely critical facility to us and what we do for the nation. 

There are 10 major projects that need to be managed to turn it 

into the facility that we would like it to be and to keep it doing 

what it is going to do now for the long term. That comes to a total 

of something around the order of $150 million to $155 million that 

at this point is essentially on our unfunded list. We don’t have the 

money ready and available to do the things that the commander 

and his boss—we regionalized all the bases and stations. He works 

for the Major General overall, but both the commander there and 

General Williams agree that these are exactly the things that we 

need to do to bring it up to a world class kind of facility. 

So we are going to work hard to try to find that money in the 

future to, again, keep the general—for us. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. 

This one may be, Admiral, more for you. It was mentioned about 

the bachelor housing, and I think it was originally going to be San 

Diego and Norfolk and Bremerton and now Mayport is kind of in 

that mix. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
494 

Just a couple of kind of specific, and I don’t know if you have all 

the details, but as I understand it, it depends on whether those facilities are going to be on the base or off the base. I think in San 

Diego they are on the base—no, they are off the base, and then in 

Norfolk, on the base. And issues about, like, in Mayport it would 

be on the base, and then there is some issue about when you sell 

land, a private entity, on a military base, you need to have some 

sort of easement, egress and ingress, that kind of thing. 

Do you know much about—I mean, I would be curious to know 

how it is going because some of the housing that was kind of 

geared toward the basic housing allowance, and you have got kind 

of an income strain where the developer could come in and say, 

‘‘Well, I know the money is coming in,’’ but when you have got 

some of these younger sailors that probably don’t have a basic 

housing allowance, how does that impact a developer when he says, 

‘‘I am going to build a facility.’’ He doesn’t really have any guaranteed income stream. 

Are those questions that you are familiar with? Anybody that 

could talk about those things? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. I think with that, I wouldn’t even 

begin to get into the easement laws and what have you on that, 

but as you pointed out, the models are different, and I think that 

is what is important as we go in and put in the type of accommodations for Sailors, is to look again specifically at the installation, 

where can it best be placed? And in the case of San Diego, it is off, 

but there is very easy access. 

So I think each one has to be looked at and we will see how 

the—with regard to the public-private for single Sailors, there is 

BAH that is provided, and that is why—you know, it is not a free 

lunch, because even though the private contractor picked it up, 

that now creates a manpower bill because of what we are doing. 

But it is clear to me that the contractors that are involved and 

meeting with them seem to be pretty optimistic about the future. 

I think it is important that the facilities that we build are properly 

sized for the Fleet that we expect to be there for some time so that 

we don’t get into a period where there is vacancy. So all those go 

into the mix, and I think the two that we have in place now are 

moving ahead, and that is why I am very interested in the third 

one. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Are they actually in place? You have got people 

living there now? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, in San Diego we have Sailors living in 

a converted building, the Pacific Beacon, which is the four-tower 

complex that is being built. It is still under construction but moving ahead very, very rapidly. And the quality of work, the quality 

of the rooms—every room in those four towers that a Sailor will 

live in looks out on San Diego Bay. Not many people who live in 

San Diego can see that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Probably a pretty good recruiting tool. I know I 

have seen the married housing out in San Diego, and, I will tell 

you, it is just magnificent. 

But I wonder, with the single sailors, would there ever be, or 

have you thought about, issues about discipline and just kind of cohesion? Because if you are on a ship, obviously, you are there all 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
495 

the time, and if you are out somewhere, are those things that you 

have heard complaints or has there been discussion about how—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Mr. Crenshaw, so far it has gone very well, 

and I give the credit to our young men and women who live there. 

When you give them a quality place to live, they will take care of 

it. And the contractor has an interest in maintaining it so that 

their maintenance costs are down. 

I would also say that one of the things that struck me about the 

effort that we have on the way in San Diego is the way the contractor has worked with other providers—phone providers, Internet 

providers—that really are tailored to the types of schedules that 

our sailors are on. So that, if for example, they get called away on 

a mission, that they are not penalized with trying to terminate a 

service before they leave. 

And that is why I think it is really a program that is providing 

quality of life for our people that is very important, and it is going 

to be very important to attract young men and women into—but 

I think all the Armed Forces. If they come in and they see a great 

place to live with the types of things that are part of their life 

today, the kind that could meet with friends and family that is so 

important to them, that is huge, and I really appreciate your support and everything you have done to make that possible. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could add, I have heard stories where the contractors actually give a smaller stipend to some of the dorm, if you 

would say, or some of the guys that are going to be the, kind of, 

watch out for everyone else on the floor, and in exchange they pay 

half the rent in order to keep everyone else, kind of, in line. And 

it’s like those kinds of informal bargains that they make with—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It is like a hall monitor. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Hall monitor. That kind of stuff they have figured 

out works. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. One quick question: I was looking at this, Admiral, the right places. It is a chart that shows some East Coast and 

it talks about the possible homeport of the LCS and DDX. It shows 

a possible homeport at Norfolk, and like other places, it doesn’t say 

possible homeport. Has any decision been made about that? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No, sir. That is what I have my staff working on now is to go out and look at where do we want the capabilities and the capacity to the numbers to be for the world that we 

envision in the next few decades. It is trying to look into the crystal 

ball and then saying, ‘‘We believe the capability that we are going 

to need.’’ 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So you could have put possible homeport in other 

places. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just checking. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kennedy. 

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

Mr. KENNEDY. Just looking forward to having you up to the Newport, Rhode Island War College. We have got huge transitions as 

a result of BRAC, as you know, a lot of MILCON issues because 

of the absorption there for the Marines that are coming up, 700 

Navy and Marine personnel, from supply school, and we are doing 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
496 

the best we can absorbing them all. But for 40 years there wasn’t 

an anticipation there that that would be necessarily the place for 

quite the hub of activity that it is going to be now for the next 50. 

I knew the War College would always be there as an anchor, but 

as far as everything else, the surface warfare and the naval undersea warfare, NAFs and everything else. That was never quite a 

guarantee. So all those old buildings, I mean, we have still got— 

our sailors are living in and buildings that are vintage World War 

II, so we are going to be working to try to bring that up to snuff. 

That is our challenge, so we will be working with you to try to do 

that. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, and thank you for your support. 

The War College has just continued to do great work, not just in 

our operational and strategic thinking and putting in place some 

new courses of instruction that are important to our future but also 

really expanding nationally. They are doing some really good 

things, and thank you for your support. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thanks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Carter? 

INCREMENTAL FUNDING

Mr. CARTER. I guess I have got one last question. It just seems 

like they have recently changed the rules for having incremental 

funding for large MILCON projects. How does that affect each of 

your service’s planning, both currently and in the future, as you 

look down the road, how are we going to plan these large MILCON 

projects? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. It is somewhat out of step in that 

we fully fund and then when it is incrementally funded and the 

change is made to incrementally fund, that is money that we no 

longer have available. So in subsequent years, we have to go ahead 

and reprogram the other increments. So it is one that, I believe, 

of reconciliation of how we budget and move forward would be very 

helpful to us, and I think we would be able to benefit greatly if that 

were to happen. 

General CONWAY. Same is true, sir, for our Corps. I think it is 

true across the Department of the Navy. It caught us a little unaware. We would like to counter back, if you will, and see if we can 

get some things changed. 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. It seems troublesome to me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all. 

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I will just quickly ask one question. 

Guantanamo, in this budget, there is a request for $63 million 

for new family housing and $21 million for a new fitness center. 

I don’t know who the next president is going to be, and I don’t 

know what our policy is going to be regarding the detainees in 

Guantanamo. Without getting into that debate, would you make 

this request even if the policy were to be not to continue keeping 

the detainees in Guantanamo? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, I would, because, to circle back 

around, I think that our interests in the Caribbean are significant. 

The amount of infrastructure, particularly the energy infrastrucVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00496 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
497 

ture in the Gulf of Mexico, and what we have on Guantanamo and 

the folks that we have there, I do believe these investments are 

worth it for the Navy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I saw that housing down there last year. It is 

pretty questionable. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. I am through, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Well, if not, on behalf of the entire committee, let me thank you 

for your service to our country and for being here today. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

UNACCOMPANIED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY

Question. The navy has indicated its intention to have ashore quarters for the 

roughly 9,000 E1–E3 sailors who currently live aboard ship while in port. I understand that many of the sailors who are quartered ashore do not have living arrangements that meet the Department of Defense standard for 90 square feet of living 

space per person, even if the barracks themselves technically meet the 1 + 1 standard. Does the Navy have a construction strategy for completing the Homeport 

Ashore initiative and meeting the DoD space standard for unaccompanied housing? 

Answer. Although the Navy intends to provide quarters that meet the DoD privacy standards (where each member has their own sleeping room), to get Sailors 

ashore quickly, we are currently housing Sailors at two or more per room as an interim step to achieve its Homeport Ashore initiative. The Navy intends to achieve 

the Homeport Ashore initiative through a combination of military construction 

(MILCON), privatization, and host country agreements where applicable. The last 

MILCON project required as part of the Homeport Ashore initiative (based on current ship home porting projections) was authorized and appropriated in Fiscal Year 

2008. While this does not meet the full DoD privacy standards, it does provide housing ashore for the vast majority of our junior Sailors on sea duty. The Navy is developing a Master Bachelor Housing Plan which will include a strategy to provide unaccompanied personnel with housing that meets applicable standards. 

UNACCOMPANIED HOUSING FYDP 

Question. What has the Navy programmed for sailors’ unaccompanied housing in 

the FYDP? 

Answer. The Navy has programmed the following projects for Sailors’ unaccompanied housing in the FYDP: 

Location Project number Description ($000) 

FY 2009 

NALF San Clemente IS CA ................ 740 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) .................................. 34,020 

NAVSTA Great Lakes IL ..................... 744 RTC Special Programs Barracks .................................... 62,940 

NAVMARIANASSUPPACT Guam ........... 469 BEQ, Main Base .............................................................. 62,360 

Total FY 2009 ...................... .................... ......................................................................................... 159,320 

Fy 2010 

NAVSUPPACT Bahrain ........................ 935 Transient Quarters III ..................................................... 24,700

NAVSTA Newport ................................ 451 BEQ Replacement ........................................................... 35,370 

Total FY 2010 ...................... .................... ......................................................................................... 60,070 

FY 2011 

NAVSUPPACT Bahrain ........................ 938 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters III ........................................ 31,800 

NAVSUPPACT Bahrain ........................ 936 Transient Quarters IV ..................................................... 24,700 

NAS North Island ............................... 742 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ............................................. 13,760 

Total FY2011 ........................ .................... ......................................................................................... 70,260 

FY 2012 

NAVSUPPACT Bahrain ........................ 937 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters II ......................................... 32,273 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
498 

Location Project number Description ($000) 

NAVSUPPACT Panama City, FL .......... 379 Joint Diver ‘‘A’’ School Dormitory ................................... 10,658 

NAVSTA Newport ................................ 482 Bldg 1269 SEA Improvements ........................................ 6,500 

Total FY 2012 ...................... .................... ......................................................................................... 49,431 

FY 2013 

NAVSUPPACT Bahrain ........................ 934 Transient Quarters II Addition ........................................ 3,420 

NAVSTA Great Lakes IL ..................... 713 ‘‘A’’ School BEQ Replacement ........................................ 36,505 

NAVUNSEAWARCNDET AUTEC ............ 200 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ............................................. 9,630 

NSS Portsmouth NH .......................... 285 Construct Addition to CBQ #373 .................................... 9,699 

Total FY 2013 ...................... .................... ......................................................................................... 59,254 

BARRACKS PPV 

Question. Is the Navy seeking expansion of the barracks PPV initiative beyond 

the three pilot projects? If so, will this contribute to the Homeport Ashore program? 

Answer. The Navy has not included a request for the expansion of the barracks 

privatization authority in this year’s budget submission. To date, the Navy has executed two of the three projects and is developing a concept for a third project in the 

Jacksonville/Mayport, Florida area. 

Given our experience with the pilot authority to date, we believe the privatization 

authorities can be a useful and effective tool in improving housing for our single 

Sailors, especially as a complement to the Homeport Ashore program. I would like 

to see the authority expanded beyond its pilot status, if the three pilot projects are 

successful and financially feasible. 

BARRACKS MILCON 

Question. Is the Navy requesting MILCON funding in FY09 for barracks at any 

locations that are being considered for barracks PPV? 

Answer. No, our only FY 2009 MILCON projects are in Guam; Great Lakes, IL; 

and San Clemente Island, CA. The three pilot PPV locations are Norfolk, VA; San 

Diego, CA; and the Jacksonville/Mayport, FL area. 

INFLATION FIGURES

Question. What has the Navy done to incorporate more realistic, regionally adjusted inflation figures in its FY09 military construction and family housing program? 

Answer. For projects in the PB09 program, the Navy used the best available pricing source and did not solely rely on the DoD Facilities Pricing Guide Guidance Unit 

Cost. This enabled consideration of the latest market condition information and DoD 

direction available at the time of budget submission. Listed below are the pricing 

sources utilized in preferential order from highest to lowest: 

—User-Generated based on 100 percent designs or Architectural/Engineering (A/ 

E) studies and current market conditions. 

—User-Generated based on historical cost data from same type of facility constructed recently. 

—User-Generated parametric cost estimates using costing models for common 

types of facilities. 

—DoD Facilities Pricing Guide Guidance Unit Cost (GUC). 

Additionally, through a formalized Cost Consistency Review Board we have incorporated lessons learned, made adjustments to address recent trends, and ensured 

that pricing for key features were appropriately considered for all projects. Key pricing features included: 

—Incorporating adjustments to ensure seismic requirements were appropriately 

considered. 

—Adding a line item to ensure Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 

(LEED) and Energy Policy Act (EPACT) 2005 compliance was appropriately considered. 

The inflation rate used to escalate projects from program lock to the program midpoint of construction (average OCT 2009) was 2.2 percent per year which is consistent with the DoD Facilities Pricing Guide. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
499 

SPECIAL WEAPONS SECURITY

Question. Last year, the Navy provided a rough estimate of $1 billion for special 

weapons security requirements under the Strategic Systems Program pursuant to 

Presidential Directive 28. What is the current estimate? 

Answer. The current MILCON requirement for Nuclear Weapons Security (NWS) 

in the FYDP (FY09–13) is $495 million of which $477 million is budgeted in the 

President’s Budget 09 FYDP. The President’s Budget for FY 2009 includes funding 

for one NWS project, a $51 million increment to P–973; Limited Area Production 

and Support Complex. While a number of projects remain unfunded, the Navy has 

taken steps to mitigate the lack of available facilities by implementing interim solutions to ensure Navy provides security as directed in Presidential Directive 28. The 

President’s Budget 09 FYDP also includes $1.3 billion budgeted in other appropriations for both shore side and transit protection NWS. 

PPV—CHILD DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES

Question. Marine Corps has been able to include new schools in some of its family 

housing PPV projects. Has either the Navy or Marine Corps considered the possibility of including child development facilities as a part of PPV? 

Answer. To date, no Navy housing privatization project has included the construction of child development facilities. The Navy budget includes a robust program for 

the construction of child development centers (CDCs) as part of the overall military 

construction (MILCON) program. The inclusion of CDC construction in a military 

housing privatization project, as a complement to the MILCON program, may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis where it can be supported by project cash flows 

without sacrificing quantity or quality of the housing or other amenities. 

YOUTH ACTIVITY NEEDS—DEPARTMENT OF NAVY

Question. The Department has set a goal of meeting 35 percent of youth activity 

needs by 2009. What are Navy and Marine Corps doing to meet this goal? 

Answer. Current youth participation rates range between 19 percent and 24 percent. In order to achieve the newly established 35 percent goal, we must increase 

availability of programs and services to meet the emerging needs of our dependent 

military youth. Our long standing national partnership with the Boys and Girls 

Clubs of America has increased participation in the Department of Navy. The Navy 

recently entered into a similar affiliation agreement with the National 4–H program. Also, we are making numerous improvements to our military operated programs to attract youth members. These improvements include technology lab hardware/software upgrades that provide homework assistance programs, youth fitness 

program such as the on-line FitFactor program (navygetfit.com), and increased 

transportation and hours of operation for youth programs. Additionally, through an 

OSD joint services contract, the Navy is providing on-site counselors to assist staff 

members with identifying and assisting youth with deployment and family separation stress. 

This summer, the Navy is coordinating a joint Service Teen Forum that will bring 

together military youth from all Services to identify their top issues and brief our 

senior leadership so we can continue to make service delivery improvements that 

meet their unique needs. 

MILCON REQUIREMENTS GUAM

Question. Has the Navy fully scoped the MILCON requirements for all elements 

of forward-basing vessels at Guam? What are the total outstanding (FY09 and beyond) MILCON requirements for the three SSN’s, SSGN, T–AKE, and transient carrier berthing? 

Answer. Yes, the Navy has scoped MILCON requirements for all current berthing 

needs of forward-basing vessels at Guam as follows: 

P–431 Alpha/Bravo Wharf Extension (FY06 Incr 1 [$25.4M]/FY07 Incr 2 

[29.8M]) meets SSGN and 3 x SSN berthing requirements 

P–502 Kilo Wharf Extension (FY08 Incr 1 [$50.9M]/FY09 Incr 2 [$50.9M] is 

designed specifically to meet ordnance handling requirements for the new 

T–AKE 

P–518 X-Ray Wharf Improvements [$33.4M] (unprogrammed) meets nonordnance logistics handling requirements for the new T–AKE 

P–583 CVN-Capable Wharf [$390.1M] (unprogrammed) meets transient carrier berthing requirements 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
500 

The Guam Joint Military Master Plan (GJMMP) and Global Shore Infrastructure 

Plans (GSIPs) are currently under development and will include all Amphibious 

Ready Group (ARG), Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), and CVN infrastructure 

and berthing requirements. The Navy will continue to address these requirements 

in future budget submissions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR LCS HOMEPORTING

Question. When will the environmental impact statement for homeporting of the 

Littoral Combat Ship be complete? When does Navy anticipate making final homeporting decisions for LCS? 

Answer. The homeporting decision process is deliberate and balanced. This process takes into account national security requirements; operational availability; 

training, total cost and other programmatic implications such as impacts on Sailors 

and their families; the effect on local economies and National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requirements. 

The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the initial LCS Flight Zero ships was completed in Dec 2005 and Naval Station San Diego 

was selected as the homeport. Lessons learned from the initial flight zero ships will 

help determine long-term requirements and basing. Additional environmental planning efforts are planned in the upcoming fiscal years pending a finalized LCS acquisition schedule. The potential homeport locations have not yet been fully determined. Once initiated, these NEPA efforts will typically conclude within 12–18 

months. 

FLAG HOUSING GUAM

Question. The family housing request includes $1.695 million to reconfigure the 

interior of six flag housing units on Guam, which equates to a cost of $282,500 per 

unit. How do you justify this reconfiguration versus whole house replacement construction? 

Answer. The proposed project involves extensive work, encompassing repairs in 

addition to reconfiguration, which will result in the revitalization and modernization 

of these homes and an extension of their useful life at a cost that is approximately 

25 percent of the cost to construct a replacement unit. Accordingly, the proposed 

work is more cost-effective than replacement. 

The area cost factor for Guam is 2.64 which means that construction costs in 

Guam would be over 150 percent more than the cost of comparable construction in 

Washington, DC. To illustrate this point, the Guam project cost exclusive of contingency and supervision, inspection, and overhead is approximately $1.5 million (or 

$253,000 per unit). Adjusting for geographic cost differences, the same project in 

Washington, DC would cost approximately $100,000 per unit. 

Although the units are located at Flag Circle, they are designated for senior 

(paygrade 0–6) officers. 

GROW THE FORCE—TEMPORARY FACILITIES

Question. You have noted that the Marine Corps is actually recruiting beyond its 

targets to meet the personnel required for Growing the Force. This will put additional strain on your facilities until the permanent construction for GTF is completed. I understand that the Marine Corps intends to rely on approximately $900 

million in temporary facilities for three to seven years until permanent facilities are 

finished. To what extent are you relying on facilities temporarily vacated by deployed units? 

Answer. Existing facilities will be utilized to the largest extent practical. However, 

the majority of our interim facility solutions will be temporary and relocatable facilities. 

GROW THE FORCE—RESERVES

Question. Is there a GTF impact on the Marine Corps Reserve? If so, is there a 

milcon requirement. 

Answer. The current Marine Corps Reserve end strength of 39,600 is sufficient. 

There are no plans to include the Reserves in the Grow the Force effort. 

GROW THE FORCE—CONSTRUCTION

Question. Does your Grow the Force plan fully account for all of the permanent 

construction necessary for the end state of growth? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
501 

Answer. Our plan fully accounts for the permanent construction necessary to support Grow the Force. 

GROW THE FORCE—BARRACKS

Question. How many additional permanent party barracks spaces are needed due 

to Growing the Force? What is the total military construction estimate for this requirement? 

Answer. Approximately 10,600 additional spaces at a cost of $800 million will be 

needed to support Grow the Force requirements. 

GROW THE FORCE—BARRACKS ACQUISITION STRATEGY

Question. You have requested a large number of barracks projects to execute in 

a single year. For example, you have requested 19 projects at Camp Pendleton 

alone. What is your acquisition strategy for barracks? 

Answer. These bachelor quarters projects will be packaged into small and medium-size contracts, attractive to a range of small, medium, and large contractors. 

Additional projects will be set aside for small business concerns to ensure achievement of small business award goals. To speed the delivery of facilities and simplify 

facility sustainment in the future, we are using a consistent design adaptable to 

specific sites. 

TRAINING BARRACKS

Question. What is the state of Marine Corps training barracks? Do you have a 

program to bring all of these up to current standard? 

Both MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego have Military Construction in 

FY 2009 for new Recruit Barracks. We also plan additional recruit barracks to support Grow the Force recruit throughput. At the completion of these projects, all recruit barracks should be adequate. However, keeping recruit barracks adequate is 

an ongoing process: 

• In 2007 and 2008 the Marine Corps is investing over $18 million in repair and 

modernization projects for recruit barracks at MCRD San Diego that include replacement of toilets/showers, drains, roof repairs, replacement of floor and wall tile, 

and installation of fire sprinkler systems. 

• Between 2007 and 2009 the Marine Corps invested (or plans to invest) over $14 

million in similar repairs to MCRD Parris Island recruit barracks. 

The Basic School (TBS) at Quantico, which provides training for our new Marine 

Corps officers, will be totally recapitalized and replaced over the next 10+ years. 

The vast majority of existing facilities are classified as inadequate and beyond economical repair. This construction supports the TBS master plan. 

The Officer Candidate School barracks at Quantico have been replaced and refurbished and no other new barracks projects are needed at this time. 

AGED BARRACKS—REPLACEMENT PROJECTS

Question. In written response to the Committee last year, you provided a table 

that identified 43 barracks built between 1920 and 1944 and indicated replacement 

projects for those facilities that had been programmed. Please provide an updated 

version of this table. 

Answer. Table Attached. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
502 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 42754B.114
503 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 42754B.115
504 

GUAM RELOCATION—FUTENMA REPLACEMENT FACILITY

Question. What is the impact to the Marine Corps’ capabilities on Okinawa if the 

Futenma Replacement Facility is not completed? 

Answer. If the Futenma Replacement Facility is not completed, the following will 

result: 

—Japan will have not fulfilled the key provision of the Agreed Implementation 

Plan on Okinawa Reorganization that the U.S. concluded with the Government of 

Japan (GOJ) in 2006. As a result, the U.S. would not be obligated to relocate approximately 8,000 Marines off of Okinawa to Guam. 

—II MEF forces could continue to base and operate from the island of Okinawa 

as they have for decades. 

—The Marine Corps could continue to use MCAS Futenma for air operations in 

Okinawa, but the following constraints apply: 

The maintenance of facilities at Futenma has been minimal since the 1996 Special 

Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Agreement. This was the original agreement 

between the U.S. and Japanese governments to construct a Futenma Replacement 

Facility. Since Futenma was to be replaced, little was invested in maintaining the 

facility. If the Futenma Replacement is not built, the existing Futenma facilities will 

require substantial investment, or the facility would become unusable in the near 

future. 

Operating from Futenma, the USMC would still be faced with opposition on the 

island to the continued use of Futenma, perpetuating an on-going source of discontent in the vicinity of the airfield and with the Okinawa Prefectural Government. 

The political viability of continued, long-term use of the airfield is in question, because the Okinawan population, which encroached on Futenma Air Station after it 

was built, is vocally opposed to continued operation of the facility. 

MV–22—Military Construction Cost for Bed Down 

Question. What is the total outstanding (FY09 and beyond) Marine Corps military 

construction requirement for bed-down of the MV–22? 

Answer. The current planning estimate for Marine Corps MILCON requirements 

for MV–22 support is approximately $141 million. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of Questions submitted for the Record by 

Chairman Edwards.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

GUAM REALIGNMENT—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. The budget continues detailed studies, plans, and environmental analyses for the United States and the Government of Japan DPRI to relocate about 

8,000 marines and dependents from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. Please tell the Committee what your sense is of the planning process and the vast number of decisions 

that would have to be made, and is 2014 a realistic goal? How much does the budget 

request include for studies, plans, and environmental analyses for the Guam realignment? Is there funding in the Navy budget request for this work or is the funding elsewhere in the budget? 

Answer. The Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) in the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) is coordinating this initiative, as directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Master planning process 

is progressing well. The draft Master Plan will be available at the end of this month 

and will show a conceptual laydown plan. The working-level Guam Joint Military 

Master Plan is being developed in parallel with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and should be available this summer. 

Natural and cultural resources and socioeconomic studies are underway on Guam 

and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), and additional studies are set to begin this summer. To support the final EIS document, the 

JGPO is coordinating with Federal and local regulatory agencies in quarterly 

partnering sessions to identify and resolve potential hurdles. JGPO is also the 

champion of a Lean Six Sigma project that aims to streamline the review process. 

These efforts support the approval of the EIS Record of Decision in January 2010. 

The Department of Navy’s FY 2009 budget includes $62 million for the DPRI initiative. Of the $62 million, $28 million is in the Military Construction Navy appropriation for construction planning and design, $25 million in Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps and $9 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy acVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
505 

counts for continued master plan and EIS studies, plans, and analyses for the Guam 

realignment. Although programming and budgeting for the Guam realignment program remains a Service responsibility, JGPO coordinates those Service funding requirements. 

Aside from the costs directly associated with the realignment, there are many infrastructure needs on Guam that may directly or indirectly impact the execution of 

the program. JGPO continues to work closely with the Government of Guam and 

other Federal Agencies and Departments to identify their respective funding requirements. JGPO has partnered with the Department of the Interior to monitor 

and address the Federal response in meeting these funding requirements as part 

of an Interagency Work Group. 

DoD and the Government of Japan continue to strive toward a completion date 

of 2014. 

GUAM RELOCATION—PLANS, DECISIONS, BUDGET—GENERAL CONWAY’S RESPONSE

Question. The budget continues detailed studies, plans, and environmental analyses for the United States and the Government of Japan DPRI to relocate about 

8,000 marines and dependents from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. Please tell the Committee what your sense is of the planning process and the vast number of decisions 

that would have to be made, and is 2014 a realistic goal? How much does the budget 

request include for studies, plans, and environmental analyses for the Guam realignment? Is there funding in the Navy budget request for this work or is the funding elsewhere in the budget? 

Answer. Moving approximately 8,000 Marines and associated family members to 

Guam by 2014 entails planning the echeloned movement of designated units from 

Okinawa to Guam in such a way as to match the construction progress on Guam 

and to maintain operational viability during the relocation. Marine Forces Pacific 

(MFP), planning with Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps and on behalf of the Commander, U.S. PACOM, has created a timeline of execution that is matched to requirements and obligations of the Agreed Implementation Plan (AIP). 

The existing timeline is aggressive and will require coordination of the Governments of Japan, the United States, and Guam, as well as industry partners. The 

Department of the Navy PB09 budget request includes the required funding for 

studies, plans, environmental analysis as well as planning and design for the Guam 

realignment in addition to previously appropriated FY08 totals. 

FY07 FY08 FY09 

Military Construction, Navy ................................................................................................. ................ $11.0M $28.1M 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................................................ ................ $9.0M $24.8M 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ..................................................................................... $21.6M $18.8M $8.8M 

Total ........................................................................................................................... $21.6M $38.8M $61.7M 

Efforts are proceeding apace to complete the Environmental Impact Statement 

and obtain the Record of Decision (ROD) in FY 2010 in order for the construction 

of facilities to begin. 

BRAC 2005—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. According to your testimony, BRAC 2005 continues the process of improving efficiencies and reducing footprint, and that the Navy has started to implement business plans that account for $893 million in annual savings for steady state 

operations starting in fiscal year 2012. The Navy budget request includes $871.5 

million to continue implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations. How much 

were you cut between the fiscal year 2008 request versus the 2008 appropriation, 

and what type of adjustments is the Navy making due to the rescission? Does the 

fiscal year 2009 request try to recapture the cuts that were made in fiscal year 

2008? How do these cuts impact planning, execution and the 2011 deadline? 

Answer. Navy’s share of the $939 million FY 2008 Congressional BRAC 2005 reduction is $143 million. The lack of appropriations will result in a delay of awarding 

two BRAC construction projects totaling $97 million (Investigative Agencies Consolidation, Quantico, VA; Reserve Center, Fort Lewis, WA) and delay move-related expenditures in the amount of $46 million (Operations & Maintenance) from FY 2008 

to FY 2009. These delays add uncertainty and hardship for the Navy personnel and 

families affected by the move. These delays prevent achieving management efficiencies and savings that were the basis for the BRAC decisions. Without the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
506 

prompt and full restoration of funds, Navy’s ability to accomplish BRAC by the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline will be jeopardized. 

The FY 2009 budget submission does not address nor attempt to recapture the 

$143 million FY 2008 reduction. 

MARINE CORPS-GROW THE FORCE (NAVY SUPPORT)—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. Does this budget request adequately address the fiscal year 2009 requirements as it relates to the Grow the Force Initiative in the Marine Corps? 

Answer. The Navy has no military construction requirements to support the Marine Corps’ Grow the Force initiative and none are included in the FY 2009 budget 

request. 

GROW THE FORCE—FY09 REQUIREMENTS—GENERAL CONWAY’S RESPONSE

Question. Does this budget request adequately address the fiscal year 2009 requirements as it relates to the Grow the Force initiative in the Marine Corps? 

Answer: Yes, the FY09 budget request adequately addresses the funding necessary to implement the Marine Corps’ Grow the Force plan. 

CAMP LEMONIER—BUDGET REQUEST—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. You mentioned the conduct of operations to dissuade and counter piracy 

off the West African coast to provide a secure maritime environment. In the budget 

request, there is a total of about $31.4 million for three projects at Camp Lemonier 

in Djibouti. Is the Navy assuming a larger role there and do you anticipate the transition to AFRICOM to be moving in the right direction? What kind of impact do you 

think your presence will have on your ability to counter piracy off the West African 

coast? 

Answer. The Navy is not assuming a larger role at Camp Lemonier. The three 

projects, an aircraft maintenance hangar, a parking apron for that maintenance 

hangar, and a telecom facility, will replace the inadequate infrastructure (i.e., tents 

and outdated C4I electronic systems). These structures will enhance maintenance 

capabilities for current aviation forces in Djibouti. While there is no direct link between these projects and counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa, improved 

aircraft maintenance and communications will enhance our maritime capabilities in 

the area. 

The transition to AFRICOM will further our efforts to implement the new cooperative Maritime Strategy and increase the security and stability of the surrounding 

maritime domain. AFRICOM will be responsible for regional initiatives such as 

Global Maritime Partnerships that seek a cooperative approach to maritime security 

in the region to counter piracy, terrorism and other illicit activities. Additionally, 

Africa Partnership Station is a tailored, routine presence in West and Central Africa 

that integrates various entities to build capability and capacity in partner nations 

to address common challenges in the region. 

JOINT BASING PROCESS—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. Your testimony indicates that there is much work to be done on the 

Joint Basing process, but would you give the Committee an update on the status 

of the Joint Basing process. 

Answer. Over the past few months we have made significant progress on Joint 

Basing. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) issued the Joint Base Implementation Guidance (JBIG) on January 22, 2008, directing Total Obligation Authority (TOA) and real property assets transfer from the supported component to the 

supporting component. OSD, with full Service participation, is developing specific 

guidance and performance standards to enable each Joint Base to develop site specific Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). These MOAs will further define the relationships between components and commit supporting components to deliver approved output levels. 

The JBIG has two implementation phases: Phase I begins January 31, 2009, and 

Phase II on January 31, 2010. The Navy has the lead on the following joint bases: 

• Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC 

• Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 

• Joint Base Little Creek-Story, VA 

• Joint Region Marianas, Guam 

All actions will be completed by September 2011. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
507 

BASIC HOUSING ALLOWANCE—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. Currently, sailors have the opportunity to buy or rent homes if they receive Basic Allowance for Housing. How does a sailor qualify for a Basic Housing 

Allowance, and what percentage of sailors receive a Basic Housing Allowance? 

Response. Under the provisions of section 403 of title 37 of the U.S. Code, any 

Sailor who is entitled to basic pay and does not permanently reside in government 

quarters is entitled to a full Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) based on his or her 

pay grade, dependency status (i.e., a member with, or without dependents), and permanent duty location. This includes Sailors and their families who reside in housing 

built, maintained, and/or operated under a public-private venture. However, the law 

also stipulates that members in pay grades below E–6 without dependents are not 

entitled to BAH if assigned afloat. The law goes on to provide that the Secretary 

concerned may authorize BAH for these members if they are serving in pay grades 

E–4 or E–5. Navy policy limits this authority regarding Sailors in pay grade E–4 

to those with at least four years of service. Thus, the effect of the law and Navy’s 

policy is that members without dependents in pay grades E–l to E–4 (with less than 

four years of service) may not receive a full BAH if they are assigned to a tour of 

duty aboard a ship or submarine. As of February 2008, 68.89 percent of Sailors who 

receive basic pay also receive BAH. 

FAMILY HOUSING BUDGET—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. The budget request includes $123 million for family housing construction, improvements, planning and design. For the record, please breakout each of 

these items, by location and dollar amount. 

Answer. The requested information follows: 

Location Project No. Description Appropriation Request ($M) 

Family Housing Construction: 

NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ................... H–541 .................... Replace 38 units ............................ $16.5 

NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ................... H–543 .................... Replace 60 units ............................ 23.7 

NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ................... H–544 .................... Replace 48 units ............................ 22.4 

Subtotal ................................................. ................................ ......................................................... 62.6 

Family Housing Improvements: 

NCBC Gulfport, MS ................................ H–06–92–2 ........... Privatization .................................... $8.4 

NB Guam, Marianas Islands ................. H–02–03 ................ Revitalize 6 units ........................... 1.7 

CFA Sasebo, Japan ................................ HD–16–02 ............. Revitalize 224 units ....................... 32.4 

CFA Sasebo, Japan ................................ HD–15–02–1 ......... Revitalize 68 units ......................... 8.8 

CFA Sasebo, Japan ................................ H–2–02 .................. Revitalize 44 units ......................... 7.2 

Subtotal ................................................. ................................ ......................................................... 58.5 

Family Housing Planning & Design—Various 

Locations.

................................ ......................................................... 2.0 

Total Family Housing Construction 

Request ($M).

................................ ......................................................... $123.1 

FAMILY HOUSING—CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, PLANNING & DESIGN

Question: The budget request includes funding for family housing construction, 

improvements, planning and design. For the record, please breakout each of these 

items, by location and dollar amount. 

Answer: By location, the budget request included the following funding for family 

housing construction, improvements, and planning and design. 

Location Amount 

($000) 

Total USMC Family Housing Construction ................................................................................................................... 0 

MCB Camp Lejeune, NC ............................................................................................................................................... 81,987 

MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA ................................................................................................................................... 49,600 

MCB Camp Pendleton, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 59,026 

MCB Hawaii, HI ............................................................................................................................................................ 60,000 

MCAS Iwakuni, JA ......................................................................................................................................................... 8,910 

Total USMC Family Housing Improvements ........................................................................................................ 259,523 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
508 

Location Amount 

($000) 

MCAS Iwakuni, JA ......................................................................................................................................................... 156 

Total USMC Family Housing Planning & Design ......................................................................................................... 156 

Total USMC FHCON .............................................................................................................................................. 259,679 

FAMILY HOUSING BUDGET OVERSEAS LOCATIONS—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding to renovate, replace and sustain 7,800 hosing units in foreign/overseas locations. How much does 

the budget request include for these activities? Please provide, for the record, a listing by location and dollar amount for these units. 

Answer. The budget request includes $333 million for these units. Table below 

provides breakdown. 

Installation FY09 Owned FY09 Leased FY09 $K 

Marianas Is., Guam ...................................................................................................... 1,505 0 40,967 

US Overseas totals .............................................................................................. 1,505 0 40,967 

London, UK .................................................................................................................... 131 0 2,560 

Madrid, Spain ............................................................................................................... 0 0 208 

Rota, Spain ................................................................................................................... 781 0 16,230 

Atsugi, Japan ................................................................................................................ 1,033 0 13,030 

Sasebo, Japan ............................................................................................................... 661 0 57,251 

CNF Japan HQ/Yokosuka ............................................................................................... 2,940 0 32,694 

Chinhae, Korea .............................................................................................................. 50 0 553 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ................................................................................................ 719 0 83,718 

CNR Europe HQ ............................................................................................................. 0 0 2,721 

Naples, Italy .................................................................................................................. 1 1,126 38,738 

Sigonella, Italy .............................................................................................................. 8 930 34,541 

Gaeta, Italy ................................................................................................................... 0 0 428 

St Mawgan, UK ............................................................................................................. 0 0 264 

Valencia, Spain ............................................................................................................. 0 0 141 

Lisbon, Portugal ............................................................................................................ 0 1 342 

Larissa, Greece ............................................................................................................. 0 1 610 

Souda Bay, Crete .......................................................................................................... 0 1 624 

Cairo, Egypt .................................................................................................................. 0 16 1,016 

Dubai, UAE .................................................................................................................... 0 1 59 

Hanoi, Vietnam ............................................................................................................. 0 1 50 

Hong Kong, China ......................................................................................................... 0 4 509 

Jakarta, Indonesia ......................................................................................................... 0 13 1,048 

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ............................................................................................... 0 1 31 

Lima, Peru ..................................................................................................................... 0 8 437 

Manama, Bahrain ......................................................................................................... 0 2 232

Manila, Phillipines ........................................................................................................ 0 4 230 

New Dehli, India ........................................................................................................... 0 3 204 

Oslo, Norway ................................................................................................................. 0 1 42 

Singapore, Singapore .................................................................................................... 0 118 3,827 

Tel Aviv, Israel .............................................................................................................. 0 1 37 

Vientiane, Laos ............................................................................................................. 0 2 57 

Foreign totals ....................................................................................................... 6,324 2,234 292,431 

Navy totals ........................................................................................................... 7,829 2,234 333,398 

FAMILY HOUSING—RENOVATE, REPLACE, SUSTAIN HOUSING IN OVERSEAS

LOCATIONS—GENERAL CONWAY’S RESPONSE

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding to renovate, replace, and sustain housing units in foreign/overseas locations. How much does the 

budget request include for these activities? Please provide, for the record, a listing 

by location and dollar amount for these units. 

Answer. By location, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget includes the following funding 

to renovate, replace, and sustain housing units in foreign/overseas locations. 

Location Amount ($000) 

MCB Hawaii, HI (Section 802 units) ............................................................. 15,600 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
509 

Location Amount ($000) 

MCAS Iwakuni, JA .......................................................................................... *8,910 

Total FHCON Improvements ......................................................................... 24,510 

MCAS Iwakuni, JA .......................................................................................... 3,071 

Total FHOPS Maintenance ............................................................................. 3,071 

Total Family Housing ...................................................................................... 27,581 

* Note: The total Hawaii project is $60M. $15.6M to purchase/improve existing 

Section 802 units, and $44.4M for PPV seed money to build additional housing 

units. 

FAMILY HOUSING—O&M AND LEASING COSTS—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $339 million for the operation, maintenance, and leasing of Navy family housing. Please tell the Committee 

how much is included for each of these activities. 

Answer. The table below shows line-item detail of the $339 million dollar request. 

[Dollars in millions] 

Account FY 2009 Request 

Utilities ................................................................................................................... 41.9 

Operations 

Management .................................................................................................... 54.0 

Services ............................................................................................................ 12.5 

Furnishings ..................................................................................................... 14.2 

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 0.7 

Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 83.4 

Leasing .................................................................................................................... 116.7 

Privatization Support ............................................................................................ 15.5 

Navy Totals ............................................................................................................ 338.9 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER CONSTRUCTION—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding for the construction of 5 new child development centers. Please tell the Committee what the cost 

to construct for each of these centers and how many spaces will be created at each 

of these 5 centers. 

Answer. The following Child Development Center MILCON projects were included 

in PB09: 

• NAS Jacksonville (Project Number: 192) at $12.89M providing 302 total 

spaces 

• NS Pearl Harbor (Project Number: P019) at $29.30M providing 302 total 

spaces 

• NAF El Centro (Project Number: P211) at $8.90M providing 98 total spaces 

• NAS North Island (Project Number: P503) at $14.27 providing 302 total 

spaces 

• NS Norfolk (Project Number: P923) at $10.50M providing 302 total spaces 

Summary: A $75.86 million total investment in Child Development Centers yielding a total of 1,306 spaces. 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS EXPANSION PLAN—ADMIRAL ROUGHEAD’S RESPONSE

Question. According to testimony the Navy has developed an aggressive child care 

expansion plan, adding over 4,000 new child care spaces within the next 18 months. 

Of these 4,000 spaces within the next 18 months, how many of these spaces are included in the fiscal year 2009 budget request? 

Answer. All 4,000 spaces are included in the FY 2009 budget request. The 4,000 

additional spaces will be accomplished through four expansion initiatives: 1) previously funded minor construction child development centers (CDCs); 2) military 

home-care expansion; 3) temporary modular classrooms; and 4) commercial contract 

spaces. 

1. Minor construction: We are opening 1,300 new spaces. 

2. Military home-care expansion: 400 additional subsidized, military certified 

home care spaces which will be accomplished through standardized/increased subsidies Navy-wide. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
510 

3. Temporary modular classrooms: 2,150 spaces will be added by installing temporary units adjacent to existing military CDCs. These units will be replaced in outyears with additional planned construction. 

4. Commercial contract spaces: Through a national contract, the budget request 

resources 150 subsidized contract spaces in nationally accredited commercial child 

care centers.) 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Boyd.] 

CAMP LEJEUNE WATER CONTAMINATION

Question. General Conway, my District Office has been contacted 

by or advised of 7 different families in my District that are seeking 

medical records, birth records, or other information directly related 

to the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination. I am requesting a 

written response from your agency to me that addresses the efforts 

that are being made to look deeper into the issue, and the overall 

direction that your agency is headed in the handling of this issue. 

Answer. The Marine Corps remains committed to finding answers to the many questions surrounding historic water quality at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, and providing this information to the public. Prior to 1987, some of the drinking water at 

Camp Lejeune contained unregulated chemicals, primarily solvents 

used in dry cleaning and degreasing operations. Drinking water 

wells that contained these chemicals were closed in the early 1980s 

with the last well closed in 1985. 

Exposure to these chemicals in the drinking water at Camp 

Lejeune has not been linked to any illnesses, at this time. The Marine Corps has worked closely with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the General Accountability Office (GAO), and 

the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study and address the 

issue. Since 2003, the Marine Corps has spent over $10 million 

supporting the efforts of these agencies to determine whether our 

Marines may have been adversely affected by the water. 

Presently, the ATSDR is attempting to project when the drinking 

water was first impacted, who may have consumed the impacted 

water, and whether there is any association between exposure to 

the chemicals in the drinking water and certain adverse health 

conditions in children born to mothers who lived at Camp Lejeune 

between 1968 through 1985 (thought to be the most sensitive population). They estimate that this study will be completed in mid 

2009. In April 2007, the Marine Corps contracted with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a comprehensive review of 

available scientific literature in order to recommend future actions 

that could be taken (estimated completion Oct 2008). Other completed studies include a review by the GAO, a Department of Justice investigation, an EPA Criminal Investigation Division investigation, as well as a panel review commissioned by the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

The Marine Corps fully supports the efforts of these agencies, 

and is providing data, access, and logistical assistance to them; 

upon completion of their studies, the Marine Corps will publicize 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
511 

the results. The Marine Corps has made it a top priority to identify 

and contact the potentially impacted population (individuals who 

lived or worked at Camp Lejeune between 1957 and 1987) so that 

they can be notified of their potential exposure and updated as additional information becomes available. Unfortunately, the Marine 

Corps does not have complete personnel records covering this entire period. 

To this end, in September 2007 the Marine Corps established a 

Notification Registry to inform former Camp Lejeune residents that 

they may have been exposed to impacted drinking water and receive additional information when ongoing studies are complete. 

The registry can be accessed at www.usmc.mil/clsurvey or via the 

toll-free hotline at 1–877–261–9782. Interested parties can also email questions to clwater@usmc.mil 

To reach former Marines not contained in our records, the Marine Corps has placed advertisements in internal and military publications, articles in local newspapers (nationwide) and radio announcements (nationwide). Additionally the Marine Corps has 

funded paid advertisements in National publications such as ‘‘USA 

Today’’. These efforts have enabled the Marine Corps to identify 

thousands of individuals and mail over 50,000 letters notifying 

them of their potential exposure, informing them of the issue and 

providing contact information so they can learn more. 

The Marine Corps and Department of the Navy continue to clean 

up environmental contamination aboard the base and fully cooperate with other state and federal agencies. The drinking at Camp 

Lejeune today is safe to drink and is tested more rigorously than 

required. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of Questions for the Record submitted by 

Congressman Boyd.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(513) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008. 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND 

WITNESSES 

ADMIRAL TIMOTHY KEATING, U.S. NAVY COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC 

COMMAND 

GENERAL B.B. BELL, COMMANDER, REPUBLIC OF KOREA—UNITED 

STATES COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED 

STATES FORCES KOREA 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Good morning. 

Admiral Keating, General Bell, welcome to the committee. 

We are here today to discuss the fiscal year 2009 military construction and family housing request for U.S. Pacific Command, including U.S. Forces Korea. 

The total amount of requested military construction supporting 

PACOM is $2.9 billion. This includes $675 million in overseas construction and $2.2 billion in U.S. construction supporting PACOM 

and its components. 

Pacific Command’s force posture is undergoing what is perhaps 

its greatest transition since the early post-war era. The transition 

involved a major realignment of bases in Japan, including the 

eventual transfer of 8,300 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. 

In Korea, the U.S. military has reduced its presence, I believe, 

by about one-third. The remaining forces are relocating and consolidating south of Seoul. 

Finally, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are all realigning forces to increase their presence in the Pacific. 

Before we proceed with the opening comments and my introduction of our witnesses today, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp, 

our ranking member, for any opening comments you would care to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you for your 

leadership and for these two great military leaders’ presence here 

today. 

It is inspirational to be in your presence. I know you both now 

and have great confidence in you. 

General Bell and I have known each other for a long time. He 

went to school at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga and is 

a property owner in my district. 

I don’t know of a more gung-ho American soldier than General 

Bell. I have known a bunch of them, and he is here in the flesh. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
514 

General BELL. I will not get on the table today, I promise. 

Mr. WAMP. And, Admiral Keating, your leadership is very much 

appreciated. 

We have got many challenges ahead, but it is a great privilege 

to be a part of this process. And even this morning there was commentary in the press about the many challenges we face, trying to 

spend $14 billion in Guam, and the kind of support long term that 

we need. 

So that, in and of itself, is earth-changing and paradigm-shifting 

for the United States military. 

But it is a great time of opportunity for us and I particularly appreciate PACOM, because I have been through a lot of this part of 

the world and I know the importance historically there and it is as 

important today as it has ever been, even just thinking of North 

Korea and the kind of presence and consistent leadership we need 

in your part of the world. 

So it is a privilege to see you here in your nation’s capital and 

I can’t thank you enough for your service. And all the people sitting 

behind you, you are their representatives today. 

And we so we compliment you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you—— 

What is amazing to me is to look at you two great leaders and 

think that you represent 76 years of public service to our country 

and to our service men and women and their families. 

Thanks to you both for that distinguished service. 

By way of brief introduction, Admiral Keating assumed command 

of PACOM on March 23rd of 2007, nearly 37 years of service after 

graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971. 

And thank you for every one of those years, 37 years of service. 

He is a naval aviator with over 5,000 flight hours, probably flew 

planes faster than my dad in World War II, flew those PDYs. I am 

told 100 knots, climbing 100 knots, straight level, 100 knots, more 

or less. 

He has served as commander of the Northern Command and 

NORAD from 2004 to 2007. A native of Dayton, Ohio. 

General B.B. Bell is commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, has 

been in that post since February 2006. He also was commander of 

U.S. Army Europe prior to his current post, 39 years of service. 

He also—and I have always saved the best for last—served as III 

Corps commander at the great Fort Hood in Texas. 

And, General Bell, let me just tell you, as someone who has considered myself privileged to be your friend for so many years now, 

this will be your last time to testify before our committee, as you 

retire in June. 

Thank you for your lifetime of service. I have never known any 

general officer who has fought harder for our service men and 

women and their quality of life to support them than you have, and 

you have been a tremendous fighter every step of the way. 

If your troops weren’t being treated right, you saw to it that they 

would be. 

And I can’t say enough about your leadership and the sacrifice 

that you and Katie have made for our country. 

How many moves in all those years of service? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
515 

General BELL. Sir, you wouldn’t believe it if I told you. You 

would conduct an investigation. 

We have made 33 moves. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thirty-three moves in 39 years. 

General BELL. It will be 34 here before too long, and that is it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I think that underscores the point I would 

make. I consider the unsung heroes and heroines in our nation’s 

defense to be our military spouses and children and the sacrifices 

your families make in all those years. 

It just makes me proud to be at the same table with you. Thank 

you for that service. 

General BELL. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate it. It is an 

honor. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted for the 

record, but I would like to recognize both of you, beginning with 

you, Admiral Keating, to present your opening remarks and then 

we will go into questions and answers. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL TIMOTHY J. KEATING

Admiral KEATING. Thank you very much, Chairman, for the 

pleasure and the privilege of appearing before you for my first opportunity today. 

I would like to add, with emphasis, for your record, Mr. Chairman, the Pacific Command’s gratitude and thanks to B.B. Bell and 

Katie. It has been my great personal and professional privilege to 

work with B.B. on a couple of different occasions and, as you say, 

there is no more fierce advocate for our men and women in uniform 

than General B.B. Bell. 

We will miss him. His kind doesn’t come along often. 

Behind me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce one gentleman in particular, our senior enlisted leader for the United 

States Forces in the Pacific, Chief Master Sergeant Jim Roy, 

United States Air Force. 

I am glad that he could join us today. His efforts on behalf of enlisted men and women in the Pacific Command are of the same 

quality as General Bell’s have been, as you mentioned. 

I am sure you would feel the same sense of pride that I do as 

I sit before you representing those 350,000-some men and women 

in uniform and the civilians who support our efforts in Southwest 

Asia, Southeast Asia, and all throughout the Asia-Pacific Region. 

In a couple of words, Mr. Chairman, our region is stable, thankfully. Security is improving and it is perhaps best characterized by 

the significant economic engine that is churning, running on all 

cylinders out in the Asia-Pacific region. 

We have had several elections recently in our area of responsibility. They have gone well, I believe, for our command and certainly for our country. 

In Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and Thailand, new 

governments are in place and, in each case, they are supportive of 

our strategy at the United States Pacific Command. 

There is a collaborative mindset amongst all those countries 

where we work throughout our region, with a couple of notable exVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00515 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
516 

ceptions, most prominent, North Korea and China, People’s Republic of China, of course, and more on those in just a second. 

But all of us in the region agree that we can improve our security through multi-lateral efforts, trying to leverage bilateral relations, build on the very solid set of relations we have in that area, 

but expand them to a multilateral effort. 

We have had 23 chiefs of defense come to our headquarters and 

we have been able to visit 21 countries in the year that we have 

had the privilege of command. 

So we are getting out, we are moving around, and we are spending time with folks to emphasize maritime security systems and try 

to improve the information sharing and collaboration so as to reduce, if not eliminate our own concern, and that is violent extremism throughout area of responsibility. 

We have had, through your support, the opportunity to provide 

humanitarian efforts to tens of thousands of people throughout the 

Asia-Pacific region. The United States’ Naval Ship Mercy is coming 

again this summer, our hospital ship. 

She was through two summers ago. Last summer, the USS 

Peleliu, an amphibious ship from our United States Navy, who took 

most of the Marines off and put a number of doctors and dentists 

and nurses on, and they saw about 30,000 people throughout the 

Southeast Asia area, over 1,000 major surgeries performed, and 

that is where goodwill and humanitarian assistance, of course, goes 

a long way to improving peace and stability in our region. 

The money that you give us has been very helpful in our war on 

terrorism. In particular, in the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, 

and the Republic of the Philippines have used—it is not a king’s 

ransom, but it is a significant effort. 

It allows them to collaborate in significant ways to improve maritime security, in particular, through the Strait of Malacca, a significantly important strategic chokepoint for us in our theater, and 

security has been significantly enhanced because of the money that 

you have given us to reduce the movement of terrorists and the 

flow of the financial support that they need. 

So we are hopeful for progress throughout our region. As you 

saw, no doubt, in the paper, Ambassador Chris Hill is engaged 

with the North Koreans tomorrow, I think, this time in Geneva, 

trying to move that ball a little bit closer to the goal line for sixparty talks, which would—he is, of course, closer to this problem— 

we watch with him very carefully as we strive for peace in the peninsula. 

The People’s Republic of China, I have been there twice—it’s 

slow going with them, but we think we are making progress. We 

are emphasizing, again, not just transparency, but statement of intent. 

We are not as near where we want to be with them, but I am 

encouraged. It is a gradual progress, but I think it is measurable 

and it is, in the long run, of significant importance to the United 

States—— 

I am, once again, grateful for your support, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp. We will be happy to take your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Timothy J. Keating follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
517 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1311 here 42754C.001
518 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1312 here 42754C.002
519 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1313 here 42754C.003
520 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1314 here 42754C.004
521 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1315 here 42754C.005
522 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1316 here 42754C.006
523 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1317 here 42754C.007
524 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1318 here 42754C.008
525 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1319 here 42754C.009
526 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1320 here 42754C.010
527 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1321 here 42754C.011
528 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1322 here 42754C.012
529 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Admiral Keating. 

General Bell. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL B.B. BELL

General BELL. I would like to make an opening statement, and 

I appreciate it. 

Chairman, thank you for letting me be here today. 

Congressman Wamp, sir, it is great to see you and I look forward 

to seeing you down in and around east Tennessee. It would be a 

great honor. 

On February 25th, a man named Lee Myung-bak was inaugurated as the president of the Republic of Korea. It was a landslide 

victory. 

This is a radically different individual than the individual we 

have been dealing with for the past 10 years, actually, two individuals we have been dealing with for the past 10 years. 

In his inaugural address before international heads of state, diplomats, dignitaries, they were all there, and 45,000 Koreans assembled in front of him in an outdoor ceremony, he really spoke eloquently of the United States of America. 

He singled us out in front of all these heads of state and they 

were a little nervous, because he is talking about one country instead of perhaps all those countries. 

He said, ‘‘We will work to develop and further strengthen traditional relations with the United States into a future-oriented partnership based on deep mutual trust that exists between the two 

peoples. We will also strengthen our strategic alliance with the 

United States.’’ 

Our partnership with the Republic of Korea, which is now a solid 

58 years old, since the beginning of the Korean War, is entering, 

in my view, an extremely positive era, wherein the South Koreans 

strongly desire to reinvigorate the traditional alliance with the 

United States. 

In recent State Department polling, and they hire companies to 

do this and they are very credible polls, 75 percent of the South 

Koreans believe that the American military presence was important to their national security and they want us to stay there. 

Interestingly, 68 percent of the citizens of the Republic of Korea 

believe that the mutual defense treaty between the two nations 

should be maintained even if there is resolution with the North Koreans, and I found that very interesting. 

The bottom line is that, today, we are indeed welcome and wanted and expressed so by the Korean government in the Republic of 

Korea. Of course, this alliance is a full partnership with both nations committing a lot of resources. 

Under the 2004 bilateral Yongsan Relocation Plan, and Yongsan 

is where we are located right now in the heart of Seoul, dead center in their city, it is the old Japanese garrison from 1910 to 1945, 

and we moved in there at the end of World War II and had a few 

fist fights in 1950 to 1951 to stay there. But we have been there 

since 1953 now. 

But at any rate, South Korea agreed to shoulder the majority of 

the infrastructure expenses associated with moving our forces out 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
530 

of Yongsan garrison, farther south in their country, down to a place 

called Garrison Humphreys at Pyongtaek. 

And already, in that physical process, South Korea has spent 

about $2 billion in that effort. It is of the magnitude of the Guam 

move, but it is local and inside Korea and certainly not a U.S. possession, and it doesn’t get as much publicity. 

For our part, we agreed to do one thing, and this was back in 

2004, and that was to provide the family housing and senior officer 

and senior enlisted quarters at Garrison Humphreys commensurate with those that we already owned and had in Yongsan. 

We estimated that would be a bill, over 15 years, of about $1.4 

billion, over a 15-year lease period. 

So that was our going-in position. They were going to pay the 

majority of our costs to move from Seoul and we were going to 

spend about $1.4 billion, and ours would be amortized over a 15- 

year period, and both nations signed up to that in 2004 in an international agreement. 

To be honest with you, we have not made any progress in fulfilling our share of the agreement at this point, because we have 

not found a way successfully, either within DOD and certainly here 

in Congress, to convince you all of the process that we were pursuing as being a valid, legitimate process. 

In other words, we are dead in the water right now on executing 

our responsibilities that we agreed to almost 4 years ago. The Koreans are moving out smartly, and have been. 

I will just leave that on the table, sir, and we might talk about 

that a little bit more. 

But in addition to their financial commitment to that Yongsan 

Relocation Plan, South Korea also provides us with annual burden 

sharing dollars to defray large parts of our labor, maintenance and 

construction costs. 

In 2007, they gave me $770 million cash to put in the bank and 

in 2008, this year, $787 million to defray these expenses. And we 

use those moneys for labor costs and for maintenance and 

sustainment, but, also, military construction, built to Department 

of the Army and DOD standards, but with their money, not appropriated funds out of Congress. 

By the way, Congress does approve these projects, but not for 

funding. They just have oversight of the projects to make sure we 

are not doing something dumb, like building a casino or something. 

I mean, you all have oversight of that process. 

But at any rate, in the past year alone, with those burden sharing moneys, we have funded the construction of an $8.5 million vehicle maintenance facility at the Marine camp in Mujak, an $8.3 

million upgrade to 22 hardened aircraft shelters at Osan Air Base. 

We began construction of a $41.8 million barracks complex for 

enlisted personnel at Kunsan Air Base, and we are in the process 

of approving the construction of a $35 million humidity-controlled 

warehouse to support our prepositioned combat equipment stocks 

at Army Garrison Carroll, and a $39.4 million senior NCO dormitory at Osan Air Base. 

Our South Korean partner and our ally is funding all of this at 

no cost to the United States. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
531 

I guess my point is that they are in financial partnership with 

us in funding a majority of the bills that we accrue down there in 

the Republic of Korea. 

I would like to end now, because I know you want to get to questions, but I would conclude by saying that this partnership that we 

have with the new administration over there, only been in office— 

quite frankly—has been phenomenal. 

I have had personal engagements with the President of the Republic of Korea since he took office. That was not the case with the 

last president. He has sent his national security advisor to see me 

at various places, extolling the benefits of the relationship, and 

even went so far, in our just completed very major theater exercise, 

called Key Resolve/Foal Eagle to seek me out in an underground 

bunker and deliver a personal letter to me from the Republic of 

Korea, thanking the United States for running the exercise and 

helping defend their country, an extremely positive outreach program. 

President Lee Myung-bak will come to the United States in 

April. President Bush has already issued an invitation to him to go 

up to Camp David so that they can have a good engagement. 

I have been a strong advocate for the Congress of the United 

States to offer this man a joint session. I don’t know if that will 

happen, but he would be honored to have that opportunity. 

If the Congress, Senate and the House see fit, it would be a 

forum for him to come in here and explain his views and how different they are than the past administration over there, and they 

are radically different to the positive. 

Sir, I would like to stop with that and I would be honored to take 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of General B.B. Bell follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
532 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1329 here 42754C.013
533 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1330 here 42754C.014
534 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1331 here 42754C.015
535 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1332 here 42754C.016
536 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1333 here 42754C.017
537 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1334 here 42754C.018
538 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1335 here 42754C.019
539 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1336 here 42754C.020
540 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1337 here 42754C.021
541 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1338 here 42754C.022
542 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1339 here 42754C.023
543 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1340 here 42754C.024
544 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1341 here 42754C.025
545 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1342 here 42754C.026
546 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1343 here 42754C.027
547 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1344 here 42754C.028
548 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1345 here 42754C.029
549 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1346 here 42754C.030
550 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1347 here 42754C.031
551 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1348 here 42754C.032
552 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1349 here 42754C.033
553 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1350 here 42754C.034
554 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1351 here 42754C.035
555 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1352 here 42754C.036
556 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1353 here 42754C.037
557 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. It will take us about a minute or less to 

go up and vote and come back. It is a motion to adjourn. So we 

can do that pretty quickly and come back and then start the Q-andA, if we could. 

General BELL. Great, yes, sir. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you again for your excellent opening statements. 

I would like to begin the questioning by recognizing Mr. Wamp, 

out of respect for the fact that General Bell is going to be your constituent and your neighbor. 

General BELL. Sir, property taxes are too high—— 

Mr. WAMP. There will be a time and place for that, man. I am 

with you. I am with you completely. 

General BELL. I have no idea what they are, Congressman. I am 

just—— 

Mr. WAMP. Probably lower than the rest—high quality of life and 

low cost of living. 

Chairman Edwards and I were just talking, I don’t want to overdo this, but on the way up to the floor and back about who you all 

represent and who you are and your incredible patriotism, and we 

just can’t say enough about it. 

SOUTH KOREAN ECONOMY

General Bell, when we think about South Korea, what is the 

economy like there? Is this a good time for them to be doing this? 

Is this a sacrificial kind of investment or they just feel real good 

about the future and are willing to do it? 

General BELL. Congressman, the South Korean economy is bustling. They are the 11th largest economy in the world today. 

This new president’s goal is to be one of the top 10 and I would 

not be surprised if he makes that. 

South Korea has come, in just 30 years, from a still third world, 

war ravaged country, just 30 years ago, much less 55 years ago, to 

today to be a modern first world country. 

The days of MASH are long gone, to say the least. 

I am extremely impressed when I look at the economic vitality 

of the Republic of Korea, the way they entered the world market, 

and, also, the way they compete in the world market. 

They are world marketeers. Obviously, a small country the size 

of Korea, which is about the size of our state of Indiana, but only 

about 20 percent of which is habitable, because the rest of South 

Korea is mountains. 

So when you take 20 percent of Indiana and plop down 50 million people, you get what is going on in South Korea today, this unbelievable economy. So they are doing very well. 

The new president—they are chunking along at about a 4.5 percent annual growth rate, and his goal is 7 percent. He is a businessman. He ran three Hyundai heavy industry companies. He was 

also a national assemblyman, congressman, and he was also the 

mayor of Seoul. He has run a large city, 22 million people in the 

greater Seoul metropolitan area. 

So their focus is totally on the economy. They are a wealthy nation. They are our seventh largest trading partner and they 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
558 

produce, along with other countries in that area, both Japan and 

China, 25 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, and growing. 

So this is a bustling area and they are willing to defray these 

costs to ensure that they retain this partnership with America. 

Mr. WAMP. And the person on the street feels the same way, not 

just the new leadership? 

General BELL. Clearly. I will tell you, this is a—I don’t want to 

get too longwinded, but this is a maturing democracy. It started 

really, real democratic principles, about 30 years ago. 

There were a lot of pretty strong-armed guys before but world 

democratic principles began, as we would recognize them, about 30 

years ago. 

If you could imagine our country, sir, 30 years after our founding, it probably wasn’t as smoothly running as it is today, and you 

all might even ask how smooth it really runs today. 

GUAM

So they have sorted out a lot of schisms in how a democracy operates in the Republic of Korea, and I think that is why we have 

seen some left and right turns amongst the electorate in terms of 

the kind of leadership that they want leading it. 

Right now, the turn they have made, you cannot describe, in our 

terms, like republican and democrat and conservative and liberal. 

It doesn’t mesh up that way. 

But they have gone from being very nationalistic and very selfcentered and very ideological, just recently—to a realization that if 

they were going to compete in the real world and have real friends, 

they needed to swing back and pick their partners. 

And so they have come back to a point where they want to partner with their best long-term friend, the United States, and they 

are willing to risk a lot to achieve that. 

That is radically different than just a year ago, and that is the 

electorate. I mean, you look at these polls and that is the way they 

spoke. They are not kidding. 

Mr. WAMP. Admiral Keating, I want to talk on the next round 

about Guam and about terrorism from Indonesia to Malaysia. 

But right now I want to follow up, while we are on this topic, 

and shift over to China. 

CHINA

I read excerpts of your testimony in the Senate here a couple of 

days ago and I met with you. But my wife and I and my chief of 

staff were with Representative Clyburn and we were in Shanghai 

a couple months ago, speaking of a city with 20 million people that 

doesn’t do it right, to be honest with you, whether it is the environment or just controlled growth. 

I think I heard what you said is that the potential military buildup in China is not as great an imminent threat as some would 

have you believe. 

I think there is still a lot of chaos in China in terms of the explosive growth in the major cities and environmental issues, and the 

government is not really in command of a lot of the infrastructure 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
559 

requirements, and so they are not even capable of putting together, 

frankly, a full-scale military buildup. 

But I would like for you to pick up on what kind of threat China 

really is to us right now in your region. 

Admiral KEATING. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

We watch China carefully—inspirational wisdom, but I believe 

there is no worry about—the number of folks—it must keep awake 

at night as much as China, it doesn’t. Their military buildup does 

not keep me awake at night. 

It is a cause of concern. They are developing technologies that indicate a strategy that goes beyond harmonious integration and 

peaceful rise. 

Their strategies and their bumper stickers all sound good, but 

the commitments they are making in their defense budget are of 

concern—weapons. They are fielding missiles that are very sophisticated technologically, that have range in excess of 1,000 kilometers and have pretty effective countermeasures, electronic countermeasures. 

They have, of course, demonstrated their ability to shoot down a 

satellite in space and they are developing submarine technology 

that is of concern to us. They have 64 or 65 submarines, about a 

half a dozen nuclear powered. They are quiet. They are stretching 

or they are expanding the areas of blue water Pacific. They are 

coming outside their littoral waters. 

So their navy is getting to be more forward deployed. The air 

force, they are developing missiles and they have jets that are very 

sophisticated technologically. 

Their army is about 1.5 million strong. They are finding out, to 

their surprise, it costs a lot of money to recruit, train and equip a 

first rate military force. 

I am not saying they are first rate, but they are finding out it 

costs a lot money to do that. 

I mentioned Chief Master Sergeant Jim Roy a minute ago. They 

do not have a senior noncommissioned officer corps. It doesn’t exist 

in the People’s Liberation Army. 

They have asked Jim Roy to come over and talk to them about 

our senior noncommissioned corps. When he goes there to meet his 

counterparts, he sits down with—they just don’t have a senior NCO 

corps. 

So they are very interested in our military, how we recruit, train 

and equip, the moneys you give us. They are developing appreciation for the costs getting there. 

So we are watching them very carefully. We are attempting to 

sustain and improve the dialogue. We want more personnel exchanges. We want them to come see how we do business. We want 

to go see how they are developing their capabilities. 

We are working closely with all countries in the region so as to 

develop an appreciation for the benefits of multilateral engagement 

with them. 

I am optimistic, but we have a long way to go with it. 

Mr. WAMP. I will wait for the next round. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
560 

HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral Keating, let me ask you. Our committee 

has tended to focus a lot on quality of life, because there is no 

shortage of lobbyists running around on Capitol Hill when you are 

fighting for a nuclear aircraft carrier. 

But when you are fighting for better housing for your servicemen 

and women and their families, daycare centers, youth activity centers, there are not a lot of lobbyists running around D.C. fighting 

for those. 

Could you give me an overview of how you think we are doing 

in terms of housing and meeting DOD standards for housing in the 

area under your command? 

Admiral KEATING. Thank you, Chairman. 

A couple of points come to mind. Our aide, a flight lieutenant, 

he and his wife and two daughters just moved into brand new 

housing on Oahu. I was the flag lieutenant to Admiral Crowe in 

1985 and the housing, my wife and I chose not to occupy government housing. 

If J.T. were here, he would tell you it is first rate. It is—and 

good. It is brand new. The schools that his kids attend are very 

good. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is the housing the new public-private housing? 

Admiral KEATING. Yes, it is and it is going very well, from our 

perspective. 

And there are hundreds and hundreds of units. We are building, 

even as we speak, on Ford Island. So the young enlisted member 

who might have been somewhat reluctant to come to Hawaii for 

duty because of the cost of housing and the quality of education is 

happier now to get orders to Hawaii. 

We have more people wanting to come to our command headquarters staff than we have billets available. 

So it is a—situation for us. 

In Japan, we lived in Japan for a couple years. Our son and our 

daughter both lived there separately for months. The barracks 

were good in Japan. They are good and getting better. 

Our daughter lived on the economy for a while and we moved to 

housing in Japan and found it to be very comfortable. So we had 

firsthand family experience with housing in Japan. 

B.B. can speak to Korea. 

Throughout the rest of the area, including Alaska, and you are 

giving us money this year, we are going to build some 40 new housing units and barracks in Alaska and California, in particular. 

So the improvements that you are going to allow us to make are 

significant—quality of life is good in Pacific. With your support, it 

is getting better and our bill this year includes some significant 

funding for it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And would you mind following up, after this hearing, and just answer in writing, with the help of your staff, the 

question of how many personnel under your command are presently living in housing that does not—housing or barracks that do 

not meet DOD standards? 

And then, secondly, what kind of waiting lists are there for 

daycare centers or youth activity centers? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
561 

Admiral KEATING. We will get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

In the USPACOM area of responsibility, approximately 4,500 families live in 

housing units that need to be renovated or replaced to meet DoD standards. 4,500 

housing units represent about 6 percent of the total USPACOM inventory. The number of inadequate homes is down substantially from a high of 75,000 in 1997. With 

continued congressional support, we anticipate eliminating substandard family 

housing by 2009. 

Regarding barracks in the command, approximately 5,200 personnel reside in 

spaces that are considered inadequate. All Pacific Air Forces dormitories met standards in FY07. With approval of the USPACOM FY09 request, USPACOM will make 

significant progress in reducing the number of inadequate barracks, to include the 

elimination of substandard spaces for U.S. Army Pacific soldiers. 

There is an estimated shortfall of 58,000 spaces for day-care DOD-wide; the DOD 

goal is to have a childcare wait time of three months or less. In the USPACOM 

AOR, wait lists vary by Permanent Change of Station (PCS) cycles, but DOD 

childcare goals are met at most bases. Exceptions are in Hawaii, Alaska and 

Japan—especially in the infant and pre-toddler age care. 

In Hawaii, waiting time for the Navy, Army, and Air Force is greater than 6 

months for infant care. The Army also has shortfalls in Hawaii for pre-toddlers and 

school age care. 

In Alaska, Elmendorf AFB has a waiting list over six months for school age care. 

Additionally, the Army requires additional spaces for infant, pre-toddler and school 

age care in Alaska. 

Waiting lists for the Navy at Atsugi, Japan exceed 6 months. There are also Marine shortfalls in capacity at Iwakuni and Camp Butler for infant and pre-toddler 

care. At Camp Zama, there is shortage of Army slots for school-aged care. 

Efforts are ongoing to decrease the waiting time and increase capacity. The Navy 

plans to have sufficient spaces by 31 Dec 08 to achieve the goal of three months 

or less wait time at all facilities throughout USPACOM. Planned Marine MILCON 

projects will expand the existing Child Development Centers (CDC) in Hawaii by 

150 spaces. Several PACAF bases have received OSD funds to expand their capacities in their CDCs and School Age programs. Planned Army MILCON projects will 

add over 1,500 spaces at Ft. Richardson, Ft. Wainwright, Schofield, and Ft. Shafter 

between FY07–FY12. 

Staffing challenges, primarily in Japan, are being met by recruitment and retention initiatives to minimize staff turnover due to normal PCS. Efforts to increase 

the number of Child Development Homes are also on-going in Japan. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We could just follow up on that. 

And one comment I will make that I have made in our other 

hearings, but just so you know, it is an issue that we are going to 

keep pushing. 

I understand now that DOD has a DOD-wide policy that says 

adequate housing for families, military families, is defined in a way 

I find almost ludicrous. 

If DOD spent $50,000 to fix the leaky roof, take the old washer 

and dryer out that aren’t working and fix the warped floors, if we 

spent $50,000 and that brought the house up to standard, then, 

technically, that family is living in ‘‘adequate’’ housing, even if the 

military never spent a dime of that $50,000. 

It just doesn’t pass the common sense test and somehow we have 

all got to work together in a responsible way to figure out how to 

better—so that you, as commanders, and we, as members of Congress, can get the data we really need to find out how many families are truly living in houses or single troops living in barracks 

that don’t meet standards. 

That is not much good for a family, and this wasn’t your decision—say, ‘‘Well, listen, you ought to feel better because we spent 

$50,000 so you would be living in adequate housing, and, therefore, 

we define your house as adequate.’’ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
562 

We will keep looking at any ideas you have in the future and 

how we can work together to get the data we really need to see 

that every serviceman and woman and their families are living in 

quality housing. I would be deeply grateful to you for that. 

General Bell, I know we have had some deplorable housing conditions in the Republic of Korea in years past. How are we doing? 

What are your thoughts there? 

General BELL. Well, Chairman, it is a mixed bag. Obviously, we 

are building some new barracks and a couple of new family housing units with this host nation money. 

So whenever we can do that, we build to DOD standards and 

these are very fine quarters. 

But on balance, I think we are letting our service members down. 

I make no bones about that. It is no revelation, sir, for your committee. I say it to DOD, Department of the Army, and to all the 

committees. 

There is uncertainty in our government about our future in the 

Republic of Korea. That is unfortunate, because, in my view, it is 

such a strategic location, given the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, the economic powerhouse that is Japan. 

Korea is right in the nexus of all of that. In fact, Seoul is 100 

miles closer to Beijing than it is to Tokyo. This is an incredibly 

strategically important location for us. 

1-YEAR TOUR

And I argued, not very effectively, but certainly argued that we 

need to stop looking at Korea 1 year at a time in view of the North 

Koreans as though, when that problem is solved, we will take our 

troops and go home. 

We need to look beyond North Korea and recognize the strategic 

importance of South Korea and form a strategic partnership with 

them that normalizes our relationship. 

And that one act would allow us then to articulate to you and 

others the kinds of family housing that we need and the kinds of 

facilities and then you could see why we wanted them more clearly 

than the current 1-year-at-a-time notion, next year we might just 

leave, because North Korea—we might have a peace treaty or 

something and then the war will finally be over. 

The war of democracy versus totalitarianism and free market 

economies and peace and security is going to be something this nation fights forever, and fighting it in South Korea is a good place 

for us. 

Ten percent of my service members are authorized to bring their 

families to Korea. The other 90 percent are not. They are on 1-year 

short tours. 

Of the 10 percent who can bring them, most live in substandard 

quarters provided by our government, and you would not be proud 

to walk in them. You would not be proud and you would not tolerate some of the quarters that I could show you that good sergeants and young officers are living in today. 

We have a chance to turn that around, and I won’t belabor this 

too long, with this relocation. And with the relocation, for just 

those who are currently authorized, not withstanding my belief 

that we need to normalize over there—but for those that are movVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00562 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
563 

ing, if we do resource the new family quarters, which I hope that 

we will eventually, we can ensure that they are provided to DOD 

standards and take care of the long-term problem of inadequate 

quarters for both senior enlisted, noncommissioned officers, officers 

and family members who are authorized to be in Korea today. 

We have a one-time opportunity to do this right. We are 4 years 

behind the power curve, straight up. We agreed to do this in 2004 

and we have not done it yet. 

But we haven’t screwed it up yet either, because we still have 

options where we can do this correctly. 

So I put in my posture statement with some clarity what I believe needs to be done and how we need to pursue it. 

I will say this in conclusion. DOD, in recognizing that we are unable to get congressional support for the build to lease options in 

Korea, has asked for $125 million of military construction for Army 

family housing, this year. 

The Army is the executive agent for this, even though it is multiservice housing, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine. 

That will build us 216 of the more than 2,000 required units that 

we must put up at Garrison Humphreys, about 10 percent. It will 

start the process. 

I strongly recommend and ask for your consideration to go ahead 

and ensure that $125 million makes it through the markup process 

and is ultimately approved in the next defense authorization bill 

and appropriated accordingly. 

It will allow us to get started. It will show good faith with our 

ally. It will allow us to put up good housing and put our service 

members into it. 

And then if we have to work different approaches for the remaining 90 percent, whether it is build to lease, whether it is additional 

military construction or even a privatization approach that the 

Army is investigating now, and I support their—— 

They are looking at getting Korean companies to accept the privatization approach that we have done in the United States and assume the risk of the United States leaving, moving or not showing 

up. 

But that is not stupid. It is worth pursuing and they are trying 

that. 

So there are three approaches and my recommendation is we go 

ahead and fund the $125 million that we have asked for. It will 

build three towers. These are all towers, by the way. They are not 

like—on the ground. 

And we should continue, I believe, the proper approach—I think 

that is a right approach. It amortizes costs over a long period of 

time. 

It allows us to be in control of the standards and we ought not 

to walk away from the potential for privatization where Korean or 

other international companies assume the risk. 

That is kind of where we are, sir. Sorry I was so long. 

Mr. EDWARDS. No, no, I appreciate that. I will follow up in my 

second round of questions. Thank you. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Bishop. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
564 

TAIWAN

Mr. BISHOP. Welcome. I have got a couple questions. 

First of all, in written testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Admiral Keating—military buildup will require Taiwan to 

improve its own defenses to detect potential aggression from the 

Chinese mainland. 

Do you—of Taiwan by the Chinese as a result of the buildup? 

And the follow up question is to what extent do we have fixed assets in Taiwan and to what extent, if any, will we need to, if we 

have them there—military construction to fortify those? 

Admiral KEATING. We have no troops stationed in Taiwan, Congressman. So we do not have any MILCON request for Taiwan. 

The threat that China poses is increasing, in my opinion, for the 

folks who are our friends in Taiwan. There are hundreds of surface-to-surface missiles in garrison across the strait between Taiwan and China. 

The Chinese are developing slowly and it is in its very nascent 

states and it could be a—capability that could pose a threat for and 

there could be an invasion of Taiwan. 

So in several respects, the Chinese military are developing systems and capabilities and technologies that cause us to view that 

with concern as it presents itself as a threat to Taiwan. 

Mr. BISHOP. What is that we are doing to counteract that? 

Admiral KEATING. We as? 

Mr. BISHOP. As the U.S. 

Admiral KEATING. To counteract China’s—— 

Mr. BISHOP. As an ally to Taiwan. 

Admiral KEATING. Several things. We participate in—we provide 

trainers for Taiwan’s military. We participate in their—they have 

a couple of big exercises a year. 

We send observers to help them develop the capabilities that are 

resident in their systems, and they are becoming much more well 

versed in joint operations, not just stovepipe army-navy operations. 

So they are improving there. We are also working—— 

Mr. BISHOP. When you say joint operations, you mean joint operations with us? 

Admiral KEATING. No, sir. Just the Taiwan forces themselves. 

They had not done much of that and we are encouraging them to 

participate in military operations in a joint fashion, as we do here 

in the United States. 

Mr. BISHOP. The strategic agreement that we have with Taiwan, 

what does that require us to do? What are our obligations under 

that agreement? 

Admiral KEATING. Our obligations are to provide—to help Taiwan provide for their own defense. We do not commit forces on a 

day-to-day basis in Taiwan, but we help them through the American Institute, which is an embassy counterpart there in Taipei, 

and to help them develop their defensive capabilities. 

Mr. BISHOP. And do we have any pushback internally on that? 

Admiral KEATING. Yes, we do, significant. 

Mr. BISHOP. So how have we responded to that? 

Admiral KEATING. In our visits, personally, two visits to China, 

when we get the Taiwan lecture, and it happens in every meeting, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
565 

we cite our longstanding balanced approach to diffusing tensions in 

the strait. 

We have had since 1979 a policy that recognizes one China. We 

emphasize that to the People’s Republic of China and to the folks 

on the island of Taiwan. 

So we have had a constant, steady strategy for Taiwan and for 

China. 

Mr. Wamp. 

OKINAWA TO GUAM TRANSITION

Mr. WAMP. I want to follow up a little bit, looking at Guam. 

I am the new kid on the block here. So explain to me, as we transition, from Okinawa to Guam, I think 8,300 Marines, 9,000 dependents, what the difference is between the dependents moving 

with the Marines versus Seoul, where virtually—or the vast majority of the soldiers do not have their dependents with them. 

What separates those two paradigms in terms of our presence in 

Guam? And I assume that is the way it was in Okinawa, as well. 

It is more of a permanent situation where your families—in Guam. 

Admiral KEATING. B.B. might be in a better position to answer 

that question, Congressman, but I will start, if I could. 

In the early days of our committing troops to Korea, the likelihood of conflict was much greater there. So it was an intentional 

withhold to keep families—— 

The notion that every morning, in Seoul, they would wake up 

with 1,000 long-barreled artilleries facing them, that is not the situation in Okinawa then nor is it now, and it certainly isn’t the case 

in Guam. 

Mr. WAMP. Right. But it has changed dramatically and it is more 

like a Guam situation in South Korea. 

General BELL. It certainly is. I don’t want to get rambling here 

again. My son was born on the east-west German border facing two 

Soviet divisions, both equipped with tactical nuclear weapons, 

whose mission was to overrun us, kill all of us and show up at the 

ocean. 

Yet, our nation gladly invited my family over there in a command sponsored role and wanted us to be with our families and accepted the risk—accepted the risk. Of course, a family had to agree 

to that. 

Now, we are moving south in South Korea, out of harm’s way 

physically, and I believe that it is time to change from that 55- 

year-ago war footing and recognize that South Korea is a first 

world country. 

They are, and they know it, they have got a much better military 

than North Korea. They can fight North Korea with our help easily 

and North Koreans know that. That is why they have been developing weapons of mass destruction, because they are trying to seek 

another way to coerce and influence, because we are not afraid of 

their conventional military anymore in terms of defeat. 

They could kill a lot of people, I will admit that and that is a 

tragedy, but in terms of defeating the alliance, they can’t do that. 

It is not going to happen and they know it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
566 

So it is time to, in my view, change the paradigm in Korea and 

recognize that the alliance is worth more than just dealing with 

North Korea every day. 

Mr. WAMP. One word, though, General Bell, as you are having 

conversations with your successors in the days ahead, the $125 

million request just—I was on this subcommittee 10 years ago and 

the change from 10 years ago until now on privatized housing in 

this country is significant. 

General BELL. And it is for the better. 

Mr. WAMP. That is exactly right. 

General BELL. No question. 

Mr. WAMP. And we hear it every time we have a hearing about 

housing. 

General BELL. True. 

Mr. WAMP. And it can work globally. I mean, again, I just came 

from Shanghai. There are investors all around the world that 

would like the kind of deal that U.S. developers have on privatizing 

military housing. 

And if that can be done, just to reduce the appropriations obligation here is a creative approach, as it can be pursued. 

And I don’t want to slow it down, but if it can be done at the 

same tempo, then we would prefer that. 

General BELL. Here is the challenge. By the way, I agree with 

you totally. I am open for any innovative thinking and, believe me, 

the South Koreans are a wealthy country and they have got big investors who have lots of money. 

They continue to be a growing country. So if you were a builder 

and you were concerned that the U.S. might leave and you had no 

lease guarantees from any government, you would have to know, 

in your mind, that if America leaves, I can fill that up with Koreans. 

And so when you build those, you want, in your heart, to build 

them to Korean standards so that Koreans would feel comfortable 

in those apartments based on their culture. 

Meanwhile, I want to build these things to DOD standards, including force protection, thickness of walls, kinds of glass, that go 

into the glass, green space for our kids, because we are a green 

space kind of society and Koreans are different. 

So we want to put all these requirements on them in an overseas 

environment so that it accommodates our service members, and my 

concern is they will say, ‘‘Too expensive for us to take aboard with 

no lease guarantee and we just can’t go down this path. We will 

build them to Korean citizen standards. If you want to live in 

them, have a nice day.’’ 

We tried that in Hannam Village in Seoul. I would love to take 

you to Hannam Village and show you the results of that. That is 

a losing strategy for sergeants and young officers. 

But I am still semi-optimistic that there is a pony in here somewhere, as we say in these things, and I am in no way trying to stall 

this out. I am an advocate of it and just gave the Army another 

advocacy letter about it. 

But I have also given them five hardcore requirements that must 

be achieved by these Korean investors to accommodate our families 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
567 

that will make this a little tougher than to say, ‘‘Well, that is okay, 

we will take that aboard.’’ 

PACOM GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR EFFORTS

Mr. WAMP. Admiral Keating, I have been to Australia a couple 

times, was there in January with the new prime minister, Kevin 

Rudd, a personal friend of mine. He will be here the end of this 

month to meet with the president. 

As we were there and in New Zealand, and there are a lot of conversations still from Bali bombings forward. The focus is kind of off 

the Indonesia to Malaysia, but that is a zone that we should be 

concerned about in terms of proliferation of terror and these groups 

that are supporting terrorist activities there. 

It is a threat to our country. 

Admiral KEATING. The threat is lower today than it was at the 

time of the Bali bombing, for a couple reasons. 

As I said in my opening statement, there have been some moneys 

that we were able to direct to Indonesia and to Malaysia that have 

provided for an improvement in the maritime security, and that 

makes it tougher for some of these terrorists to move around. 

In addition to being able to move around, that is a wide open 

area down there and very difficult to patrol, if not impossible to patrol all the coastline. 

So cameras and radars that we have been able to provide to Indonesia and Malaysia have helped them increase their security. 

The information sharing we—some intelligence, where we take 

off the source of—and Australia is a significant ally with us in this 

contest. 

The information sharing and intelligence gathering has helped 

them develop an ability to track and apprehend or sometimes kill 

the terrorist leaders who thought they had sanctuaries in Indonesia, increasingly tough for them in Malaysia, as well, and so, too, 

in the southern Philippines. 

We have—forces of the United States Pacific Command who are 

deployed to the southern Philippines, helping, not doing the action 

themselves, but helping the armed forces of these get better at 

finding terrorists who are seeking sanctuary in southern Philippines. 

So a number of initiatives underway, better security in the maritime domain, information sharing, and training their own 

counterterrorist forces with our Special Operations forces. 

I think we are making it much tougher for terrorists. 

Mr. WAMP. Other than what we have talked about here today 

with Guam and Marines, are there any other major redeployments 

in the PACOM region? 

Admiral KEATING. One that I would like to mention, Congressman, and—it is not so much a redeployment, but it is kind of a watershed for our changed force. 

You gave us some money that allows us to—with the Japanese 

help, we will bring the United States Ship George Washington, a 

nuclear powered aircraft carrier, that will be permanently 

homeported in Japan. 

Ten years ago, when we were living there, I would have said 

that—Japan will allow us to put a nuclear powered aircraft carrier 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
568 

permanently in Japan. It is underway from Norfolk, Virginia and 

it will switch out with the USS Kitty Hawk in Pearl Harbor this 

summer. 

Kitty Hawk will retire and George Washington will go for a permanent deployment in Japan. 

So about the same number of sailors in the battle group, but that 

is a watershed change for us in the Pacific. 

Otherwise, absent the movement of Marines from Okinawa to 

Guam and those troop situations B.B. described, we are fairly static. 

There are three nuclear submarines that are now home ported 

in Guam, attack submarines, and we are deploying the SSGN. It 

is an older Trident missile submarine, where the intercontinental 

ballistic missiles have been taken out and Tomahawk missiles have 

been inserted in their place, and there are about 150 of those 

PLAMs and a module of the missile tubes is now available for Special Forces, and the USS Ohio is on its maiden deployment as an 

SSGN in the Pacific as we speak. 

General BELL. I just exercised with that ship, had my Special 

Forces on board. I went to it, also, as part of an exercise—capability, phenomenal capability, and it gives me all kinds of good, 

warm, fuzzy feelings about a lot of things. 

Having that thing sitting in Guam is perfect. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask staff, would you let us know when 

there are 3 minutes left for this vote? 

LONG TERM LEASING

Admiral Keating, since we are making improvements in housing 

in Hawaii, and I would like to focus on Korea for a minute and follow up and make sure we get a handle on where we are and how 

we break this logjam. 

As I understand it from staff, the administration asked last year 

for authorizing language to raise the cap on leased houses—— 

General BELL. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In Korea. 

General BELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And the House Armed Services Committee did not 

put that language in their bill, which meant we have no authority 

to appropriate it, since they had not authorized it. 

So I understand that the administration did not request that language this year. Perhaps one of the reasons is the Congressional 

Budget Office estimated the first-year cost of that housing cap increase as $300 million for 1 year. 

I don’t know what they estimate it would be in the out years. I 

don’t know if that is a true reflection of the cost of the U.S. taxpayers or that is just accounting. 

General BELL. Sir, it is accounting. It is mostly accounting. I get 

very emotional about that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So the out year leasing costs and pushed those 

back to the front year. 

General BELL. There are two things at issue, Chairman. First, 

these service members are in the military today. They actually 

exist. They are in Yongsan Garrison. We are real people. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
569 

And we are paying leases for them now today. Now, I will admit 

those leases where they live are certainly not of the—I mean, for 

whatever reason, South Korea has become a real major world 

power in the last 20 years. 

So the last time we did a big lease agreement there, the cost of 

living was much lower than it is now. But we are paying, on average, for leases, about $700 million today over the lease period of 

the buildings that we are leasing. 

So when you look at what—if we did build to lease down in Garrison Humphreys, that is not new money. Now, part of it is new 

money, because the leases are going to be—if we did leases—are 

going to be more expensive than our current leases, no question 

about that. I surrender. They will be. 

But you have to subtract what we are currently paying for leases 

and it is about 50 percent of what these future leases would be. So 

half the bill is off the table. It is real money already being paid by 

you, by our Congress. 

So when CBO and OMB both, CBO starts marking this up as 

though it were new money, that is not fair. It is not correct and 

it is inappropriate. 

I have made this point repeatedly. But, yes, the leases today are 

going to cost us more than they did 20 years ago. I would say that 

the good news is that these are long-term leases, 15 years. 

We got that language approved several years ago here by Congress. So that is a 15-year amortization period for about $750 million of new dollars over a 15-year period. 

Well, divide 750 by 15 and you are not breaking the bank. It is, 

in my view, almost pennies. And at the end of the 15-year lease 

period, the leases are paid up and we retain that property for as 

long as we are there, without any lease payment requirements. 

All we have to do is pay for maintenance of the buildings. 

So I have always believed, the 2 years that I have been there, 

that the lease potential is a good deal for America. It gives us control of the standards. 

In fact, we give the companies our DOD drawings and say build 

them this way. It takes care of all these issues about quality control and what Americans deserve versus perhaps the way another 

culture builds their things, and it is amortized over such a period 

of time. 

If you believe we will be there longer than 15 years—this is only 

10 percent of our force. I mean, I admit, if I wanted to do them 

all, we need to start talking some more. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Ten percent of our force in Korea? 

General BELL. Right. They are the only ones authorized this kind 

of housing right now. So this is simply an agreement that we 

signed in 2004 for those who currently have family members over 

in Korea in Yongsan and, in some cases, senior enlisted and senior 

officers who are not authorized to have their families, similar lease 

arrangements for decent quarters for them, as well. 

FAMILY HOUSING IN KOREA

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you this. And I worked for—— 

General BELL. And I get pretty emotional. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
570 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thanks for getting emotional about the quality of life for our troops and their families. 

I worked for 8 years on this subcommittee at times when it 

wasn’t a very popular thing to push the public-private housing 

partnership program, and I am thrilled to see how well it seems 

to have worked around the country. 

But if, in Korea, we have got problems on build-to-lease if we 

have got privatization difficulties on Korean versus the U.S. standards there, what would it cost, doing it the old-fashioned way, just 

flat-out Congress appropriating the money, what would it cost to 

provide enough quality housing so that every soldier and military 

family, U.S. military family living in Korea is living in quality 

housing? 

General BELL. $1.4 billion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. $1.4 billion. 

General BELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And that would be housing for how many people? 

General BELL. This would meet our housing requirements for 

about 2,400 families and senior NCOs. The other folks live in barracks and, by and large, I am going to build those with host nation 

moneys. Remember, I have got $787 million in real dollars. Now, I am obligated to spend that on local-national employment. I have to pay— 

I mean, that is an agreement that we have with the Koreans, and 

I am obligated to spend a lot of that money on maintenance, 

sustainment and logistics. 

But then the rest of it I spend on construction, and you have 

oversight of that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is the family housing that we have to do. 

General BELL. It is the family housing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In your opinion, there are enough dollars available to see that the single soldiers and troops are living in quality 

barracks. 

General BELL. I can’t tell you that. To be honest with you, the 

movement of the Second Infantry Division from north of Seoul to 

Pyongtaek, Garrison Humphreys, which is another program, not 

part of the Yongsan Relocation Plan, but it is a program we want 

to—it is our initiative. 

We are going to end up paying about half of that bill and the 

other half, in my view, is going to be paid by the burden sharing 

funds. Now, we can spend these burden sharing funds any way we 

want to, but that is the general agreement that we have by the 

State Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 

that we will equitably share these costs of sustaining our troops 

over there. 

So if you look at the cost of moving—which is another program, 

I have put in our program in the POM, the program objective 

memorandum, in DOD, the moneys that we will need to move half 

of 2–ID, based on the assumption that the other half will be paid 

for by the Koreans. 

That is reliable. That is very reliable. Sir, that bill is another $1 

billion. But that is to move the 2–ID, not just housing, because 

those are all—it is also their motor pools, their headquarters, their 

command and control facilities, the whole shooting match for movVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00570 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
571 

ing a tactical unit, including barracks for them, because right now, 

none of them are authorized to have their families over there. 

It is a tactical maneuver unit. If I could change that—but that 

is another billion bucks. So $2.4 billion for the whole shooting 

match would be more accurate over a period of years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It sounds like it is time for our subcommittee to 

make a trip there and we probably need to get some of our authorizing colleagues to go with us. 

General BELL. It would be wonderful. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Because we can’t write the check unless they authorizes it, whether it is for leased housing or whether it is for the 

old-fashioned way. 

General BELL. I think it would be worth your trip. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But it just seems like this is a problem that continues to go on and on. 

General BELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And we have got to figure out a way to deal with 

it. 

Why don’t we take a break and we can go vote. 

One thing you probably need to think about is our subcommittee 

taking a trip there and taking a look at it. 

General BELL. That would be great. I think it would all be clear 

to you when you saw it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And find a solution. 

We will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Just to follow up on that, Congressman Wamp and I were talking 

and we ran into Congressman Hunter coming back after the vote, 

and we said we need to get the authorizers and the appropriators 

together to sit down, come up with a game plan, talk to CBO and 

OMB, and just find a way to address this problem. 

Otherwise, we are going to be at a table like this, whether it is 

us or somebody else, 10 years from now discussing this. And I 

raised this question 3 or 4 years ago. 

ACCOMPANIED TOURS

It seems to me that it is terribly unfair that, basically, because 

our country is unwilling, including Congress, unwilling to make a 

commitment of dollars for housing in Korea, if you get a young soldier that is coming back from, say, his second tour of duty in Iraq, 

goes back to Fort Hood or Fort Drum, and, a few months later, he 

or she is reassigned to Korea, and only one out of 10 married soldiers there has access to accompanied housing, what we are basically doing is our country, through our unfairness and unwillingness to make this a priority, basically forcing great American families to live apart for another year, and that is just wrong. 

It seems to me that families ought to have the option, if they so 

choose. 

Those that want to shouldn’t be forced to live a year apart from 

their loved ones because our country is not willing to support their 

housing and their children’s education and infrastructure. 

General BELL. Can I give you a quick answer? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please do. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
572 

General BELL. Spouses of service members have passports and 

the Republic of Korea is an open country. So we have over there, 

right now, as many as 1,400 families living all over the place, in 

decrepit areas, unauthorized by me—non-command sponsored, who 

simply said enough is enough, I am going to stay with my soldier. 

And when you talk to these folks—and by the way, I have made 

it law over there—I don’t have the authority to make a law, I just 

proclaimed it and waited until somebody told me I couldn’t do it, 

that they will receive medical care. 

They are Americans. They will go to our schools. We will provide 

them with all the services that they deserve as patriotic Americans, 

but I can’t put them into housing, because I don’t have any. 

So they live here and there, over there, because they want to 

stay with their service member, because of the very issue that you 

talked about. 

It is very common for me in Korea right now to have a service 

member show up 5 months after he or she got back from Iraq. They 

are then reassigned to Korea on a short tour, with no family, and 

that family just follows and they pick a place on the economy relatively near to that garrison wherever that service member is, and 

they just find and they rent an apartment. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is the cost very expensive there? 

General BELL. Yes sir, they are. They are expensive, inadequate, 

and they are not to our standards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So I assume your successor could—if this subcommittee took a trip over there, we could go to some of those 

houses and see what—— 

General BELL. And meet the families and understand what they 

are going through to stay connected as a family. And by the way, 

their attitude is fairly good. 

Now, here is what they say to me, and sir, I talk to hundreds 

of them. They say, ‘‘Look, it is worth it. It is a lot better than being 

separated another year.’’ They look at it positively. 

But you look at what we are, by our attitude, forcing them to do 

and you just go, ‘‘This is not right. We have got to do better.’’ 

Mr. EDWARDS. Where are their children going to school? 

General BELL. First, these are mostly—it is amazing—mostly 

young people, because they are in new marriages. The old saying 

goes, ‘‘Look, pal, it is the fourth tour.’’ These are mostly young marriages and they have infants. 

There are infants everywhere across that country, American infants, 6 months old to 2 or 3 years old. The majority, I would say 

80 percent have non-school aged children with them. 

So then you get into, okay, what about pediatricians. Well, I 

mean, it is phenomenal. So we have tried to order up more pediatricians, but against what requirement? I don’t have a requirement, 

because they are not authorized. 

So they hope for the best in many cases and they hope their kids 

don’t get sick. We don’t have a Tricare administrator over there. 

Sir, I could go on for days. I have identified every rat. I have 

talked to every rat. I have killed some rats. There are plenty of 

rats left. 

Our service members are not being treated right in Korea. You 

are exactly right. And we need to do better by them and I am hopVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00572 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
573 

ing that, with your support, and in DOD—nobody is a bad guy. I 

cannot find any bad guy in this. 

It is the system that we have that we need to turn around. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We have got to get everybody under the same roof 

to sit down together at a table like this and just find a solution. 

General BELL. I have about half as many American families over 

there as I have authorized that just say, ‘‘Look, I have got a passport, you can’t stop me,’’ and they are right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If every family had the option of living in decent 

housing and their children going to a quality school in the Republic 

of Korea, what percent of the married soldiers do you think would 

be accompanied? 

General BELL. About 50 percent of our service members are married. So that is the pool. So let’s just say I had 25,000 troops. So 

12,500 would have the option of coming—our studies tell us 70 percent of that 12,500—that’s 10,000—would bring their families out 

of a force of 25,000. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So basically the policy, what we are doing is we 

are saying 60 percent of those soldiers and their families, even 

though you would like to be together, we are forcing you to live 

apart for a year. 

General BELL. So what they do, in the states, they go home and 

live with mom or whatever and they just take another year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. Well, we will follow up. Sorry we didn’t 

make it to Korea while you were there, but today will be a good 

prompting to get us over there. 

General BELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. I have no more questions. 

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING

Admiral KEATING. Mr. Chairman, you asked a great question a 

minute ago and I had an answer right in front of me, and we will 

amplify this in our response for the record. 

You asked us about substandard housing. We are down from 

75,000 10 years ago. So less than 10 percent of the homes in Pacific 

Command need to be renovated or replaced, and we are on track 

to meet our mandated goal to achieve zero substandard housing by 

2009. 

So within 1.5 years or 2 years, we will be down to zero. We are 

down from 75—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is that family housing or does that include barracks? 

Admiral KEATING. That is family housing. Barracks, we are not 

quite as far along on the glide slope. U.S. Army Pacific, all permanent party barracks will be standard by 2009 and the Marine 

Corps will take a little bit longer, but the Pacific has already done 

it and the Navy is on track. 

So it is a good picture, particularly compared to where we were 

10 years ago and even 2 years ago, we had 12,000 homes that were 

substandard. 

So we are on glide path and we will give you the specifics. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will just never forget the time I went to Fort 

Hood and I went to the first new family housing unit, as a result 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
574 

of General Bell’s great leadership and the privatization effort there, 

and it was a sergeant’s family and I went out in the backyard and 

had just one-on-one with the wife. They had several small children. 

And I said, ‘‘What does this mean to you? Tell me the truth. 

Good, bad, ugly, whatever?’’ And she said, and I will never forget 

it, she said, ‘‘You know, it is not only a house I am proud to call 

home for my family, but it says my country appreciates my sacrifice and my children’s sacrifice to our nation while my husband 

is deployed overseas.’’ 

And these great Americans that, with their loved ones in combat 

zones, 2 out of the last 4 years or 3 out of the last 5 years, and 

for any one of those families to be living in substandard housing 

is just not right, and I am thrilled to hear about the improvements 

being made under your command and hopefully we can take charge 

and make some improvements. 

Admiral KEATING. You are right, sir. Across the military, save 

the problem in Korea, the turnaround the last 10 years has been 

phenomenal and it is a blessing. 

It is a blessing. Our military is being well cared for in most 

cases. I am very proud of Congress, I am proud of DOD and a lot 

of good people that made this thing—volunteer Army and facilitated it in a way that—all volunteer military—I am sorry—and facilitated both the facilities it needed. It is a blessing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It just hadn’t happened. 

Admiral KEATING. It just didn’t happen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chairman Young, we spent quite a bit of time focusing on the problems of housing. The CBO scoring of housing for 

South Korea and hundreds of millions of dollars and privatization 

being the debate between do you build those houses to South Korean standards or to American standards. 

What has happened is we have been at an impasse and we 

haven’t been able to solve that, and we have got to get authorization from the Armed Services Committee to raise the lease cap. 

So your leadership will be very, very important to us as we find 

a way to break through this. 

Admiral Keating, if I could just ask one more question. I want 

to recognize Chairman Young for any comments and questions that 

he might have. 

GUAM CONSTRUCTION COSTS

In terms of Guam, we are doing so much there. What are the inflation factors? Have you been allowed to estimate the true cost of 

construction there and true inflation rates? 

I know sometimes DOD—under this OMB mandate of 2.4 percent inflation rate, which, with the kind of construction going on 

there, that we have going on in Guam, I can hardly imagine that 

would be realistic. 

Do you think you have a realistic handle on what the true construction costs are going to be over the next 4 or 5 years or so? 

Admiral KEATING. Chairman, I would like to take that for the 

record. My opinion is it has not been brought to attention as a significant factor, which is a non-answer and nobody has told me it 

is a problem. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
575 

But we will take that for the record and I will get back to you 

very quickly on the inflation in Guam. 

[The information follows:] 

OSD mandated the use of 2% for inflation in construction cost estimates for the 

Guam military buildup. The Air Force recently commissioned a cost estimate modeling effort for upcoming Guam MILCON projects. They determined that the anticipated construction costs would significantly increase due to competition for limited 

labor/material with the Marine buildup construction effort. Based on this study, 

USPACOM anticipates the actual cost of construction on Guam will exceed the predetermined inflation factors and area cost factor for Guam. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be helpful. 

Chairman Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I spoke to the Admiral and the General before the hearing. In 

the Defense Committee, we had the Secretary of the Army and the 

chief of staff of the Army, and, since I am the ranking member, I 

needed to be there. We had a very good hearing. 

DMZ

And I will just be very brief. A few years back, Chairman Edwards and I, our roles were reversed, I was chairman, he was the 

ranking member, and we had a very important issue in Korea. 

And that was military construction to make—available to move 

our troops out of the DMZ area, and I assume you probably have 

already discussed this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I didn’t talk about the 3 a.m. call. 

Mr. YOUNG. We had overlooked the fact of the time changes and 

got your predecessor out of bed to answer the phone, and, of course, 

he said, ‘‘No, no, I was up waiting for your call.’’ 

General BELL. I am sure he was, actually. 

Mr. YOUNG. But, anyway, we finally took care of our part of that 

problem. We appropriated the incremental funding to begin that 

project. 

And the question I have is: how are we doing, Admiral? Are we 

well on the way to having that completed? Are most of our troops 

moved out of the immediate DMZ area? 

General BELL. Chairman, about half of that work has been done. 

One, we have redeployed a lot of those forces to the United States 

physically. One of the brigades, a maneuver brigade, actually went 

from Korea to Iraq, fought for a year, and then ended up at Fort 

Carson, Colorado. 

We still have, north of Seoul, in the Second Infantry Division 

area, the division headquarters and we also have one maneuver 

brigade. We also have some supporting stuff still there. 

That piece is not yet facilitated. In other words, the follow-on requirements to move that piece south of Seoul, not to redeploy it, 

but to move it south of Seoul as part of the garrisoning at this 

place called Garrison Humphreys has not—the funds for that have 

not yet been appropriated. 

Now, I will tell you the funding of that will be borne in two directions—one, U.S. costs and, the other, host nation burden-sharing 

money, our ally, and we talked about that at some length. 

Our agreement is about a 50–50 split. And so what I have done 

is taken 50 percent of the cost to move the remaining force that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
576 

is north of Seoul to its garrison locations of the future south of 

Seoul and I have programmed all those moneys in the appropriate 

program objective memorandums for the services, mostly Army. 

So that is accounted for. Now, whether it makes it into the budget process and is submitted, beginning next year, in the 2010 budget, is problematic. I have got to make sure it is, but I believe it will 

be. 

The other 50 percent we need to use host nation funds for and 

we will. We have a good agreement with the Republic of Korea. So 

what you worked with General Leon LaPorte—so well is culminating and now we are going to go into the next phase and it is 

all sequenced pretty well. 

That is called the Land Partnership Plan, the LPP, which has to 

do with moving the Second Infantry Division to sanctuary locations. They have either moved or they have come back to the 

states, half of them. The other half should be moving over the next 

5 years. 

That is where we are, sir. 

YONGSAN GARRISON RELOCATION PLAN

Mr. EDWARDS. If I could interject, because Chairman Young is 

such a key player in this whole defense process. 

Could you give him a brief summary of the housing frustrations? 

You used the word ‘‘dead in the water.’’ 

General BELL. Sir, I used it at the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, as well, because it is fact. 

The other program that is ongoing over there is called the 

Yongsan Relocation Plan. That is a different issue and it moves us 

from our garrison location in downtown Seoul, and it is a big area, 

it is about a 500-acre complex, to the same place, Pyongtaek. We 

are going to consolidate there as a main hub. 

The South Koreans asked us to move and I don’t blame them. 

You can imagine having a British army still garrisoned in Washington, and we wouldn’t be too excited. 

They asked us to move and they said they would pay for the vast 

majority of that move and they are. 

They have already spent $2 billion in preparing the ground for 

that move down to Garrison Humphreys. 

So they are rapidly—I mean, you ought to see it, sir. That is 

1,000 trucks a day in and out of this construction area. It is phenomenal. 

We agreed, this was in 2004, General Leon LaPorte, we agreed 

to negotiations to take the family members and senior NCOs and 

officers that live in the Yongsan Garrison and who were leasing 

quarters at the time on Yongsan, government leases, we agreed to 

take care of that with our funds, and we estimated that the new 

leases in Pyongtaek over a 15-year period would be about $1.4 billion, amortized over a 15-year lease payback period. 

That has not been favorably considered by Congress in those four 

intervening years, and you all know the history of that. 

So DOD has now said, ‘‘We surrender.’’ We are going to begin an 

Army family housing MILCON approach to this to start the project 

to show good faith to our ally, because our ally is getting very nervous about where are the Americans when they are spending bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00576 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
577 

lions and we are just—not one nickel has been spent by America 

yet. So we have asked for, in this budget, $125 million to begin construction of these family housing quarters of about 216 units in 

three high-rise apartments, and we hope that those are appropriated here in Congress and we can begin this project. 

We hope to stop using MILCON and either go back to build-tolease or the Army is now pursuing a fully privatized approach over 

there to determine if international investors and the South Korean 

investors might be interested, without lease guarantees, but with 

the powerful housing market that they have over there, accepting 

the risks of those leases and doing this in an RCI manner, fundamentally, with no guarantees. 

Those negotiations are ongoing. I wouldn’t say I am optimistic, 

but I am excited about the possibility and I am a supporter of that. 

So we have three approaches. None of them have produced a single set of quarters yet from the agreement that we—and we are 4 

years into it. 

So this is, in my view, dead in the water, but we are still floating. We didn’t die in the water and then sink. We are still out 

there and we can start paddling again, and we need to. 

I wouldn’t even mind cranking up an outboard motor engine and 

moving along at a rapid pace. 

I would like to take all the Guam money and spend it in Korea. 

That would take care of it. [Laughter] 

Sir, that is where we are. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is good to have both of you here. 

Admiral Keating, we have had a chance to visit at his headquarters and we did not get to visit with you in your headquarters 

in Korea. However, you are the—— 

General BELL. We did, we had a great time. 

Mr. YOUNG. As your friend, I want to say that in view of your 

approaching retirement—the nation is going to miss your service. 

General BELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. The other is, as your friend, you deserve a good rest 

and I send my invitation to come to Florida and let my son teach 

you how to catch—— 

General BELL. Sir, I have an appointment with a trout in the 

Smokey Mountains. But as soon as I get through with him or her, 

whatever the case may be, I will be down there to take on your 

sharks. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, Mr. Wamp will give you maybe some mountain 

trout or something—— 

But in this subcommittee, with Chairman Edwards and Ranking 

Member Wamp, you have got strong leadership and they are going 

to make good things happen for you. 

General BELL. Thank you. It has been an honor. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The additional questions I have I will submit in writing for the 

record. 

Admiral Keating, perhaps, if we were to start to put together a 

trip for the subcommittee to go visit Korea, we could be in touch 

with your staff about where in your command you think you would 

need for us to—— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
578 

General BELL. It sounds like Guam to me, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral KEATING. Guam would be important and Japan and see 

the construction projects that are ongoing there and if you can give 

us a half a day or a full day in the headquarters at Camp Smith 

in Hawaii, preferably on the front end of your trip, but coming or 

going, we would be—— 

General BELL. Guam is only 8 hours from Korea. So it is close. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will follow up on that. Thank you both for 

your tremendous leadership. It is good to have you here today. 

Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

QUESTIONS FOR ADMIRAL KEATING

Question. The target date for the bed-down of marines in Guam is 2014. Is the 

full U.S. share of construction costs for relocating marines from Okinawa to Guam 

programmed in the current FYDP? 

Answer. The current FYDP (09–13) does not contain the full U.S. share of construction costs as laid out in the ‘‘Road Map for Realignment’’ agreement with the 

Government of Japan. The U.S. share is $4.18B, with the current FYDP programming $1.98B for military construction/planning. USPACOM, through the Joint 

Guam Program Office, continues to advocate for the full U.S. share of Guam construction costs in FYDP 10–15, currently in development within the Department of 

Defense. 

Question. Please provide an update on Government of Japan action regarding appropriations and other funding instruments for the relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam. 

Answer. The Government of Japan (GOJ) passed the ‘‘Law to Promote the Realignment for U.S. Forces in Japan’’ in May 2007. This law established the legal 

framework to obtain funding and initial cost estimates. We anticipate GOJ funding 

to begin in 2009 and extend through 2014. The Joint Guam Program Office is currently coordinating with the GOJ representatives to finalize the by-year funding 

stream. 

Question. I understand that the relocation to Guam will require work on training 

ranges in the Northern Marianas, and that this cost has not been factored into the 

total estimates for the Okinawa-Guam transition. What is the total estimated cost 

for training ranges? Who is responsible for developing these cost estimates? 

Answer. The agreement to move the Marines from Okinawa to Guam included 

$500 million for training facilities/ranges. Marine Forces Pacific has the responsibility to develop a Marine training concept study, with costs, for Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The study, with an expected completion date of April 2008, will validate, or update if required, the current $500 million estimate. 

Question. Are there any other non-programmed requirements related to the cost 

of the relocation to Guam? 

Answer. The Marine training concept study, when complete in April 2008, is likely 

to identify training requirements which exceed the current $500 million planning 

factor. For example, this study may advocate for additional land acquisition to accommodate firing range requirements on the island of Guam. Any land acquisition 

costs would be a new requirement. 

Question. Is PACOM developing a plan to secure the safety of the increased number of military personnel and family members in the event of future typhoons impacting Guam? 

Answer. USPACOM currently has a Tropical Cyclone Operations Instruction requiring all commanders in the Area of Responsibility to establish a Tropical Cyclone 

Conditions of Readiness program to warn, secure, and prepare DOD personnel and 

property in the case of an approaching tropical cyclone. 

Planned Guam construction projects are designed to withstand tropical cyclones. 

Upon completion, these facilities will augment designated evacuation facilities in 

current plans to accommodate increased military personnel. 

Question. What is the projected total family housing requirement on Okinawa post 

consideration and the relocation to Guam, and how does this compare with the current housing inventory? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
579 

Answer. Family housing requirements on Okinawa have not been finalized. The 

mix of permanent party to temporary duty Marines based on Okinawa is under revision in response to ‘‘Grow the Force’’ changes planned for the Marine Corps. The 

Services are completing a comprehensive housing market analysis for Okinawa. 

Once complete (expected completion in July 2008), this analysis will establish the 

housing requirement and allow us to assess the adequacy of the housing inventory. 

Question. According to the U.S.-Japan ‘‘road map,’’ the transformation of Army C2 

at Camp Zama was to be complete by FY08. What is the status of this transformation? 

Answer. The U.S. Army activated a cadre at Camp Zama, I Corps Forward, in 

December 2007. Due to operational commitments with Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the final transformation of Army Command and Control (C2) at Camp Zama 

will not be fully completed by FY08. I Corps is scheduled to transfer to Camp Zama 

upon return from Iraq but the exact timing for the I Corps Headquarters move is 

not yet established. 

Question. Are there any U.S. milcon requirements for Sagami beyond the Battle 

Command Training Center? 

Answer. Yes, there are other projects in the FYDP for Sagami. In FY13 of the 

U.S. Army’s current FYDP (09–13), a $28M Vehicle Maintenance Shop project is 

planned. The project will provide a maintenance facility and organizational parking 

to support I Corps at Camp Zama and Sagami General Depot. 

Question. The Navy milcon request includes $35.1 million for wharf upgrades at 

Diego Garcia to provide a forward operating location for a submarine tender. Has 

the decision to provide this forward location been finalized? Is the U.S. required to 

obtain the United Kingdom’s consent for this initiative, and if so, has that consent 

been obtained? What additional milcon requirements are necessary to provide this 

forward operating location? 

Answer. With full consent of the United Kingdom, the decision to upgrade the facilities at Diego Garcia to support a submarine tender has been finalized. The U.S. 

is required to notify and obtain consent from the United Kingdom for all military 

construction projects planned for Diego Garcia. 

The FY09 request is the second phase of a three phase effort. The third and final 

phase is programmed in the FYDP for FY10 at $32.4M. 

Question. The Missile Defense Agency milcon request includes $25.5 million for 

AN/TPY–2 construction in the PACOM AOR. My understanding is that the final location has not been determined. What is PACOM’s role in this decision? When will 

that decision be made? 

Answer. USPACOM advises the SecDef on all basing decisions in the AOR. 

USPACOM is working closely with USSTRATCOM and MDA on possible future basing locations for a second forward-based AN/TPY–2 radar for the USPACOM AOR. 

The site selection timeline for the second radar has not been established. 

Question. The Pacific Warfighting Center at Pearl Harbor was drastically reduced 

in scope last year. Is PACOM satisfied that the current project meets the requirement? Is there any intent to construct a follow-on phase? 

Answer. The 34,300 square foot Pacific Warfighting Center under construction at 

Ford Island site will provide USPACOM with sufficient capacity to accomplish its 

mission. USPACOM does not anticipate any requirements for follow-on construction. 

QUESTIONS FOR GENERAL BELL

Question. Has USFK performed a life-cycle cost analysis comparing build-to-lease 

housing versus traditional family housing construction? If so, what were the results? 

Answer. A lifecycle analysis using a straightforward approach comparing 

MILCON to Build to-Lease (BTL) for family housing was completed in July 2007. 

The analysis shows that over a 17 year interval (2 years for construction and 15 

year lease period) BTL has a Net Present Value (NPV) of approximately $503K per 

unit and MILCON has an NPV of approximately $521K per unit. 

Question. You mentioned that USFK currently pays for housing leases at 

Yongsan. What is the annual cost for these leases? 

Answer. The projected FY08 cost for the 548 Army leased family homes in the 

Yongsan area (300 on U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan and 248 in Hannam Village 

near Yongsan Garrison) is $26.9M. 

Additionally, 510 families reside in individually leased apartments in the vicinity 

of Yongsan at an annual Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) expenditure of 

$25.7M. 1096 unaccompanied officers and NCOs reside in individually leased apartments near Yongsan at an annual OHA expenditure of $48.5M. 

Question. Please provide an updated breakdown of the total construction costs for 

the Yongsan Relocation Plan and the Land Partnership Plan, and further break out 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
580 

these costs among the various U.S. and ROK funding streams. Also, please indicate 

how much of these funds have been provided to date. 

Answer. The total planned cost apportioned between both the Republic of Korea 

and the United States for construction under the Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) 

and the Land Partnership Plan (LPP) is currently estimated at approximately 

$10.68. USFK and the ROK have contracted a Project Management Consortium 

(PMC) in accordance with the YRP agreements to perform program management 

services. The PMC is currently evaluating the planned cost and will provide a baseline cost in July 2008. 

Within the current planned cost the ROK contribution is estimated at $7.47B 

($5.84B direct funded and $1.63B USFK executed host nation funded construction 

using burden sharing contributions) and USFK is seeking to resource approximately 

$3.13B through Service Component U.S. MILCON, BTL or private investment 

sources. 

Investment to date includes over $lB from the ROK; no money has been appropriated by Congress to support the execution of either of these plans. While the US 

Congress has appropriated approximately $300 Million in MILCON to Garrison 

Humphreys for Second Infantry Division requirements, these appropriations are not 

directly tied to our national commitments associated with YRP or LPP. 

Question. Has USFK performed a full cost analysis of transitioning to a policy of 

normal three-year accompanied tours? What would be the one-time investment 

costs, and what would be the annual recurring cost (or savings) after implementation? 

Answer. USFK has performed a full analysis of transitioning to a policy of twoyear unaccompanied and three-year accompanied tours as required by DOD Instruction 1315.18; Procedure for Military Personnel Assignment dated 12 January 2005. 

Based on this analysis, we project an annual Permanent Change of Station cost savings of up to $102M. This analysis specifies that family support facilities and adequate housing are available through government owned, government leased, and 

economy quarters. Therefore there is no identification of a onetime investment cost 

associated with extending tours at current population levels. 

USFK is seeking a policy change from OSD to allow the Services to begin to 

phase-in fully normalized tours over a ten year period. This would allow the Services to plan for and program resources to support a fully normalized Korea. 

Question. Would your proposal for three-year accompanied tours apply to personnel of all services in Korea? 

Answer. Yes, this policy change would apply to service members of all Services 

programmed for locations that convert to three-year accompanied tours. 

This policy change will amend the Joint Federal Travel Regulation pertaining to 

and applied to all Services. This tour normalization conversion will be phased in 

over a 10 year period to allow the Services to plan and program for increased 

servicemember and family presence at their garrisons, bases, and other locations. 

Question. Has the ROK granted all of the required land at Camp Humphreys? 

Answer. The land grants at U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys are guaranteed in 

the Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) and Land Partnership Plan (LPP) agreements. 

However, all land grants have not been officially granted. We have completed a joint 

survey of all land that will be granted. These land grants will be phased in over 

time as land fill and facilities are complete and as we begin to occupy new facilities. 

Until this happens, the ROK retains responsibility for security, access control and 

emergency response services. 

Question. Much of the additional land at Camp Humphreys consists of rice 

paddies that must be drained and filled before construction commences. Is there a 

lag time between this site preparation and construction at Camp Humphreys to 

allow for ground settling, and if so, how long is this lag? 

Answer. Construction at U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys can begin 3–4 months 

after site preparation. Pile foundations for new facilities can start at that time 

which will allow construction while the fill continues to settle. Final settlement is 

expected 8–12 months after site preparation, which will allow construction of utilities and pavement. 

Question. Last year, you indicated that negotiations between USFK and ROK 

were underway over a railhead in the northwest part of Camp Humphreys and a 

civilian highway running along the western perimeter. Please provide an update on 

these projects. 

Answer. USFK continues to negotiate with the ROK regarding the synchronization of all on and off installation infrastructure. These ongoing negotiations will 

ensure that the planned access control points and rail-head are tied into existing 

or planned local infrastructure in accordance with master plan timelines. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
581 

Question. You indicate that a new U.S. joint warfighting command, known as 

Korea Command or KORCOM, is expected to reach FOC by March 2012. How would 

this KORCOM structure be different from the current U.S. command structure in 

Korea? Would it replace U.S. Forces Korea? Would KORCOM remain a sub-unified 

command under Pacific Command? 

Answer. A new U.S. command, provisionally called Korea Command (KORCOM), 

will replace U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) and will remain a sub-unified command 

under U.S. Pacific Command. While KORCOM will remain a sub-unified Command 

under PACOM, its is also projected to retain national alliance military responsibilities from the Secretary of Defense as agreed through the Security Consultative 

Meetings with our ROK Ally which will be specified in an updated Strategic Directive and Terms of Reference. KORCOM will consist of a joint headquarters and subordinate Service and functional component commands. The current U.S. Forces 

Korea Headquarters is the U.S. contribution to the ROK–US Combined Forces Command. There is no separate USFK Headquarters today as all USFK Headquarters 

personnel work under the Combined Forces Command. Once OPCON transfer is 

complete, the KORCOM headquarters will be responsible for Title X U.S. Civil Code 

National Command, as well as executing wartime battle command of selected U.S. 

Forces supporting our Korean ally. The new U.S. joint headquarters in Korea, U.S. 

Korea Command (KORCOM), will be a separate U.S. joint headquarters operating 

in support of the ROK national warfighting command. 

Question. Will 8th Army headquarters be relocated to Hawaii? How does this impact transformation plan in Korea? 

Answer. Eighth U.S. Army headquarters is transforming from its current legacy 

Army ServIce Component Command (ASCC) structure to the Army’s new modular, 

warfighting Operational Command Post (OCP) structure and will be known as 

Eighth Army OCP-Korea. At some point in the future, U.S. Army Pacific will be redesignated as Eighth Army, and it will establish a Main Command Post (MCP) in 

Hawaii that will play an increased role in supporting U.S. forces in Korea. A date 

for the potential move of the Eighth Army flag to Hawaii has not been determined, 

as we must fully consult and coordinate with our Korean ally. These actions are 

synchronized with Department of Defense, USFK, Department of the Army, and 

Eighth U.S. Army transformation plans. 

Question. You indicated last year that ‘‘Current access to training ranges in South 

Korea is insufficient to fully meet the training needs of U.S. forces.’’ Has the ROK 

completed modernization of the Jik-do range? Do you regard this modernization as 

sufficient? Are you seeking reopening of the Koon-ni range? 

Answer. We have made significant progress with our ROK ally in the last year 

with respect to range and airspace access as well as range modernization. The Republic of Korea has completed the instrumentation of Jik-do range with a Weapons 

Impact Scoring Set that replaces a capability we lost with the closure of Koon-ni 

Range. We now have an additional scoreable bombing range that has improved our 

training for all of our Services. 

While the progress made over the past year has improved our readiness, there 

still remains work to be done to improve airspace utilization and range access. We 

are working closely with the Republic of Korea to gain access to additional bombing 

ranges to meet our training requirements. 

We are not seeking the re-opening of Kooni range because the airspace above the 

bombing range was needed for expanded operations at Seoul’s Incheon International 

Airport. The airspace is now used to ensure adequate safety clearance between arriving and departing commercial aircraft. 

Question. Last year, you expressed concern about the medical care access for 

servicemembers in Korea. Have you been assigned a Tricare manager? Do you have 

any further concerns regarding medical care? 

Answer. Due to decreased clinical providers, clinical support, and administrative 

personnel, I have been forced to prioritize care for DoD beneficiaries—this has resulted in some DoD civilians no longer having prioritized access to care in some U.S. 

facilities. Many of these beneficiaries are now required to receive their care in Korean hospitals. I have been working this issue through the Department of the Army 

on two fronts and if successful will hire 76 new medical and clinical support personnel in the near term which will enhance clinical access for my civilians. 

Furthermore, I continue in my efforts with DoD to resource a TRICARE Overseas 

Contractor responsible for coordinating specialty care off of our installations, establishing Primary and Specialty Care networks throughout Korea, and for establishing 

‘‘local offices’’ in major population hubs. 

Today, we resource our TRICARE Service Center at the U.S. Army Garrison 

Yongsan in Seoul for all beneficiaries assigned to Korea—this office coordinates care 

in local hospitals for beneficiaries who exceed the capabilities of the U.S. facilities 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
582 

in Seoul, Osan, and the geographically dispersed clinics located throughout Korea. 

This office, however, cannot process claims for our beneficiaries. 

Until a TRICARE Overseas contract is awarded, and a TRICARE Managed Care 

Support Contractor is established in Korea, our active duty Servicemembers and 

their families will not have adequate access to TRICARE information and resources, 

and they will be required to continue submitting reimbursement claims for allowable medical services to offices located in the United States. 

Question. You intend to close a total of 63 camps and facilities in Korea. You indicate that to date you have closed 37 and returned 35 of those. What is the timeframe for closing and returning the balance of camps and facilities? 

Answer. Of the 37 that we have closed, 35 have already been returned and two 

(Camp Hialeah and Gimpo Mail Facility) are projected to be returned this year 

(2008), along with 7 additional parcels of land. 

The balance of the camps and facilities (26) are all part of the Land Partnership 

Plan (LPP) and Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP). They will be returned once the 

units located on these camps have relocated to newly constructed facilities at U.S. 

Army Garrison Humphreys. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

Question. The budget request includes $125 million to construct three high-rise, 

multistory family housing apartment towers at U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys. 

This project is part of the Land Partnership Plan between the U.S. and the ROK 

which allows U.S. forces to be relocated south of the Han River, and smaller army 

garrisons be turned over to the host nation. What will be the total U.S. funding requirement for housing construction as contained in the LPP agreement? Will the fiscal year 2009 budget request of $125 million meet the total requirement to move 

the 2nd Infantry Division? 

Answer. The Land Partnership Plan (LPP) is an agreement between the U.S. and 

the Republic of Korea (ROK) to relocate the Second Infantry Division (2ID) to enduring hubs south of Seoul. It does not specify a provision for family housing. The 

Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) is an agreement between the U.S. and the ROK to 

relocate U.S. forces from Seoul to the U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys in Pyongtaek. 

The YRP requires the U.S. to provide family housing units for those members of 

the command who will be displaced from Yongsan Garrison in Seoul to Garrison 

Humphreys. Therefore, the Army’s $125 million FY 2009 MILCON request will only 

fund construction of the first 216 family housing units of the approximately 400 

total family housing units required for our future stationing needs mostly associated 

with he YRP. Additional funding will be required to complete LPP. 

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Question. With the current strength of the South Korean economy, what impact 

are you seeing on construction costs/construction inflation? Would it be in our best 

interest to fund additional military construction or housing at a time when the 

South Korean economy is so strong? 

Answer. The current strength of the South Korean economy has had minimal impact on the cost of construction. There has been a slight increase in pricing due to 

the surge in oil and other commodity prices. Notwithstanding these commodity price 

increases, USFK construction projects have been awarded at or near the estimated 

project cost over the past year. To take advantage of this competitive pricing environment, it is in the best interest of the United States to fund additional military 

construction and housing projects now in order to meet the agreed upon relocation 

timeline. 

The United States and the Republic of Korea signed the Land Partnership Plan 

and the Yongsan Relocation Plan in 2004. To date no money has been appropriated 

by Congress to support the execution of either of these plans. Meanwhile our Korean 

ally is heavily executing their responsibilities under the plan and they have already 

invested well over one billion dollars. It is important that the United States not lose 

additional time and begin to execute our agreements with the Republic of Korea. 

The U.S. Congress has appropriated approximately $300 million in MILCON to 

Garrison Humphreys for Second Infantry Division requirements not directly tied to 

our national commitments associated with YRP or LPP. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
583 

STRATEGIC CULMINATION PLAN

Question. General Bell, according to your testimony we are four years away from 

the culmination of the Strategic Culmination Plan that will be marked with a certification exercise, followed by the disestablishment of the Combined Forces Command and the establishment of separate and complementary U.S. and South Korea 

national military commands. Your testimony highlights our intention to achieve 

operational capability for the new U.S. joint warfighting command, and its service 

components, followed by full operational capability prior to that final certification 

exercise in March 2012. Give the Committee your assessment on whether or not you 

think we will meet this goal. What resources are you requesting in the fiscal year 

2009 budget request to move towards that goal? Is there adequate funding planned 

between now and FY 2012 to meet the goal? 

Answer. My assessment is that we will meet our goal to transfer wartime OPCON 

to the Republic of Korea (ROK), and establish separate and complementary U.S. and 

South Korean national military commands. The Strategic Transition Plan (STP) 

specifies 19 task areas for ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and United States Forces 

Korea (USFK) to action before OPCON transfer in 2012. On-going review of those 

task areas indicates that both nations are currently on plan. The United States does 

not view the STP as containing any ‘‘go/no-go gates’’ that must be passed through 

to achieve OPCON transfer. If we do not accomplish a component of the STP, it is 

the United States’ intent to ‘‘bridge’’ the potential shortfall while executing ‘‘OPCON 

transfer’’ on time with our Korean ally, and not later than 17 April 2012. In FY09 I requested an additional $53.6M from the Army to support important command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) ($37.6M); intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) ($5.6M) and JCS-sponsored theater level exercises ($10.4M) that will directly facilitate OPCON transfer and establishment of a new, separate U.S. military command. I am also working with the 

Army to address our requirements for the FY10–15 Program Objective Memorandum (POM), including $1,006.9M in FY10–12 to support required C41 ($760.5M), 

ISR ($135.6M), JCS-sponsored theater level exercises ($78.8M), and to develop a 

joint theater logistics capability ($32M). 

MILITARY TO MILITARY ENGAGEMENT/SECURITY PROGRESS

Question. In your testimony you highlighted progress in a number of security 

areas, including improved multilateral information sharing, enhanced the capacity 

of regional partners to counter transnational crime and terrorism; changed attitudes 

in populations at risk for terrorist exploitation, advanced U.S. and allied ballistic 

missile defense capabilities, and mitigated human suffering due to natural disasters. 

That is quite a list. Can you tell the Committee more specifically how you accomplished some of these things, and how does your fiscal year 2009 budget request 

allow you to continue to make progress along these fronts? 

Answer. USPACOM has improved regional security by increasing the number and 

sophistication of our multilateral, collaborative activities with allies and partners. 

The focus on multilateralism extends to all engagement activities—information 

sharing, subject matter expert exchanges, exercise and training evolutions, and cooperative solutions to security challenges. Two particularly important examples, 

given the maritime nature of USPACOM, include exercise MALABAR with India 

and the multilateral efforts with ‘‘train and equip’’ funding in the triborder sea area 

between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. With MALABAR, we expanded 

participation to include Japan, Australia, and Singapore. Regarding tri-border sea 

region, and using 1206 ‘‘train and equip’’ funds, we installed a $122M radar/sensor 

system and provided watercraft to reduce sanctuary for terrorists and interdict 

criminal activities such as drug trafficking or arms smuggling. USPACOM advocates for continued ‘‘train and equip’’ authority and funding in FY09. Without congressional action, authority for NDAA Sec 1206 funding expires in FY08. 

The USPACOM counter drug program, executed by Joint Interagency Task ForceWest (JIATF–W), has proven extremely successful. Through information fusion centers, JIATF–W increased information sharing between national police and other security forces, leading to the arrest of high value criminals and destruction of drug 

production facilities. For FY09, the JIATF–W capacity-building budget of $14.4M 

will be focused on increasing partner nation security in Thailand, the Southern Philippines, and Indonesia. 

Assisting those civilian populations at risk to terrorist exploitation is a continuing 

USPACOM priority. Working by, with, and through regional partner nations, 

USPACOM has emphasized humanitarian assistance and civil-military operations 

as a key method to reduce regional susceptibility to violent extremists. For example, 

in concert with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, USP ACOM supported over 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
584 

$3M in Humanitarian Assistance missions, building schools, wells, and cisterns as 

well as providing basic healthcare to thousands of patients. Additionally, USPACOM 

provided goodwill through ship-borne humanitarian assistance deployments, reaching populations rarely visited by U.S. security forces. Last year, USS PELELIU provided medical and dental services to more than 35,000 patients and veterinary services for almost 3,000 animals. USPACOM plans to deploy USNS MERCY in 2008 

for a similar mission. 

USPACOM advanced U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities in theater 

by increasing both our inventory of U.S. Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptors and 

the number of Aegis destroyers capable of launching them. Numerous Theater High 

Altitude Anti-missile Defense tests demonstrated U.S. commitment to the defense 

of our partners. The Japanese Self Defense Force is upgrading BMD capability of 

their Aegis cruisers, with one ship already successfully engaging and destroying a 

ballistic target in December 2007. To enhance interoperability, USPACOM exercises 

and seminars provide a venue for U.S. and Japanese Defense planners to develop 

tactics, techniques, and procedures for the bilateral defense of Japan. 

USPACOM forces have quickly responded to disasters within the area of responsibility. After an earthquake in the Solomon Islands, USPACOM provided a naval 

vessel to work with Australia and New Zealand, assisting in helicopter airlift and 

humanitarian assistance. Additionally, USPACOM forces responded to the Bangladesh cyclone SIDR in November, with embarked U.S. Marine Expeditionary 

Units delivering 861,000 pounds of supplies, 14,000 gallons of water, and treating 

over 4,000 patients. In February 2008, USPACOM assisted Chinese citizens during 

a period of severe cold by airlifting 16 tons of cold weather gear, blankets, and humanitarian daily rations. 

[CLERK’s NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(585) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

WITNESSES 

GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE 

MAJOR GENERAL DEL EULBERG, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER, 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding.] Let’s call the subcommittee to order. 

General Moseley, General Eulberg, welcome back to the subcommittee. It is great to have you here. 

Please accept my apologies for being late. There are several 

things happening today. We had a beautiful ceremony for those 

who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Rotunda of the 

Capitol, and also honoring those who have given their lives in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. And they had a moment of silence on the floor. 

As I was leaving, the Speaker and I had a brief conversation 

about this subcommittee’s work. 

We are glad you are here. Today, we are here to discuss the fiscal year 2009 military construction and family housing request for 

the Air Force. The Air Force’s fiscal year 2009 MILCON request, 

the active component, is $935 million, a decrease of about 19 percent compared to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation and a small increase over the fiscal year 2008 request. 

The Air National Guard’s fiscal year 2009 request is less than 

half of last year’s request, while the Reserve’s request represents 

a more than 25 percent decrease from last year’s budget. 

The Air Force clearly is facing great pressure on its budget. I 

know there are tremendous needs for procurement funding, and, 

clearly, this is reflected in this recent year’s MILCON request. 

So it is obvious that one of the bill payers for procurement has 

to be MILCON, and, General Moseley, that would certainly be one 

of the issues we would want to talk about today so that we keep 

a handle on what the consequences are for quality of life and 

MILCON Air Force programs, as you have to make those very difficult fiscal priorities. 

The family housing construction request is $396 million, which 

is an increase of about 9 percent over the fiscal year 2008 request, 

reflecting the Air Force’s commitment to funding the elimination of 

all inadequate housing here and overseas by 2009. I salute you for 

what you have done. 

We will discuss these and other issues today, but before we proceed, I would like to turn to our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for 

any opening comments he would care to make. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
586 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to welcome you, both, and thank you for your service. 

Also to say that as we go through some significant transition with 

all the branches, the Air Force is unique because there are so many 

areas where you are leading and cutting edge on quality of life in 

some of these issues with the environment and, frankly, the condition of your personnel, and we are grateful for that leadership. And 

you also have a different position on some of the new proposals, 

such as joint basing, so I particularly welcome you here today. 

Thank you for your service and I appreciate your willingness to 

work with the transition that is underway with the other branches, 

knowing that the world that we live in requires these changes and 

that the conflicts of the future are not like the conflicts of the past, 

and we all need to go through this period of change. 

And at this subcommittee, we understand that we are a part of 

that, and the quality of life issues for the personnel around the 

world have to be held up and, frankly, made a focus so that the 

people are not lost in the middle of all these changes. 

Thank you, again, for your presence here today and for you, General Moseley, for coming by and talking with us earlier so I could 

get to know you a little bit. As the new kid on the block, I am 

grateful to be here and grateful, sir, to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

General T. Michael Moseley is the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air 

Force, a position he has held since September of 2005. He previously served as Vice Chief of Staff from August of 2003 to September 2005. He was the Combined Forces Air Component Commander during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, a fighter pilot with 2,800 hours of flight time and, I will 

save the very best for last, a graduate of Texas A&M University— 

a fellow Aggie. It is a thrill to have you here. 

At the witness table with General Moseley is Major General Del 

Eulberg, the Air Force Civil Engineer who oversees the construction, maintenance and environmental quality of Air Force bases 

around the world. 

General Eulberg, thank you for your distinguished service to our 

country as well, and it is great to have you back before the committee. 

General Moseley, your full record will, without objection, be submitted for the record, but we would like to recognize you now for 

any opening comments you would care to make, and then we will 

proceed with the discussion. 

General MOSELEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY

General MOSELEY. Chairman Edwards, Congressman Wamp, distinguished committee members and staff, it is a pleasure for both 

of us to be here again this year. 

Our Air Force Civil Engineer, Major General Del Eulberg, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to discuss these very, very important 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
587 

issues that directly affect our people, our quality of life and our 

mission conduct in the United States Air Force as part of a joint 

team. 

Let me start by, again, thanking the committee and the staff for 

consistent and strong support of America’s veterans, our Airmen, 

our Air Force families but equally our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines 

and Coast Guardsmen that are out there today in harm’s way and 

their families who support them. 

Your marks help us maintain and improve Service member housing and quality of life that are critical to our warfighting projects. 

We appreciate your continued support when you conference with 

the Senate. 

As you know, the Air Force has now been engaged in non-stop 

combat for over 17 years. From August of 1990, when we deployed 

into the Middle East for Desert Shield, and in January 1991, when 

combat operations began for Desert Storm, your United States Air 

Force has not redeployed from the Middle East for 17 years, 12 

years of no-fly zones plus attendant combat in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Mogadishu, Afghanistan and now Iraq. 

We find ourselves facing emerging and increasingly sophisticated 

threats in all of our three warfighting domains—in the air, space 

and cyberspace. In the midst of this uncertain environment, our 

priorities remain consistent: Win today’s fight, take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. And our investments in 

facilities and housing and our judicious implementation of BRAC 

programs are key to achieving these priorities. 

Today, approximately 25,000 of your Airmen are deployed in the 

Central Command area of responsibility as part of the ongoing 

fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. More than 2,500 

of them are engineers. 

These Airmen are doing a fabulous job, and our joint and other 

federal agency and multinational partners continue to ask for Airmen when they need these tough jobs to get done well. I am very 

proud of them, and I am proud of the Air Force families that support them. 

So it is not surprising that our MILCON, BRAC and housing investments in the fiscal year 2009 President’s Budget request have 

carefully balanced the need to care for them today with the need 

to also ensure future generations of Airmen are properly armed, 

trained, housed and cared for. 

I will ask General Eulberg to give you some more details about 

plans for funding our MILCON, family housing and BRAC projects. 

As he does, please keep in mind that all of these projects take place 

in the context of what I am calling a redefinition of air power for 

this century. 

We see the world beyond our borders fraught with instability, 

terrorism, rising peer competitors, rapid technological advances 

and proliferation of dangerous technology, and we are determined 

to ensure the Air Force’s continued ability to fly, fight and win in 

that environment. 

So we are transforming our organizations and adopting new concepts of operations and leveraging and exploiting breakthrough 

technologies to achieve cross-domain dominance and maintaining 

America’s asymmetric edge across the spectrum of combat and conVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00587 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
588 

tinue to provide our nation global vigilance, global reach and global 

power. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Air Force’s ability to wage and 

win our Nation’s wars, now and in the future, depends heavily on 

both our Airmen and the state of our operational infrastructure. 

The Air Force is distinct in that our bases serve not only as housing for our families or our peacetime places of work. They are our 

‘‘front lines’’—our warfighting locations, whether here in the 

United States or abroad, due to the unique characteristics of air, 

space and cyberspace power. 

That is why our people at our bases are important to us, and I 

take pride in the Air Force’s reputation for taking the highest quality care of these installations, because that is where our people live 

and work. 

I thank you again for this committee’s continued help in making 

this happen, and I look forward to your questions and continued 

work on these important points. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

[Prepared statement of General T. Michael Moseley follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
589 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1445 here 42754C.038
590 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1446 here 42754C.039
591 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1447 here 42754C.040
592 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1448 here 42754C.041
593 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1449 here 42754C.042
594 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1450 here 42754C.043
595 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1451 here 42754C.044
596 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1452 here 42754C.045
597 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1453 here 42754C.046
598 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1454 here 42754C.047
599 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1455 here 42754C.048
600 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1456 here 42754C.049
601 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1457 here 42754C.050
602 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1458 here 42754C.051
603 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1459 here 42754C.052
604 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1460 here 42754C.053
605 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1461 here 42754C.054
606 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1462 here 42754C.055
607 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1463 here 42754C.056
608 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1464 here 42754C.057
609 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1465 here 42754C.058
610 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1466 here 42754C.059
611 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1467 here 42754C.060
612 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1468 here 42754C.061
613 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1469 here 42754C.062
614 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1470 here 42754C.063
615 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1471 here 42754C.064
616 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1472 here 42754C.065
617 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, General Moseley. 

General Eulberg. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DEL EULBERG

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp and distinguished members 

of the committee, I am proud to be here with General Moseley representing your Air Force. 

Investments in our fiscal year 2009 construction programs are focused on achieving the Air Force priorities to win today’s fight, 

take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. 

These investments are critical in ensuring our installations continue to serve effectively as warfighting platforms. Our fiscal year 2009 President’s Budget request of $5.2 billion for 

MILCON, BRAC, family housing and facility maintenance is less 

than our fiscal year 2008 President’s Budget request of $5.6 billion. 

This is consistent with our overall strategy of taking acceptable 

risk in infrastructure as we move to modernize our aging weapons 

systems. 

The manageable risk we are taking in MILCON will be mitigated by our requested $168 million increase over last year’s request in 

our restoration and modernization funding. We are doing this equitably across the total force as we all contribute to the central recapitalization of our weapons systems. 

Our housing construction and renovation program continues to 

be a good news story for our Air Force families, as you mentioned, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Airmen and families and commanders continue to provide very 

positive feedback. Housing privatization also continues to be a private and public sector success story. For every dollar we invest 

yields the equivalent of $16 invested by the private sector. Similar 

strategic leveraging will help find additional opportunities to quickly bring quality homes to our Airmen. 

Consistent with our department’s strategic planning guidance, 

our fiscal year 2009 request for housing investment will fully fund 

our program to eliminate all inadequate housing overseas. We are 

asking for $396 million that includes more than 2,100 housing 

units at eight overseas installations. 

Again, I would like to highlight that with the fiscal year 2009 

President’s Budget and Congress’ support in past budgets, the Air 

Force is now funded to eliminate all inadequate family housing. 

Thank you for your support. 

We must provide quality of life for our Airmen at their operating 

and training locations, as well as their homes. Maintaining proficiency of our battle-tested Airmen who have been in continuous 

combat and expeditionary operations for more than 17 years requires quality training environments. 

We have targeted a portion of our program to support this—for 

example, the new security force operations and communications facilities in Burlington, Vermont will provide Air National Guardsmen in one of our most stressed career fields with modern facilities 

to meet training and daily operational requirements. 

To prepare for tomorrow’s challenges, our President’s Budget request consists of $491 million for 32 projects. Twelve of these conVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00617 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
618 

tinue to beddown the F–22 Raptor, our fifth generation air superiority fighter in Alaska and New Mexico. 

The other 20 projects support beddown of the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter, a robust aggressor squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, a 

joint air-ground center at Fort Hood to support our tactical air controllers embedded with the Army and other critical requirements. 

I want to again highlight this year that we remain focused on facility energy conservation, renewable energy and meeting or exceeding the President’s new energy mandates. For the fourth year 

in a row, the Air Force is the number one purchaser of renewable 

energy in the federal government. Last year, we purchased 9.5 percent of our electrical power from renewable power sources. 

I am pleased to say that last December we finalized our partnership with the state and local governments and private industry to 

host North America’s largest photovoltaic solar array, providing 14 

megawatts of power at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 

We have also institutionalized the latest green standards in facilities design and construction. All fiscal year 2009 Air Force-eligible MILCON projects will meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, silver certification criteria. 

The Air Force, like other services, also continues to experience 

significant challenges due to the construction climate, as we testified last year during the hearing. The producers price index for 

construction materials has risen 24 percent since December 2003, 

while the consumer price index rose 14 percent. This is especially 

tough in a more competitive construction market, such as the Gulf 

Coast region and San Antonio, Texas. 

With our MILCON programming budgetary cycle, the DOD price 

models and inflation factors must forecast inflation three years before construction starts, often resulting in inflation factors falling 

short of actual inflation. 

In a 2002 to 2007 study, OSD and OMB inflation rates were onethird lower than the average of industry’s most popular indices. 

Underestimating inflation rates in our projects drive reactive solicitation strategies, scope reduction and workarounds. 

To meet this challenge, the Services and OSD are in the process 

of submitting a report to Congress which provides recommendations on how to adjust and deal with the rising costs that will result in more accurate MILCON development and execution. 

Another example of Service partnership can be found in the Joint 

Construction Management Office in San Antonio, Texas, where we 

are leveraging the strength of the Army Corps of Engineers and 

our newly renamed Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment. This office will successfully execute hundreds of millions of 

dollars of BRAC MILCON in San Antonio. 

Finally, I want to reiterate that we support the Air Force priority 

to recapitalize and modernize its weapons systems. To produce efficiencies and free up funds, we began the most comprehensive 

transformation of civil engineering since the post-Cold War drawdown. We have already restructured our organizations from top to 

bottom, centralized all capital investment execution at the Air 

Force Center for Engineering and the Environment, we have rebalanced our manpower to include increases in high-demand Rapid 

Engineers Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron EngiVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00618 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
619 

neers (RED HORSE) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) combat capability. 

Currently, we are reengineering our business process by enabling 

information technology around an industry-proven, portfolio-level 

asset management approach, one of the key lessons learned from 

our strategic partnership with industry leaders, such as IBM, CB 

Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, 

Walt Disney and General Motors. 

We are developing new strategies to ensure limited funding is focused on the most critical portions of our physical plants. Through 

activity management, incentive-based demolition and consolidation 

programs, utilities privatization, enhanced-use leasing, housing privatization, energy conservation and other initiatives, we are striving to maintain our warfighting platform. 

I am honored to be here for my second hearing cycle as the Air 

Force Civil Engineer, and I am proud to be part of the Air Force 

team, ensuring air dominance for the U.S. and our allies. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, both, for your opening statements and 

also for your lifetime of service to the Air Force. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Let me begin, and perhaps I could direct this to you, General 

Eulberg. 

General Moseley, obviously, at any point, if you would care to 

comment, I would welcome that as well. 

I think one of the untold success stories for the last decade, between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, 

both supporting the public-private housing program. We really 

have made tremendous progress in providing the kind of quality 

housing for our service men and women and their families that 

they should have had decades ago. And I am proud of this subcommittee’s bipartisan effort and role in that public-private approach, which is a new approach to providing quality housing for 

military families. 

But each year, I want to ask each service how many are still living, whether married or single, are still living in housing or barracks that don’t meet DOD standards. 

For the record, General Eulberg, do you know offhand, as of 

today, not how many contracts are in place, but how many people, 

as of tonight, in the Air Force will be living in either barracks or 

in family housing that don’t meet basic DOD housing standards? 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. As we testified last year, we had 

9,400 families in inadequate homes, and this year, we have 4,000 

families in inadequate homes. And with the fiscal year 2009 President’s budget request, we will eliminate all inadequate homes, and 

this year’s focus is on the overseas. 

So as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it has been a success story 

in leveraging our investments. And we will have built out all 

MILCON and family housing privatization by the year 2013. So 

Airmen, regardless of where they are stationed around the world, 

will have homes that meet today’s standards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. And I salute you for that progress. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
620 

What are the numbers in terms of single service men and women 

living in barracks? Would you have that? 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. Through fiscal year 2009, we will 

fund projects to eliminate inadequate dorms, which include construction of permanent party and pipeline deficits. We have eliminated all central latrine dorms and all permanent party Airmen 

are currently living in private rooms. We will be addressing our 

sole remaining pipeline deficit dorm in fiscal year 2010. 

According to the current dorm master plan, approximately 2,700 

Airmen live in inadequate dorm rooms. I would like to highlight 

that 2,300 are currently funded in fiscal year 2009, so that remains 

the delta there. The 400 is the pipeline dormitory at Goodfellow Air 

Force Base, Texas, which we are going to be addressing in the fiscal year 2010 President’s budget request. 

We will continue to replace and renovate existing dormitories at 

the end of their useful life, so you will continue to see requests 

from the Air Force as we recapitalize our dormitory program as the 

facilities continue to age. And that will be articulated in our dorm 

master plan. 

General MOSELEY. Chairman, if I could reinforce, thank you for 

your personal touch on this, but thanks to the committee also for 

helping us get at this for our youngest Airmen. To be able to get 

folks out of those older dorms and into the newer dorms, especially 

in overseas locations, is not just a quality of life issue, it is a safety 

issue. It is also a discipline issue, and it also lets the first Sergeant 

and the squadron commanders watch over our youngest and most 

inexperienced folks. 

And, certainly, because of your personal touch in this committee, 

we have been able to get to those numbers. So we are down to 400. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And that is tremendous progress, and I salute 

you, both, for your leadership and focus on that. 

Let me ask just one follow-up question. It is not an Air Force policy, it used to be last year, but as I now understand it, the definition of adequate housing is a DOD policy, and it doesn’t seem to 

pass the common sense test to me. 

Please correct me if I am wrong. The Department of Defense says 

an Air Force family is living in an adequate house if the Air Force 

would just spend $50,000 to fix the leaky roof, replace the inoperable washing machine and dryer, fix the windows that are broken 

and straighten up the floors that are warped, regardless of whether 

the Air Force ever spent one dime on that home. Is that technically 

the definition that you are operating under, according to DOD 

standards? Is that family with the leaky room that hadn’t been 

fixed defined as living in adequate housing? 

General EULBERG. Sir, we do not apply that definition to adequacy standards in our housing. The United States Air Force uses 

a housing community profile condition process where we send out— 

every three years, we send out teams to all of our bases to make 

an assessment of our homes. And these conditions score one 

through five, five being a new home. 

We make an assessment in 14 different categories. We look at 

the size of the home, the functional layout of the home, if it is 

meeting current standards that you would provide in the private 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
621 

sector. And we go through all the utility systems, playgrounds, tot 

lots, 14 different categories, and we come up with a condition score. 

And if the condition score is 3.75 or less, then the house is 

deemed inadequate and needs investment, regardless of the 

amount, Mr. Chairman. So that is how we do it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I salute you for that. 

And it was several years ago the threshold DOD was using was $15,000, and they raised it to $50,000. It could look like magically 

overnight everybody got adequate housing when, in fact, they just 

raised the amount of money needed to bring it up to standards, 

which moved from $15,000 to $50,000. So I salute you for the 

standard that you are using. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to avoid the temptation to talk a lot, because it is 

really special to think about even my civilian experience with the 

Air Force of having lived on base for 3 months as a 13-year-old 

with my uncle and my aunt at Howard Air Force Base in the Panama Canal zone and then just through the years I could reminisce, 

and I am going to resist that temptation. 

But I do want to say that 3 weeks ago today, particularly for you, 

General Eulberg, I was privileged to deliver the keynote at the 

United States Air Force Academy on character day, and they had 

needs there, because the service academy is the youngest, and 

those buildings were built 50 years ago, and most of them are still 

standing. 

I saw that firsthand while I was there, and I want to raise that 

issue, because it is just one inspirational place. And for 2,800 cadets to be in the auditorium, as I shared with them and listened 

to them and was inspired by them, it is a sight to see. It was a 

top three event in my 14 years of service for me, personally, and 

I have told everyone of that experience. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

General Moseley, I have asked all the chiefs in the services about 

BRAC because of all the good things that were done over the last 

couple of years by the new majority relative to MILCON and our 

veterans’ needs. The one thing that didn’t happen fully was BRAC. 

There is a shortfall delta between last year’s budget request and 

the actual year-end bill. How does that affect you? Do you just 

postpone things? The 2011 deadline is going to be hard to meet. 

How do you adapt? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, it is hard to adapt. I would request to the 

committee to take a hard look at restoring that funding so we could 

execute the legislation in the BRAC planning. Delaying funding till 

the last minute puts us in a bit of a bind, because, as you know, 

sir, it is hard to get things on contract at the end, and things cost 

more as we go further. So the ability to execute and the ability to 

implement, we are hamstrung a bit if we can’t get that funding and 

can’t execute. 

I suspect my other Service Chief brothers said the same thing, 

because we talk about this quite a bit, about our ability to be able 

to pull this together and execute this in the timeline that we are 

asked to. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
622 

Mr. WAMP. And I think we just need to hear it and know what 

the challenges are we face, because my hat is off to this committee 

for what they have done in the past for all these needs, but we can 

put it all into the prism as we look forward. 

RED HORSE AND PRIME BEEF

Another thing, I thought back to is when I traveled with the 

speaker of the House in 1999 through Alaska, and headed west. We 

were briefed there on Bosnia and the global operations at that 

time. And, boy, the Air Force has changed in intent because RED 

HORSE and Prime BEEF are very different from what we saw the 

Air Force’s lead role in 1999 from Elmendorf. 

So just tell us a little bit more about RED HORSE and Prime 

BEEF and these people on the ground, in the Middle East, on behalf of the Air Force and our combined force. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, let me tell you, my perspective is not only 

as service chief but my perspective as having commanded that operation in the Middle East for the two campaigns. 

RED HORSE, for us, and Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force 

(BEEF), these are heroes on so many levels, and they are fundamental to the operation of an expeditionary field. They not only can 

build an airfield but they can operate an airfield, they can renew 

and restore airfields. We can capture airfields, and they can bring 

them up to speed. They are professionals in every way, and they 

live in the same culture for us that the United States Naval Construction Battalions (SEABEES) have for the Navy. I mean, this is 

our combat expeditionary engineering effort, and we do this as a 

total force, with a mix of Guard, Reserve and active. 

And so, I will tell you, some of my fondest memories are the first 

campaign in Afghanistan. We spent time with a Pennsylvania engineering unit that had been there for six months. They were asking 

to stay another six months to finish the projects that they had 

started because of the pride that they had in what they did but 

also the contribution. 

So, sir, this is a big deal for us. We take a lot of pride in those 

folks. They wear a different hat. They wear a red hat, and over 

time people have asked, ‘‘Do we not let them wear a different piece 

of a uniform,’’ but I have said over time they should wear something unique because of who they are and what they do. So this 

is a serious effort for us. 

General Eulberg is a civil engineer. Let me let him finish. 

General EULBERG. Well, sir, I really appreciate the comments 

and General Moseley’s confidence in his engineering force that the 

Air Force has. I get all goose bumpy just thinking about it. 

One of the successes we have is training our young men and 

women in Prime BEEF and RED HORSE to go do these missions 

around the world. Both Active, Guard and Reserve engineers come 

together and seamlessly form a team to be able to accomplish what 

is needed in the combat zone. So that is a real tribute to the training program that we have established over the years between the 

total force, as well as with our joint partners. 

As you go forward, we have RED HORSE teams that are made 

up of all three parts of the total force, and we are very proud of 

what they do. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
623 

I would like to highlight that there are other key elements of Air 

Force engineering capability that are present in the theater and 

support the combatant commander. The Air Force is currently executing $4.6 billion of reconstruction in Iraq by the Air Force Center 

for Engineering and the Environment. We have constructed or repaired over 4,000 facilities in reconstructing Iraq, primarily in the 

justice and security sector, and have been very successful. 

There have been a number of audits and reports done, and I am 

proud to say that because of our business model, we have a very 

small footprint, we rely very heavily on the Iraqi workforce. Ninety-one percent of our construction projects utilize labor from Iraqi 

citizens. Seventy-two percent of our professional workforce over 

there are Iraqis as well. 

So we have a very small footprint, and our business model has 

been extremely successful in the United States Central Command 

Area of Responsibility (AOR), in supporting our Nation’s objectives. 

Lastly, I would like to say that, as General Moseley mentioned 

at the very beginning, our installations are warfighting platforms. 

We have developed, over the years, great master planners, those 

skill sets that we bring to the fight every day in the AOR. The combatant commander utilizes Air Force engineers to plan these joint 

warfighting platforms, like Balad Air Base, Iraq where we do master planning and layouts to maximize both security as well as the 

mission capability of the various units on the installation. 

So that is a third dimension that is often overlooked, but it produces combat power at the end of the day. 

So I am proud to be associated with the men and women that 

serve over there in all capacities. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman Wamp, I will give you a frame 

of reference. In my time as Commander of Central Command Air 

Forces, we built or modified 51 airfields all through Afghanistan 

and Iraq. At its peak, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were operating out of 38 airfields at once. And those 51 airfields and peaking 

at 38 couldn’t have been done without RED HORSE and Prime 

BEEF. They were the ones that go on and build the airfield up. 

They put the runway down and set up the facilities, and operated 

the base. 

Sir, that Pennsylvania unit, one afternoon while I was talking to 

them, the ambient air temperature at that location was 140 degrees, and these guys were telling me—I grew up in a construction 

family, so these guys were telling me they can’t lay the hot mix in 

the day because it won’t cure. They have got to wait and lay it late 

in the afternoon and let it cure all night. And so they were operating 24 hours a day on top of metal buildings, stringing wire and 

laying hot mix at night so it could cure when it was 140 degrees 

outside. 

So these are heroes. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will wait till the next round since 

Mr. Crenshaw is here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And this is a 15-minute vote, and I would 

ask staff to just let us know when we have 3 minutes left to go. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
624 

DECREASE IN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. I apologize for being late. There are a lot of meetings 

going on today. 

But one question I had was about just the military construction 

part and really as it applies to the Reserve, Air National Guard, 

things like that. I noticed there is less request made for military 

construction, and I didn’t know—I assume, in part, that is due to, 

kind of, the war against terror. With the Army and the Marines, 

there is a lot of budget pressure there. 

So, in general, are you asking for less military construction 

money because there are less requirements or is there some budget 

pressure that you might have some requirements that really just 

because of budget constraints, they’re going to go unfunded? 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, that is a great question. 

I would say that the business that we are in, as Service Chiefs 

at our Services now, are balancing competing requirements and 

competing demands. And these are budgetary issues and funding 

issues, and so we are making some hard choices relative to the four 

major areas that we have, which are personnel, infrastructure and 

MILCON, operations and maintenance, and investment, and to be 

able to balance that in an affordability sense. We are making some 

hard choices here. 

As the 18th Chief of Staff, I am 100 percent committed to the 

Guard and Reserve and the Active Duty as a total force and the 

ability to deal with this global war on terrorism and tomorrow’s 

challenges as a total force is the only way I see us being successful 

in the future. So I am a big fan of the National Guard and Reserve, 

and we include them in everything that we do as far as building 

the budget and building the set of priorities. 

So, sir, we are very sensitive to military construction projects, 

whether it is active, Guard or Reserve. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, for instance, I know in my district there is 

an Air National Guard wing, and under the BRAC process they 

ended up with five new aircraft, but there wasn’t any military construction money in BRAC. And, of course, every year they tell me, 

‘‘We need some money because we got the new aircraft. We need 

some military construction.’’ 

So, in general, how is it that the BRAC requirements, in terms 

of military construction, how does that work? And are there some 

requirements that aren’t being funded like that just because of 

budget constraints? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I would say there are probably a lot of requirements out there that are not being funded because of affordability issues. For specific details, I will let the civil engineer talk 

about that, but we try not to let something go uncovered. 

We are very serious about the aviation units and about the requirements to operate airplanes. 

And, sir, I will tell you, as we mentioned before, to be able to get 

the BRAC funding restored is a big deal for us. To be able to execute that and to get all of this done by 2011 is a serious challenge. 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. And I would just like to add on— 

whether it be BRAC or the traditional MILCON funding, as you 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
625 

mentioned, there is not enough money to invest in our infrastructure as we would like to because of competing priorities. 

And whenever we go through the BRAC process to determine 

what the requirements are, as you know, there are a lot of recommendations under BRAC, but like the normal budgeting process, 

there is a vetting process where you look at every weapons system 

move, regardless of the base, and those requirements have to be 

validated. 

And I would like to say, there is always the push between what 

is a new requirement based on mission movement and what is an 

existing deficiency. And that debate goes on in all Services. 

And so without specific details on the type of project you are 

talking about, sir, I will just tell you that it is a total force discussion, whether it be BRAC funding or MILCON, and we prioritize 

within available resources. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does it affect the daily operations, do you think, 

of—I mean, like, there is never enough money, I understand that, 

and there are certain things that are more deficient than the others, but would you say that the lack of funding, does it impact the 

day-to-day operations in any of these projects? 

And, Mr. Chairman, maybe one part is, I don’t know if it is appropriate, that some of the—if there is not enough money and there 

are some requirements that aren’t being funded, maybe do we have 

a list of what those might be or should we ask them just to let us 

know that there are some—that they are asking for so much but 

there are some things that actually are required but because of 

budget constraints they really don’t ask for them. I don’t know if 

that would be helpful for us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be appropriate to ask. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, we do, at the request of the 

Congress, forward an unfunded requirements list every year that 

is parallel to the budget. And in that unfunded requirements list, 

we prioritize that with the initiatives to win today’s fight, take care 

of our people, and prepare for Tomorrow’s Challenges. And in that, 

I believe, is about $800 million worth of MILCON projects that are 

unfunded. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BRAC FUNDING

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. How much time do we have before the 

vote finishes? Five minutes? 

Let me just jump in real quickly. I want to thank Mr. Wamp and 

Mr. Crenshaw for bringing up the BRAC issue. Clearly, we have 

to address that. 

In calendar year 2007, we had, as a result of taking money out 

of this subcommittee’s allocation to fund increases for veterans’ 

health care, including a lot of the troops coming back from Iraq and 

Afghanistan, we underfunded BRAC with the assumption we would 

replace that money when we got to the Iraq war supplemental bill. 

We replaced 100 percent of the president’s request. 

This past year, we did the same thing to fund up additional 

MILCON requests and veterans’ health care programs. We took 

$939 million out of the president’s request for BRAC. The BRAC 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
626 

fund that we approved was a significant increase over the previous 

year. It was $939 million short of the president’s request. 

My hope, again, is that we can come close to replacing that, dollar for dollar, just as we did last year. 

General Eulberg, for the record, do you have the Air Force’s allocation, the shortfall—that $939 million, how much of that—if that 

were to be fully funded, how much of that would go to the Air 

Force? 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. If it was fully funded $235 million of 

the reduction is Air Force, and of that $235 million, $129 million 

is in direct BRAC MILCON, which going back to the earlier question on what is the impact, because it delays our ability to do 

things like move the mission and related equipment and personnel 

from Kulis Air National Guard Base to Elmendorf Air Force Base, 

Alaska, it affects the Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida and a number of other quality of life facilities at Shaw Air 

Force Base, South Carolina. So there is a direct impact to our personnel as well as our missions as a result of that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask you—you are a step ahead of me— 

could I ask you sometime in the next week, General Eulberg, to 

send to the committee a written list of some of the complications 

if you don’t get BRAC funding? I think it would be important. Because sometimes I know you can’t move personnel from one installation to another in the BRAC process until you have new housing 

and facilities, so there is a backlog that is created. 

[The information follows:] 

The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of Defense BRAC 2005 

account must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction will result in the Air Force 

receiving $235 million less than required in Fiscal Year 2008. The Air Force will 

experience delays and disruptions in construction and the movement of our people 

and assets. Delays will also impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines. 

To implement BRAC 2005 and the Commission’s recommendations, the Air Force 

uses a continuous process to identify, analyze, refine, coordinate, and validate requirements. Although the Air Force has not cut any projects due to this reduction, 

if left unfunded the Air Force will need to defer BRAC military construction 

projects, operations and maintenance requirements, and planning and design. Those 

deferments are based on today’s planned award dates. The Air Force may further 

adjust its strategy and the deferral list in order to maintain the needed flexibility 

to execute its program. 

Our initial analysis of the reduction indicates the Air Force will be required to 

accept risk in the following areas: 

—Military Construction: Will defer 21 projects, valued at $124.2 million (15% 

of total BRAC military construction, including a housing project valued at $9 

million. All deferred projects have an estimated award date after June 1, 2008. 

—Planning and Design (P&D): Will defer $5.2 million in requirements (28% 

of total P&D). 

—Operations and Maintenance (O&M): Will defer $96.8 million in requirements (36% of total O&M). 

If the reduction is restored sometime during this fiscal year, we will figure out 

a way to get back on track. If it is permanently lost, we will be hard broke; delays 

in accomplishing the Fiscal Year 2008 requirements will have ripple effects impacting mission readiness and our ability to meet the mandated BRAC 2005 completion 

deadline of September 2011. 

Let me stop there. We have less than 3 minutes left. 

To my colleagues, we are going to have a journal vote after this 

first vote. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
627 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will come back and I have about 

three more questions. So as soon as we vote that second time, you 

and I will come and finish. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sounds good. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the committee back to order. 

Let me just take a couple more minutes, and I think that will 

take up my 5 minutes on this round. 

INFLATION ASSUMPTION

On the inflation factor issue, I have been concerned that it 

seemed the policy in the past that OMB, some genius at OMB decided that construction inflation was going to be 2.43 percent a 

year, and then each service has to develop for each year of 

MILCON budgets based on that assumption. 

General Eulberg, you referenced the inflation issue. Clearly, we 

all understand, and you quantified it, but the difficulty we are facing with construction inflation, whether it is for roads, military 

construction or VA facilities. Are you allowed to—as you develop 

your future years defense plan for MILCON, are you allowed to 

build in what you think within the Air Force is—assumption or are 

you given a guideline by OMB that you can only assume 2.4 or 

some other ridiculously low number that doesn’t pass—— 

General EULBERG. Sir, we are given the information we can use 

in the out-years, and that is exactly what the TriService study will 

report on. 

I hope we are successful in convincing OSD and OMB and if required Congress, for that kind of latitude, because, ultimately, we 

have to either cut scope, change our acquisition strategies, do less 

quality construction, which becomes more and more important 

when you have to start cutting costs. We begin to trade off things 

like sustainment, LEED design criteria that will help to lower the 

life cycle costs of the project overall. And so we really save a little 

money upfront, and it costs us a lot more over the long haul, because we want to make sure those features are built into our buildings. 

And that is why this year you will see an additional line on our 

DD Form 1391 MILCON documentation. We have added a line 

item of two percent for sustainability features in every one of our 

buildings, as I alluded to in my opening statement. 

Why? Because we want it formally part of the project so it is not 

traded off due to cost pressures, because that is good, long life cycle 

asset management for the United States taxpayer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I hope we can work together to change the process, because we have just got to have realistic data to allow you 

to make good decisions rather than assuming. 

What is the assumed number right now that comes out of OMB? 

General EULBERG. Sir, I will have to give you for the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The last time I saw it, it was 2.43 percent or 

something. 

General EULBERG. Sir, I think 2.3 percent, but—2.2 to 2.4 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
628 

The Price Escalation Index (annual rates in percentage) for military construction 

and operations and maintenance programs for Fiscal Years 2009–2013 is a straight 

line 2.0 percent. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

JOINT BASING

General Moseley, another privilege I have had a couple of times, 

including 2 months ago, was going through Hickam, and that is a 

good example of kind of the woes of joint basing. I want you to explain the Air Force’s concern, which is a legitimate concern, and is 

different from the other Services, on the potentiality of joint basing 

and what it can do to places where your base is your operational 

command in a conflict. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, thanks for that question. Let me go back. The staff back here said that they felt like $100 million is our unfunded. What we said was $12 million. 

Sir, we are looking to make joint basing a raging success. It is 

rich for us and the ability to look at saving on a joint base offers 

us a chance to do some things that we haven’t been able to do before. 

So I am a big supporter of joint basing, and I am a big supporter 

of the initiatives that we worked very hard coming out of BRAC. 

There are 12 joint bases and the Air Force is the lead Service for 

six of those bases. So half of this effort comes to us, and so you 

know we take this very seriously. 

Sir, we have had a series of continual dialogues on joint basing 

and how do we implement it and how do we execute it, and I am 

going to defer in a minute to General Eulberg who has been the 

guy doing that very work. 

Our desires in this process is to ensure that we streamline all 

understandings of mission requirements and that we streamline all 

understandings of the ability to execute a mission, whether that is 

maritime, land, air, space or joint, and that we understand each 

other’s knots in our ropes as far as we go through this process 

about operating port facilities, operating airfields, and operating 

training ranges. 

And we have gone through a series of tabletop exercises so we 

can much better understand each of these in a joint setting. And 

we are to the point now where we are looking at memorandums of 

agreement at each of the bases to protect those imperatives and the 

ability to execute. 

There are still some issues out there that we are working 

through, but, for the most part, I am in full support of joint basing 

and in full support of how we get at this. The concerns that we 

have still revolve around execution of command and those tabletop 

exercises and those memorandums of agreement will take us a long 

way to addressing that. 

Mr. Chairman, let me turn it over to our expert who has been 

doing that. 

General EULBERG. Sir, as General Moseley mentioned, we have 

been about this for a couple of years, meeting with OSD as well 

as the other Services at the 12 joint bases. It has been a challenge 

because of how we do installation support between the various 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
629 

Services are different, and I will just give you one example which 

underscores what General Moseley was talking about, in that as 

we go forward with joint basing, the Air Force has always been 

particularly concerned about it for a couple of reasons. 

One, they are our warfighting platforms. We launch and recover 

aircraft out of our bases. We also deploy from those airbases, so we 

are very concerned about our embedded military at the joint bases. 

The engineers take care of our military forces, so . . . we are 

very concerned and need to get down to the details through the 

memorandum of agreements (MOAs). We must ensure we have the 

ability and commanders have the ability to organize, train, and 

equip our military members. 

Next challenge, after we work our way through the MOAs, we 

are funded a little bit differently. Installation support for the other 

Services is sometimes coded with mission dollars, and so we have 

to work our way through that as well. At the end of the day, a joint 

base, regardless of who the lead Service is, must try to achieve the 

highest standard for that capability. 

When Navy, Army, Air Force, or Marine families, or our young 

troops go to a fitness center we must strive to achieve the highest 

standard that any of the services have. And we are working our 

way through that as we speak, because, ultimately, we want joint 

bases to be the places where our young men and women want to 

be stationed and preserve our capability. 

The last thing that I would like to highlight on the mission side 

that we are working with OSD and the other Services on is, again, 

they are our warfighting platform. Airfield operations is a core 

competency of the United States Air Force. We do not believe that 

is an installation support function. It is warfighting for the United 

States Air Force, and we are working that hard with OSD now. 

But I believe we will—in fact, I know we will—be successful. 

CYBER COMMAND

Mr. WAMP. General Moseley, earlier you mentioned one of your 

primary responsibilities, cyber command. What facilities or infrastructure needs do you have with the cyber command mandate? 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, that is a great question. I can 

answer some of it but not all of it. 

We have a provisional command that we are looking as the leading edge of trying to get our arms around this new domain. We 

have had several discussions in the joint world as well as amongst 

ourselves about how best to provide forces for the U.S. and use the 

current unified command plan to size the forces and execute in that 

domain. 

So we are in the process of deciding and determining and fielding 

how we recruit and train both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) 

and officers to live in that world and operate and how to develop 

squadrons, groups and wings to be able to present forces 24 hours 

a day, seven days a week, whether it is in place or virtual, and to 

be able to operate in that domain. 

Our provisional Cyberspace command stood up at Barksdale Air 

Force Base, Louisiana. We have a major general in charge of it, 

and we are looking to stand up a permanent command later. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
630 

Sir, we have had a variety of headquarters locations offered and 

offerings to conduct studies and analysis, plus the environmental 

assessments at each of those locations. 

And, sir, I think it is 18 states who have offered opportunities 

to do that, and so we want to get this right, and we want to understand the pluses and minuses and it is equally important to understand what synergies—institutions as well as civilian professional 

institutions—that are out there living in these domains. 

So it is not just about an Air Force headquarters, it is about how 

do you derive the fully synergy of what is possible in this new 

warfighting domain? 

And so going through the 18 states’ offerings will probably take 

us through the summer and into the fall before we have some closure. 

So that is the part that I don’t know yet, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question left, and I 

will hold since Mr. Bishop has shown up, if you need me to wait 

for another round. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is your choice. Okay. 

Mr. Bishop. 

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I just have one area of questioning related to family housing. 

You know that we have had several disruptions in the housing 

construction at Moody Air Force Base, particularly when the prime 

contractor ran into difficulties and financial problems. Can you give 

us an update on where the project is now and whether a new prime 

has been identified? And what is the projected timetable for that 

project? And how successful has Air Force been in utilizing local 

contractors as subs? And the final question is, have the subs that 

were working for the first prime been able to get paid? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I am going to tell you from our perspective what I think, then I am going to let the civil engineer fill in 

the details. 

From our perspective, it has taken way too long, and we have got 

people that are disadvantaged from not being able to move into 

housing. To me, this is an issue between contractors that have not 

been able to deliver, and I understand the oddities of the court system and there is litigation that is going on, which is taking time, 

which is the way litigation works, but it is also time that we don’t 

have people living in houses that are new, and we don’t have people that are able to move into houses at four different locations. 

I can’t get into the litigation business, because it is not my job, 

other than to express frustration that it has taken way too long to 

get housing built and to get people into quality homes under this 

template that we have got now. 

So let me get out of the way and let the civil engineer provide 

the specific details for you. 

General EULBERG. Sir, as you alluded to, and General Moseley 

mentioned, privatization of our family housing has been overall 

very, very successful across the Air Force. We are having issues 

with American Eagle at four bases where they are the project owners at Hanscom, Patrick, Little Rock and Moody Air Force Bases. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
631 

Where we are at right now is, obviously, the contractor has failed 

to perform. They fell behind, as you highlighted, way behind. We 

have gone through a number of court actions. The Moody project 

is now in Georgia state receivership. 

The current project owner is American Eagle, which is made up 

of Carabetta as well as Shaw, and those two companies are right 

now in discussions with a potential buyer of the four-base deal. 

They are meeting and hope to have a letter of intent in the next 

30 days and a sale by this summer, about the July timeframe. 

They are working through all those details now, and we hope that 

they are successful. 

And for purposes of this discussion, we are very optimistic that 

we will be able to work through a deal. And, again, that would be 

Shaw-Carabetta with the bondholders as well as the United States 

Air Force are working together to see if we can’t get a new project 

owner on board to be successful. 

As you highlighted, there are subcontractor liens that are out- standing. To date, $233,000 in liens have been paid for subcontracts at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 

Mr. BISHOP. How much are unpaid? 

General EULBERG. There is a total of $7.1 million in unpaid subcontractor liens. They have filed liens and claims, and that is going 

through the legal process for adjudication at this time. 

Mr. BISHOP. You have already paid 200 plus thousand, but you 

have got several million outstanding. I receive a lot of communication about that situation, particularly from folks that are suffering 

from lack of payment. And, of course, my hands are tied, I guess, 

like yours are, but I appreciate your updating us on the situation. 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, we are equally frustrated that 

we can’t move people into those houses. That is a nice looking community down there, and it is a community that has no one living 

in those houses. It is very frustrating to know that we are going 

to get quality and full enhancements in military family housing 

that meets our criteria and we can’t get at it at those four locations 

because of what is happening at this time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you getting any details as to what happened 

with the company? Do you have any information on that, what 

happened to American Eagle that caused them to get into these 

troubles? 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. Well, there are a number of issues, 

especially across the board. Not only did we have four bases involved, which were four separate source selection authorities, four 

separate source selection committees that went through the process, but we would like to highlight that the Army and Navy also 

had projects with American Eagle and experienced exactly the 

same problem. 

American Eagle failed to deliver and manage these projects appropriately. The bondholders were notified of problems. These 

projects began in October of 2003 and 2004, and those were the 

dates of the privatization contracts that were let at all four installations. 

Fundamentally, American Eagle fell behind in their construction 

schedule; therefore, they fell behind in the Basic Allowance for 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
632 

Housing (BAH) payments that we would be making to them. And 

so it became non-sustainable, if you will, and bondholders were notified. Part of the issue was the bondholders also did not react 

when the Air Force notified them. 

So there are a number of lessons learned along the way in this 

process, but, fundamentally, American Eagle was unable to manage a project of this size. 

Mr. BISHOP. Had they managed projects for the Air Force or for 

the other services prior to these particular contracts or was this the 

first impression with this particular company? 

General EULBERG. In terms of housing, sir? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

General EULBERG. Yes, this is the first. 

Mr. BISHOP. Had they done some other contracts? 

General EULBERG. They may have done other government work. 

I don’t know what that is, but it was not associated with the housing construction for the United States Air Force. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have any way of predicting, since it is in 

the legal process, how long this will take to resolve and get the 

families in the houses? 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. We predict that if we get a letter of 

intent executed by American Eagle and the new project owner 

within the next 30 days, we will have a sale agreement by July of 

this year, to include new financing. We will restructure each one 

of the housing requirements at each one of the bases and then go 

forward. And we will be able to move on. This has been a very complex problem and project, but we are optimistic that we will have 

this behind us by this summer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

CHILD CARE WAITING LIST

Could I ask you to submit, Chief, for writing to the committee 

what the waiting list totals are at various installations of the Air 

Force for daycare and whether there are some unfunded needs for 

youth activity centers as well? And I think we will ask this question each year just to see if the waiting list for daycare is getting 

longer or shorter. We will meet with the top non-commissioned officers of the service’s daycare. It is always high on the list of needs. 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
633 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1513 42754C.066
634 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1514 42754C.067
635 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1515 42754C.068
636 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am proud of what this subcommittee did together last year to initiate $130 million of unrequested daycare, 

unrequested from OMB for daycare centers, much requested from 

our military leaders. I applaud the administration this year to have 

a huge increase for daycare funding. 

But if we could just get those numbers, that would be helpful. 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. EDWARDS. General Moseley, in your testimony—and I appreciate your honesty—you said, ‘‘The Air Force has taken risks in infrastructure.’’ It goes back to what you have already said about you 

have got to make tough choices, given the budget and time of war, 

the needs for new procurement programs. 

Could you take a couple of minutes to further explain what you 

mean when you say the Air Force is taking risks in infrastructure? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, as you know, we have four kinds of 

money: Personnel money, infrastructure and MILCON money, 

O&M money, and investment. As we work with OSD and the other 

Services on the affordability issues of taking care of our people, 

winning today’s fight and preparing for tomorrow’s challenges, we 

are having to make hard choices across each of those portfolios. 

In the previous President’s Budget request, as we received our 

total obligation authority, to be able to pay that bill, we took additional risk in infrastructure MILCON, we took some additional risk 

in O&M, we tried to hold our investment accounts as constant as 

we could, and that is where we ended up, force shaping 40,000 personnel authorizations off the books. 

And so I think we need to increase the floor—and this is our 

issue, not your committee’s, and are looking now at 330,000 instead 

of going all the way down to 316,000. But that is an example of 

having to make the trades with the obligational authority that we 

have. 

Sir, I will give you a MILCON example. We accelerated the F– 

22 into the Pacific to meet United States Pacific Command’s demands and requirements for deterrence and dissuasion. We have 

three squadrons appropriated—two to go to Elmendorf Air Force 

Base, Alaska and one to go to Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. And 

so we have got the airplanes there at Elmendorf now, but we are 

a bit behind on MILCON to the airplane. 

So to be able to get the operational piece of this—the aircraft— 

into the theater to do the deterrence and dissuasion missions, we 

have taken a bit of risk in MILCON, and we are a bit behind. 

And we have that in our Fiscal Year 2009 unfunded requirements list in order to catch up. 

As we beddown the airplane at Holloman Air Force Base, New 

Mexico, we can operate immediately with Fort Bliss, Texas and the 

brigade combat teams that are there, plus the White Sands Missile 

Range and all of that wonderful airspace. We are trying to catch 

up with the MILCON again, because these aircraft are very capable, and to get them at the right place at the right time, we are 

lagging a little bit in the MILCON. 

So those are two good examples of risk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
637 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And on your unfunded MILCON list, the $800 million list, are those in descending order of priority? Do you 

rank them? If you could fund one project, what would it be? If you 

could fund 10, what would they be? 

General EULBERG. They are not. 

And I have no idea whether we can find any additional money 

for the fiscal year 2009 President’s Budget request, but if we did, 

we will sit down with your staff and go through what would be the 

order of priorities. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

General EULBERG. Yes, sir. 

General MOSELEY. And that acceptance of risk touches all of our 

components—Active, Guard and Reserve—to be able to fight today’s fight, to maintain our operation and maintenance accounts, 

our flying hours and our training ranges and to be able to pay for 

our people, because not only is it the right thing to do to pay people 

who come to work every day but it is the law. And then the investment accounts, because we have got such an aging inventory, we 

have to somehow address that. Those are the tradeoffs that we are 

dealing with. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. General Moseley, as we close, let me say about your 

comment on your actions, that I am glad that Sam Houston and 

Davy Crockett understood Texans when they got out there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am glad we turned them into heroes. 

Mr. WAMP. Yes. They were heroes when they left—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. We do have that in common. 

PRIVATE SECTOR

General Eulberg, this is kind of a softball, but I am actually interested in this. It seems to me that many countries around the 

world appreciate our free enterprise system sometimes more than 

we do. It also seems like the United States Air Force appreciates 

it, and through this core of discovery, you are trying to leverage the 

beauty of our free enterprise system and the knowledge and the 

cutting-edge advancements into the military. 

And I also understand that is one of your goose bump things, so 

give me 2 minutes, as we close here, on the advantages for our 

armed services of leverage in the private sector. 

General EULBERG. Sir, thank you very much for that question. 

As your staff probably told you, during our Air Force Fiscal Year 

2009 MILCON/Military Family Housing/BRAC staffer days, I got 

so excited over this. 

As we go about our business of trying to become more efficient 

and effective in maintaining our warfighting platforms, we have to 

get better as stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars to figure out what 

we are going to do. 

So we set on a path to visit the companies that I highlighted in 

the opening statement. We went to every one of those companies 

with their C-ring executives, the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Procurement Officer, Head of Human Relations and Information Technology sat down an entire day with each 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
638 

of these great companies and we took 10 of our experts there and 

spent all day talking about, how do you do business case analysis, 

how do you flatten your organization, how do you leverage strategic 

outsourcing and the other aspects of the decision-making process. 

How do you do portfolio management across the entire spectrum 

of managing your real estate, whether it be, how do you do leasing, 

what kind of decisions you make to do that, what type of IT systems do you have in place to roll off to do a business case analysis? 

Our aim is to provide our commanders in the field with good decision-making support. 

So instead of repairing a crack in the runway, with that one dollar and one hour of time, we are actually focused in on the encroachment issue where we should be spending our one dollar and 

our one hour of time. So it allows a much broader perspective in 

managing. Also, the private sector has seen great savings by a 

portfolio-level management of installations. Fifteen to 20 percent 

on utility contracts; service contracts, 15 percent savings; strategic 

sourcing, savings can be as high as 40 percent. 

So if we can take those lessons learned from the private sector, 

roll it into an asset management culture, which is part of our reorganization, with new IT tools that allow that to take place, and we 

will be more effective at managing these warfighting platforms. We 

will be able to do the same mission for less dollars and really leverage the power of our people who do this every day. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago, when the privatization 

in housing began, and you rightly said to me, ‘‘We have got a lot 

to be proud of there.’’ This is the next 10-year mission in terms of 

transformation of activities. This is definitely—— 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, if I could parallel just for a moment these business practices. 

We take in an amount of information, which are equivalent to T1 

lines, which is about a million bits of information per second. When 

everything is up and running, that operations center brings in over 

100 T1 lines at any one time. With that kind of information, imagine what the future could be with displays that look a lot like a 

hologram or displays that look a lot like a real-time picture of 

weather. 

So when you do time-sensitive targeting on opportunities to 

strike things that present themselves very fleeting, how can you 

look at the situation and see where the weather is, where the 

friendlies are, and where the hostiles are? How can you bring that 

together much, much quicker? 

In days past, we did it with grease pencils, and we did it just 

with mental calculations. We are at a point now where we know 

what is out there. The next challenge is to be able to display it and 

to be able to put that behind you as a baseline and then to get into 

really, really fascinating work. 

So this partnership, like cyber that you asked about, how do you 

partner with academia, how do you partner with industry to stay 

at the leading edge of those technologies? This is really exciting 

stuff. 

Mr. WAMP. Just for my colleagues, from my old subcommittee responsibilities before I got promoted, when the new capitol visitor 

center opens in November here and you go through it and you get 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
639 

the tour and you see the video and you see all the technology, you 

will go, ‘‘Wow, Disney was consulted on that,’’ just like Disney is 

being leveraged here. So the government finally realizes the tremendous advantages are out there, if we will just go seek them out. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, the last thing, which I know that you will 

like, is that we have also begun to work very, very closely with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of 

Transportation. Since we do airplanes and spacecraft and they do 

airplanes, we are looking to fit how do we display the future air 

traffic control system and how do we look at those sorts of 

synergies so everyone benefits at the same time based on what we 

do and what they do. I mean, for a guy that flies airplanes, this 

is pretty exciting stuff. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief, I just have one last question. It is not this 

subcommittee’s jurisdiction and it is not my intention right now to 

get involved in the legal questions regarding the decision on the 

KC–45 tanker, but I do understand, please correct me if I am 

wrong, that the new type of aircraft won’t be significantly larger 

than the tankers in the current inventory. 

And I would like to ask you if this will require new infrastructure—hangars, aprons, shops—to replace the infrastructure used to 

house the present tankers? And if so, do you have a—— 

General MOSELEY. Mr. Chairman, that is a good question—let 

our legal folks prepare an answer for the record, because we are 

in a protest now, and want to stay—as much as I can here without 

an aggravation. 

The military construction comparisons were included in the assessment of both offers, and the notion that either airplane will require some new enhancements to infrastructure, whether one has 

a bigger wingspan or not, you will still have to do—just like an F– 

22, an F–35 or either one of these aircraft, you will have to do some 

work. We have got some projections, but until we know the final 

answer to this, sir, we would be remiss in giving you a specific answer, because we don’t know that yet. But the MILCON comparisons against the two were in the criteria that helps define the selection. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

General MOSELEY. And then, sir, there is much more to follow. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

General MOSELEY. Because each base is different. Each hangar 

and array is different, each base is different, and so we take a variety of bases and use those as baselines as we run through this. 

But, sir, to get into detail of your question, some of it I know, 

some of it I don’t know, but please let us take that for the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Chief. 

Questions? 

Well, if not, on behalf of the entire subcommittee, let me thank 

you, both, for your testimony today and, most importantly, for your 

and your families’ lifetime of service and commitment to our country. We are grateful for that service, and it is great to be with you. 

Thank you. 

[CLERK’s NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
640 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING

The FY 2009 Unfunded Requirements List included $385 million to increase active end strength by 13,554 and the reserve by 3,400. My understanding is that the 

current military construction and family housing program is built around the assumption that PBD 720 will be carried though. 

Question. Does the $385 million include any MILCON or family housing requirements to increase end-strength? If so, what is the amount? If not, has the Air Force 

performed a cost estimate of the MILCON and family housing impact from increasing end strength to this level? 

Answer. The $385 million does not include MILCON or family housing requirements. While the Air Force has not performed an estimate to determine the impact 

of increasing our end strength to this level, any increased MILCON and family 

housing requirements will be addressed as the requirement becomes known at the 

installation level. 

MILCON requirements are determined for each base to support mission requirements and to enhance quality of life. While an increase in end-strength at the base 

level may drive additional requirements, we would also consider using existing infrastructure to support the increased requirement. 

Family housing requirements are outlined in the Air Force’s Family Housing Master Plan and are based on an assessment of housing in the local community as well 

as end-strength. 

Therefore, for MILCON and family housing requirements, the impact of an endstrength adjustment at the installation level would have to be known before a requirement could be established; in addition, other available local resources would be 

considered before a MILCON or family housing project is developed. 

ROAD MAP

Earlier this year, the Air Force published a ‘‘Road Map’’ identifying numerous 

bases in the U.S. and its territories that could potentially hold a variety of current 

and future systems. This appears to be unprecedented. 

Questions. (a) Why did the Air Force choose to publish such a list? (b) Are you 

currently conducting engineering and environmental assessments at all of these 

bases for the systems indicated? (c) How did the Air Force determine which bases 

to list? 

Answers. 

(a) The Air Force published the Roadmap to create a common sight picture as part 

of a strategic planning effort to meet one of the Nation’s most pressing needs: recapitalization and modernization of its aging Air Force fleet. The Roadmap represents a Total Force (Regular Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve) approach to the beddown of weapon systems to create a more efficient and 

flexible force structure. It outlines where future advanced weapon systems could potentially be based in the continental U.S., Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. territories. 

(b) The Air Force has not started environmental assessments on all the candidate 

bases mentioned in the Roadmap. Installations that meet basing requirements will 

then undergo thorough environmental studies in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA mandates environmental analyses and impact 

studies which are critical factors in determining final beddown bases in the U.S. as 

suitable locations for weapon systems. These major studies take time, may consider 

either one or several installations in a single study and may not be initiated at 

every potential location. The findings of these environmental studies, and the results of required fiscal and operational analyses which will be conducted over the 

next several years, will determine the final beddown plan and phasing. 

(c) The Air Force chose to evaluate installations which currently house legacy 

weapon systems forecasted for replacement by future systems. The Roadmap does 

not include possible basing initiatives on foreign soil. Overseas basing of Air Force 

future weapon systems will be accomplished in partnership with allies using normal 

consultative planning venues. 

F–35 BEDDOWN

The total Air Force FY08–13 MILCON program for beddown of the F–35 is $480 

million, includes $378 million that is unspecified. 

Question. (a) When will the Air Force make a decision on the final beddown locations for the F–35? (b) What is the total projected MILCON requirement for F–35 

beddown based on the current projected buy, beyond the amounts programmed in 

the current FYDP? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
641 

Answer. (a) On 16 January 2008, the Air Force released the Future Weapon System Roadmap of potential beddown locations for the F–35. The Air Force is in the 

process of finalizing the basing criteria for F–35 beddown. Once the Air Force has 

determined the basing criteria and performed a complete analysis of the potential 

locations against those criteria, additional announcements will be made on F–35 

beddown locations. 

(b) The Air Force has a requirement of 1,763 F–35s. At current projected procurement rates, F–35s will still be delivering well into the 2030’s. Although each of the 

locations on the Future Weapon System Roadmap currently has a fighter mission, 

F–35 specific requirements usually require some amount of new MILCON or alteration of existing facilities to support F–35 operations. At this time it is too early 

to predict the MILCON requirement over the lifecycle of the F–35 until after site 

surveys have been conducted, assessments of existing infrastructure at those locations have been completed and final beddown locations have been determined. 

COMBAT SEARCH AND RESEARCH HELICOPTER

The Air Force has programmed $109 million into the current FYDP, beginning in 

FY10, for the new Combat Search and Rescue helicopter. I understand that you are 

conducting environmental reviews at several possible beddown locations. 

Question. (a) When will the Air Force make a decision on the final beddown locations for the CSAR–X? (b) Does the $109 million in the FYDP reflect the full projected cost? 

Answer. (a) Kirtland Air Force Base, NM and Nellis Air Force Base, NV will be 

the first two Air Force bases to receive the aircraft. A decision for the remaining 

locations will occur no earlier than the summer of 2008. 

(b) No, the funding is initial cost only. The final funding is dependent upon source 

selection and weapon system requirements. 

DORMS-4-AIRMEN

Question. How many Airmen are currently living in ‘‘Dorms–4–Airmen’’ standard 

unaccompanied housing, and how many are living in 1+1 dorms? 

Answer. Currently there are 4,018 Airmen living in Dorms-4-Airmen standard unaccompanied housing, and 15,156 Airmen living in 1+1 dorms. 

PERMANENT PARTY DORMITORIES

Question. How many of your permanent party dormitories are more than 25 years 

old? 

Answer. Of the Air Force’s 924 dormitories, 500 permanent party dormitories are 

over 25 years old. 

PIPELINE DORMITORIES

Question. Does the Air Force use a quality scoring for pipeline dormitories? 

Answer. Yes, all Air Force pipeline dormitories are scored in the Dormitory Master Plan using a Total Facility Condition Score (TFCS). The TFCS is based on a five 

point scale and assesses the condition and functional deficiencies of the dormitory 

and its associated infrastructure. Condition Scores are determined based on estimated operations and maintenance plus the expected system replacement cost. 

Functional scores for pipeline dormitories compare the existing facilities and room 

configurations with the Air Force pipeline standards as presented in the Air Force 

Dormitory Design Guide. 

GUAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The Air Force has submitted a MILCON requirement of $1.8 billion for the bed 

down of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Strike systems on Guam. 

Question. (a) Does the Air Force have a target date for the completion of this initiative? (b) What will be the impact to Marine Corps forces if this beddown is not 

completed concurrently with the relocation of Okinawa? 

Answer. The start of the RQ–4 Global Hawk beddown in late Fiscal Year 2009/ 

early Fiscal Year 2010 at Andersen AB, GU is on track. Through joint planning efforts, three of the planned Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance/ 

Global Strike projects were identified as having the potential to facilitate the Marine beddown. However, a full assessment of the impact of the Air Force the program on Marine beddown capability needs to be coordinated with the Joint Guam 

Program Office. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
642 

RELOCATION FROM OKINAWA TO GUAM

The U.S., with the agreement and assistance of the Japanese government, plans 

to relocate 8,300 marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. 

Question. Is the Air Force currently assessing its force laydown on Okinawa? 

Answer. The Air Force force structure on Okinawa will not change based on the 

Marine Corps’ move to Guam; however, as future modernization, budget constraints, 

and global operational requirements dictate, the Air Force may re-evaluate force 

structure basing. 

The U.S., with the agreement and assistance of the Japanese government, plans 

to relocate 8,300 marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. 

Question. Will the Marine Corps relocation have any impact on the Air Force force 

structure and footprint on Okinawa? 

Answer. The Air Force and Marine Corps on Guam will continue to work together 

in order to successfully conduct missions in their operational environment. However, 

until the Marine Corps further defines and determines its requirements for Okinawa, we cannot accurately assess those impacts to our force structure and footprint. 

TRAINING RANGES IN KOREA

General Bell, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, has indicated dissatisfaction with 

the air-ground training ranges in Korea. 

Question. What is your view of this situation and its impact on 7th Air Force? 

Answer. U.S. Air Force and the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) are striving 

to meet training requirements in the face of the Republic of Korea’s extraordinary 

development. Specifically, the loss of Koon-Ni range in 2005 (due to encroachment, 

noise complaints, and conflict with new Inchon airport), coupled with use of legacy 

airspace/air-to-ground range systems, limits training opportunities. The existing airground training ranges no longer accommodate evolving ROKAF and U.S. Air Force 

training demands, particularly given Korean economic development and increased 

civil aviation traffic. 

Currently, two ranges are available to U.S. Korea-based aircraft, both with significant limitations to include no permanent electronic warfare training until 2011 and 

no night scoring: 

Pilsung Range is the only range that allows strafe events that have proven so important in supporting OIF and OEF. All flying wings within the Republic of Korea 

(ROK) use this range, which significantly limits its availability. Weather, terrain, 

frozen ground in the winter and fire danger in the summer also limit Pilsung 

Range’s availability for strafe. In addition, the range is too small for guided bomb 

units. 

Jik-Do Range is unusable if any surface vessels are within a three nautical mile 

range (common-access is not restricted). Live munitions and Mavericks are not authorized due to ROK/US installation of instrumentation within the weapons footprint. However, Jik-Do Range is the only range available for night strafe. Also, combined ROK/US inert precision weapon practice on Jik-Do on March 25, 2008 could 

pave way for future joint direct-attack munitions training. 

U.S. access to other ROKAF air-to-ground ranges has been restricted based on 

civil opposition. Current work-arounds include using the Kadena ranges and limited 

off-ROK deployments. 

AFSOC WING AT CANNON

Question. What is the timeline for construction associated with the AFSOC wing 

at Cannon Air Fore Base and what are the total construction costs (including both 

Air Force and SOCOM-funded construction)? 

Answer. As identified in the January 18, 2008 Government Accountability Office 

audit report, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico has an Air Force and Air Force 

Special Operations Command (AFSOC) military construction requirement of $283 

million in the current Fiscal Year 2008–2013 Future Years Defense Program. However, at this time, we do not have a firm timeline or total construction cost for the 

facility requirements to beddown the AFSOC mission at Cannon Air Force Base. Facility requirements and costs are currently being developed by AFSOC in conjunction with Headquarters United States Air Force for the Fiscal Year 2010 President’s 

Budget request. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
643 

PERSONNEL RELOCATIONS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

The Air Force has indicated a need to relocate 3,100 personnel from leased facilities in the National Capital Region (NCR) for the purpose of complying with Department of Defense force protection standards. Of these, 804 are being relocated 

through the BRAC program with a $53 million project scheduled for FY09. This 

leaves a balance of 2,300 personnel. In the FY09 MILCON request, the Air Force 

is seeking an additional $78 million to accommodate 1,200 more of these personnel 

at Andrews Air Force Base. 

Question. Where are these personnel currently located? 

Answer. Currently these personnel are primarily located in government leased 

space, at Bolling AFB, and the Pentagon. 

Question. Of these personnel, how many are military, how many are Department 

civilians, and how many contractors? 

Answer. The breakout of the Air Force personnel relocating from leased space to 

Andrews, Bolling, and the Pentagon is roughly 1,250 military, 1,150 department civilians, and 700 contractors. 

Question. What functions do these personnel perform? 

Answer. The functions of the personnel relocating to Andrews Air Force Base are 

a cross section of the Air Force staff functions and their supporting agencies. The 

functions include personnel, plans and operations, installations and logistics, financial management, scientific advisory board, IT support, staff judge advocate, and the 

Air Force District of Washington’s staff. The functions of the personnel relocating 

to Bolling include: acquisition, Office of Special Investigations, Air Force Reserve 

command support, plans and operatios, war fighting integration, intelligence, plans 

and programming, public affairs, inspector general, general counsel, international 

affairs, and studies and analysis. 

Question. Has the Air Force assessed the option of resolving force protection 

issues in place at these leased locations? 

Answer. Yes, there have been two studies of leased space facilities conducted and 

all reach the same-conclusion. None of the current leased space occupied by the Air 

Force can meet Department of Defense force protection standards primarily driven 

by the set back standards from thoroughfares and a host of other significant 

vulnerabilities. 

Question. Has the Air Force solicited feedback from civilian employees to ensure 

that they will follow the jobs to their new locations? 

Answer. When final plans for personnel relocations in the National Capital Region 

have been completed, we will survey as appropriate for each location—Andrews Air 

Force Base, Bolling Air Force Base, and the Pentagon. 

Question. Has the Air Force assessed the housing requirements for the military 

personnel to be relocated? 

Answer. Housing was not specifically studied as the moves are within the same 

shared National Capital Region housing market area so there should not be an impact. 

Question. How will the Air Force resolve the question of the remaining 1,100 personnel? 

Answer: The remaining personnel are slated to go to Bolling Air Force Base. The 

movement of these personnel is primarily a result of the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed Pentagon Occupancy and Space Allocation Study (POSAS). The 

POSAS reduced the Air Force allocation of office space by 130,000 square feet which 

equates to approximately 900 personnel displaced. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

RISK IN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Question. General Mosley, not including BRAC, as I look at your fiscal year 2009 

budget request, you are looking at reductions across-the-board with the exception 

of the Family Housing Construction account; that does include an increase of $83.1 

million. Beyond that there are cuts to Military Construction, Air National Guard, 

Air Force Reserve, and Family Housing Operations and Maintenance. This is a challenging budget request for the Air Force. Operational and maintenance costs are rising, inflation is going up, and personnel costs are increasing. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
644 

The way that you stated it is that the Air Force is ‘‘accepting manageable risk 

in facilities and infrastructure funding.’’ Can you provide the Committee with more 

of a quantitative assessment of this infrastructure risk? 

Answer. Air Force facilities, housing, and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

programs are vital to our installation infrastructure. Our installations are weapons 

systems that serve as power-projection platforms. These platforms provide the Global Combat Support that enables the Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global 

Power that underwrite America’s security and sovereignty. As the Air Force continues to modernize and recapitalize, we will continue to wisely invest our precious 

military construction funding to win today’s fight, take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. In the short term this means taking acceptable risk 

in facilities and infrastructure funding. 

The Air Force assesses risk in facilities and infrastructure by evaluating the requirements and funding of three related programs: Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (R&M), and Military Construction (MILCON). While these 

requirements are critically important to supporting our Installation Weapon Systems, we occasionally take risks in one or two in order to fund other Air Force priorities. In the Fiscal Year 2009 budget we chose to take increased risk in facilities 

and infrastructure in order to put more money toward modernizing our aging weapon systems. 

The greatest risk was taken in the MILCON program, which is approximately 

20% smaller than the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 budget submissions. We feel we’ve 

managed or mitigated the MILCON risk by funding Facility Sustainment to 90% of 

the Department of Defense requirements model and by reducing the risk in our 

R&M program by increasing funding over $160 million compared to Fiscal Year 

2008. While these actions help us to manage risk in Fiscal Year 2009, we will likely 

re-invest in infrastructure in Fiscal Year 2010 to ensure we preserve the capability 

of our bases—our installation weapon systems. 

Question. The Air Force budget request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC 2005 of 

which $734 million is for construction. How much were you cut between the fiscal 

year 2008 request versus the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, and what type of adjustments is the Air Force making due to those cuts? Does the fiscal year 2009 request try to recapture the cuts that were made in fiscal year 2008? How do these 

cuts impact planning, execution and the 2011 deadline? Which projects have you 

had to cancel or defer? 

Answer. The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of Defense BRAC 

2005 account must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction will result in the Air 

Force receiving $235 million less than required in Fiscal Year 2008. The Air Force 

will experience delays and disruptions in construction and the movement of our people and assets. Delays will impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines. 

To implement BRAC 2005 and implement the Commission’s recommendations, the 

Air Force uses a continuous process to identify, analyze, refine, coordinate, and validate requirements. Although the Air Force has not cut any projects due to this reduction, it has deferred BRAC MILCON projects, O&M requirements, and planning 

and design. Those deferments are based on today’s planned award dates. The Air 

Force may further adjust its strategy and the deferral list in order to maintain the 

needed flexibility to execute its program. 

Our initial analysis of the reduction indicates the Air Force will be required to 

accept risk in the following areas: 

• Military Construction (MILCON): Will defer 21 projects, to include one housing 

project, valued at $126.4M (15% of total BRAC MILCON). All deferred projects have 

estimated award date after June 1, 2008. 

• Planning and design (P&D): Will defer $5.2M in requirements (28% of total 

P&D). 

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M): Will defer $97.8M in requirements (36% 

of total O&M). 

If the reduction is restored sometime during this fiscal year, we will figure out 

a way to get back on track. If it is permanently lost, we will be hard broke; delays 

in accomplishing the Fiscal Year 2008 requirements will have ripple effects impacting mission readiness and our ability to meet the mandated BRAC 2005 completion 

deadline of September 2011. 

(8) The Air Force was unable to request additional funding in the Fiscal Year 

2009 President’s Budget request because Service ‘‘fair share’’ costs were not known 

until after the Fiscal Year 2009 budget was submitted. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
645 

ENGINEER SHORTAGE

Question. A lot of what we hear is that there is a shortage of engineers in this 

country, but then you can always find someone to counter that argument. Is there 

a shortage of engineers in the Air Force and, if so, what are you doing to address 

the shortage? 

Answer. Air Force Civil Engineer career-manning levels are stressed. Current 

CSAF guidance directs active-duty personnel to deploy at a goal of 1:4 dwell (1:2 

max) and reserve forces at 1:5 dwell. Air Force Civil Engineers currently have six 

active duty Air Force specialties that do not meet that guidance without relief in 

the foreseeable future, and our Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer and senior non-commissioned officer leadership are currently at a 1:1 dwell. Our EOD manning level is 60% for MSgt (E–7) and 74% for SMSgt (E–8), while our overall retention rates of officers is 50% for Captains, 75% for Majors, and 87% for Lieutenant 

Colonels. The Air Force is working to employ various recruitment/retention incentives to ensure we attract and keep qualified engineers in the skills and ranks needed. While we continue to meet both our in-garrison and deployed Civil Engineer requirements and National Security Strategy (NSS) requirements with a combined 

military and civilian workforce, continued joint-sourcing taskings (often referred to 

as in-lieu of (ILO) missions) and manpower cuts are placing increased stress on our 

military engineer OPSTEMPO. We continue to review and modify our requirement 

for engineers to align with our wartime combatant commander needs and installation-management organization. This response only addresses installation engineering support (Civil Engineer specialty) and does not include the research/development, acquisition or systems engineer needs of the Air Force. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Question. The Air Force is now in its fourth year in a row of leading the federal 

government in leadership on energy and the environment. Your testimony says that 

the Air Force is number three in the nation in the purchase of renewable energy 

to operate its $243 billion physical plant. Can you quantify that for the Committee? 

What does it mean that you are number three in the nation? 

Answer. The Air Force’s green power ranking is from the EPA’s Green Power 

Partnership. ‘‘Green power,’’ a subset of ‘‘renewable power,’’ is electricity generated 

from environmentally-preferable renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact biomass, and low-impact hydro, but excludes waste-to-energy 

sources that are included in the more comprehensive category of ‘‘renewable.’’ In 

Fiscal Year 2007 the Air Force purchased 899,143,000 kWh of ‘‘green power’’, up 

from 467,500,000 kWh in Fiscal Year 2006. We currently rank third nationwide behind Intel Corporation and PepsiCo. 

The Air Force’s primary strategy is to expand development of on-base renewable 

power generation through public/private partnerships. One such example is the 14.2 

megawatt photovoltaic solar array at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, which is the 

largest photovoltaic project in the Americas. Although ‘‘renewables’’ on Air Force 

bases are expanding, we supplement on-base renewable power generation with the 

annual purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates. This helps the Air Force reduce 

its environmental footprint, meet its federal renewable energy mandates, and support the development of new commercial renewable power generation nationwide 

while assisting power producers to meet State mandates for renewable energy. 

Question. Your testimony says that you are on track to beat by two years the Department’s 2014 goal for environmental restoration. Can you please quantify that 

for the Committee? What is the Department’s goal for environmental restoration? 

Answer. The Department’s goal for environmental restoration is to either put a 

remedy in place or complete the response at each cleanup site by 2014. The Air 

Force projects that either a remedy will be in place or the response will be complete 

at its 6,615 Installation Restoration Program sites (Active Duty, Guard and Reserve) 

by 2012, two years ahead of the Department’s 2014 goal. 

FAMILY HOUSING

Question. You plan to have privatized more than 41,500 housing units by the beginning of fiscal year 2009, and you plan to privatize an additional 4,300 housing 

units in fiscal year 2009 with your request, so that would take you up to 45,800 

privatized units. At the end of fiscal year 2009, how many units would still not be 

privatized, and what is the Air Force doing to determine if it is feasible to privatize 

those units? 

Answer. The Air Force is continuing to evaluate the feasibility of privatizing housing for all Continental United States installations. There are 9,400 units at 13 ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00645 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
646 

tinental United States installations under review but a final determination on privatization at these bases has not yet been made. The Air Force is continuing to conduct Housing Requirements Market Analyses as well as working various grouping 

options at the installations (i.e., financial feasibility studies). 

BACHELOR HOUSING

Question. The fiscal year 2009 Air Force requirement for dorm rooms is 60,200. 

You noted in your testimony that Phase I, in which you eliminated central latrine 

dorms is now complete. Phase II is where you address permanent party and pipeline 

dorm room shortages by building new dormitories. 

What is the cost for Phase II, and is the entire $104 million that is in the FY09 

budget request the final funding requirement for Phase II or does part of that go 

to Phase III? What is the total cost for Phase III?. 

Answer. With the Fiscal Year 2007–2009 military construction programs we will 

be fully funded to complete Phase II except for one remaining pipeline dormitory 

deficit at Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX ($14 million), which we will address in the 

Fiscal Year 2010 President’s Budget request. 

The $104 million in this year’s President’s Budget request supports renovation of 

a Phase II dormitory at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY ($9 million) and construction of a Phase III dormitory at Lackland Air Force Base, TX ($76 million), the first 

of six recruit dormitory projects. The remaining $19 million is a new mission requirement to construct a dormitory to support beddown of the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter. 

Costs to complete Phase III to recapitalize our dormitories will continue to be 

evaluated through our Dormitory Master Plan process as our existing dormitories 

reach the end of their useful lives. 

FITNESS CENTERS

Question. How much does the fiscal year 2009 budget request include for the construction of a fitness center at Dover (DE) Air Force Base? How many of your installations are currently in need of a fitness center, and what is the total cost to construct those centers? 

Answer. The Fiscal Year 2009 President’s Budget request includes $19 million to 

construct a fitness center at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. The Air Force’s current Future Years Defense Program includes 10 fitness center projects at $143 million. The total Air Force fitness center investment requirement includes an additional $683 million at more than 40 installations. 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding for the construction of 1 new child development center. What is the overall Air Force need for child 

development centers? 

Answer. The current Military Construction (MILCON) program includes the following projects ($64.5M): 

FY09: Columbus AFB, MS—($8.1M). 

FY10: Beale AFB, CA—($17.2M). 

FY11: Cannon AFB, NM—($7.9). 

FY11: Eglin AFB, FL—($11.0M). 

FY12: Bolling AFB, DC—($9.0M). 

FY12: Spangdahlem AB, Germany—($11.3M). 

Additionally, we recently identified the following projects to OSD P&R in support 

of an initiative to meet the requirements of the President’s State of the Union address for ‘‘expanding access to child care’’ ($70.7M): 

MILCON-eligible Projects: MacDill AFB, FL; Moody AFB, GA; Seymour Johnson 

AFB, NC; Nellis AFB, NV; Vandenberg AFB, CA. 

Minor Construction-eligible Projects: Davis Monthan AFB, AZ; Langley AFB, VA; 

Vogelweh AB, Germany; Spangdahlem AB, Germany; Tyndall AFB, FL; FE Warren 

AFB, WY; Malmstrom AFB, MT; Buckley AFB, CO; Schriever AFB, CO. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Question for the record submitted by Congressman Farr.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
647 

BRAC 

Question. Onizuka Air Force Station (California) is to be closed as part of the 2005 

BRAC. Does the Air Force plan to sell the Onizuka parcel outright or will it consider 

an economic development conveyance request from the City of Sunnyvale (which is 

the LRA)? 

Answer. As part of the property screening process to determine other federal 

agency needs for the property, the Air Force has approved a request by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the transfer of about two acres to support Veterans programs. The Air Force cannot formally announce a plan or make a final decision on the method of disposing the remainder of the property at Onizuka Air 

Force Station until the Air Force has completed the processes required under the 

base closure law and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The base closure law requires a redevelopment authority to prepare and submit a reuse plan to 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The plan will balance the homeless assistance requirements (of which there have been two requests) 

with other economic and development needs of the local community. The City has 

thus far indicated it will submit a plan by July 31, 2008, which is well before the 

projected base closure date of September 15, 2011. After HUD approval of the reuse 

plan, the Air Force will use the plan as its proposed action for NEPA environmental 

planning purposes, as required by the base closure law. If the City desires an economic development conveyance (EDC) of the property, then the City must submit 

an EDC application to the Air Force. When the NEPA process is completed, the Air 

Force will consider the EDC request and other property disposal options in arriving 

at its final property disposal decision. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of question for the record submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Question for the record submitted by Congressman Boyd.] 

BRAC 

Question. Thank you for taking my question. I am curious about a parochial issue 

involving this most recent round of BRAC. The recommendation in BRAC that I am 

asking you about is below. My question is this: 

Why is the proposed CRIF for F100 engines located at New Orleans Air Reserve 

Station, LA when the only base in the area that still uses F100 engines is Tyndall 

AFB? I look forward to hearing from you on this important issue. 

Recommendation: Realign Langley Air Force Base, VA; Tyndall Air Force Base, 

FL; and Jacksonville International Airport Air Guard Station, FL. Establish a Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility (CIRF) for F100 engines at Seymour Johnson 

Air Force Base, NC by realigning base-level F100 engine intermediate maintenance 

from Langley Air Force Base. Establish a CIRF for F100 engines at New Orleans 

Air Reserve Station, LA (Air National Guard unit) by realigning base-level F100 engine intermediate maintenance from Tyndall Air Force Base and Jacksonville Air 

Guard Station. 

Answer. This BRAC recommendation, which by law the Air Force must implement 

not later than September 15, 2011, accomplishes several things. First, it produces 

economies of scale by distilling five F100 engine repair locations into two. It also 

consolidates dispersed and random workflows, enhances reliability-centered maintenance, and improves support to the war fighter. Next, it leverages existing physical 

capacity at New Orleans Air Reserve Station keeping the amount of required military construction to a minimum. Finally, a CIRF at New Orleans will capitalize on 

the potential capacity and recruitment of experienced maintenance technicians left 

behind when the New Orleans Reserve A–10 flying mission moves elsewhere under 

a separate BRAC recommendation. This BRAC recommendation also helped define 

the future state F100 Consolidated Repair Facilities (CRF) network for the Repair 

Enterprise for the 21st Century initiative, which has now expanded into Repair Network Transformation. Under this initiative, 7 CRFs will repair engines for all F100- 

powered units. The New Orleans CRF will be an integral part of the capacity necessary to support these units. 

The New Orleans Air Reserve Station CIRF will service F100 engines for nearly 

100 F–15 aircraft assigned to Active Duty and Air National Guard units located in 

the Southeastern United States. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of question for the record submitted by 

Congressman Boyd.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(649) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

Congressman Rodriguez, welcome back to our subcommittee. It is 

good to have you here. 

This afternoon, our subcommittee will hear from members of 

Congress and public witnesses representing various nongovernmental organizations, and I want to thank all of you for being here 

and all the good work you do that impacts directly upon this subcommittee’s work. 

We have a number of people testifying and, for that reason and 

because of time constraints, we will ask each witness to limit his 

or her remarks to no more than 5 minutes, but we will, by unanimous consent, have the full testimony included in the record. 

I would like to begin by recognizing my colleague, Mr. Wamp, 

our ranking member, for any comments he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is as new for me as it is 

for others here. So I look forward to this action-packed afternoon. 

It does remind me of when we were in the majority, and I was 

on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I thought one 

day that then Chairman Ralph Regula was just being nice to me, 

asking me if I would mind chairing the day that we had outside 

witnesses before the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and, 

after about the 60th Indian tribe testified before the committee, I 

figured it out. 

So I figured out why I chairing that day’s hearing, because it was 

a lot of different people and a lot of different information over 

about a 5-hour period of time. 

But I do look forward to this this afternoon, and I thank you very 

much for your courtesy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, if I start asking so many questions, we are 

going to stretch out to 5 hours. Would you cut me off, please? 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, sir, with pleasure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are really honored to have Congressman Ciro 

Rodriguez, my colleague and friend from Texas, who has been a 

real champion for the military, our troops, their families, and is an 

outspoken leader for veterans. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
650 

Thank you for being here, Congressman, and the time is yours. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

WITNESS 

HON. CIRO RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to personally thank you for allowing us the opportunity 

to testify, and I hope you will continue to do this. I hope it works 

out in a very positive way, and I hope you take into consideration 

all of the recommendations, since I am the first one, that come before you. 

I represent the 23rd congressional district in Texas. It is one of 

the largest in the country. And I come before you today to express 

my concerns with the allocation of funds for the military construction and for the BRAC process. 

Our nation’s military care has reached an unprecedented level of 

performance never before seen in the history of war. Advances in 

medical technology and training have made the casualties of today 

into the wounded of tomorrow. 

So in this particular situation that we find ourselves, we see the 

results of this and having the large number of people that have 

been injured during this war, and because of our technology, thank 

God, they are still with us. 

But that also means that we have a responsibility for them. We 

do not have adequate facilities to handle this increase in population 

of wounded veterans. 

Further, we have had the department of the chief of staff of the 

Army testify before the House Armed Services Committee that the 

Army is short in doctors, psychiatrists and other health professionals. 

So we are in deep trouble when it comes to the number of people 

that we need in health care. 

I suggest that we prioritize and make this recommendation, in 

the upcoming BRAC appropriations, defense health programs, to 

fund before other BRAC constructions, anything that deals with 

health care, that that take priority, and that includes the 

polytrauma centers in the VA and, if at all possible, to take that 

into consideration before anything else. 

And if there are any cuts that are to be made, that those cuts 

would not be made when it comes to medical facilities that we are 

trying to upgrade as much as we can. 

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen and the marines deserve nothing but the finest equipment and the facilities that our nation can 

afford. Our nation can ill afford to recruit and retain volunteer 

military, yet pass on the huge importance of neglected facilities and 

our lack of infrastructure. 

So I once again stress the importance of prioritizing the health 

care area as one of the issues. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
651 

I also have the opportunity to have several bases within my area 

and we have inadequate housing for student pilots at Laughlin Air 

Force Base. It is their number one MILCON project. 

Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, Texas is the largest producer 

of pilots for our nation’s Air Force. It is, in essence, where our Air 

Force mission begins. 

Pilot training is a grueling and ingraining marathon that tests 

the will and nerve of not only the future aviators, but the thousands of support personnel that maintain the aircraft and the facilities in that area. 

And due to those numbers and due to the shortage of dormitories, our facilities for the pilot training at Laughlin are of key 

importance to making sure that a good quality of life issue for our 

soldiers is there and to make sure that they don’t reside in those 

old facilities that they have now. 

We have, furthermore, the project at Laughlin—gains in population at the base will force more family housing units to be converted, driving military dependants to find housing in local communities, which is currently shown to be in the short of 435 units. 

Laughlin Air Force Base has a project that is for the future. We 

are asking to see if it could come up to year 2009. That would allow 

construction of a 64-person unaccompanied officer’s quarters, as 

well as demolition of 41 units that were built way back in 1949. 

So I ask for that to be taken into consideration. 

In addition, Camp Bullis, in my congressional district, is an integral part of the BRAC mandated consolidation of the military medical education in San Antonio. 

Recent combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted a shortfall in military training, especially within the area 

of urban operation. 

And as you well know, Camp Bullis is within an urban area and, 

in this day and age, soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines 

are experiencing casualties in urban areas as the norm rather than 

the exception. 

Camp Bullis has projected also funding for construction for a live 

fire exercise shoot house, which will provide a facility where our 

medical service members will learn how to move tactically in a 

building engaged in targets and practice, and, also, be able to practice in that area. 

So I ask that the committee also seriously review the 

prioritization of the project and to move it forward for this year 

there at Camp Bullis. 

In conclusion, I also hope that you will consider the costs of deferring long-term infrastructure improvements. The longer we wait 

on this, the worse it gets in terms of the cost and the sooner we 

go out on bids on some of these items, the lower we are able to get 

that done. 

So I would hope that you would look at prioritizing those issues 

that I have indicated and, that is, when it comes to health care of 

our soldiers, when it comes to health care of our veterans, that you 

take that as the number one priority and move on that, and with 

the consideration of Laughlin Air Force Base and the need for our 

pilots. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
652 

These are our young pilots that are going to defend our country. 

We need to make sure we have facilities that were not built in 

1949, but newer facilities there, with additional missions there at 

Laughlin, and, again, with a facility there at an urban area at 

Camp Bullis, which is unique and which almost doesn’t exist anywhere else. 

So I want to personally thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be here, and I want to thank you for allowing for us to 

be able to have an audience and to be talking to the cardinal right 

in front of me in the leadership. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
653 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1567 here 42754C.069
654 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1568 here 42754C.070
655 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1569 here 42754C.071
656 

Mr. EDWARDS. Ciro, thank you. 

This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time you will be an eloquent spokesman for our military troops and their families and our 

veterans, and I want to salute you again for your work last year 

in seeing that we put money in the VA budget to create the first 

polytrauma center in the southwestern United States, which will 

be in San Antonio, as a result of your hard work. 

Also, while I don’t have any questions, and we will look at the 

project-specific requests you made, I want to thank you for bringing 

up BRAC. 

If you had been here this morning at another meeting we had, 

Mr. Wamp, rightfully, talked to the Air Force chief of staff about 

what concerns we would have if we don’t go back and fully fund 

BRAC. 

And I know last year, you worked to see that we replaced 100 

percent of the money that we had taken out of BRAC to add to veterans’ health care needs, and I hope we can replace, if not every 

dollar, the vast majority of the money, $939 million, I believe, that 

we used out of BRAC–08 to put into other high priority military 

construction and veterans’ programs. 

And I know that, in fact, not only in the San Antonio area, but 

military bases all over the country and I think that it is important 

that Mr. Wamp, as our ranking member, and you and other key 

members have reminded us that we have got to keep our eye on 

BRAC, and try to get that in a supplemental. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. And I want to thank you, and I don’t know 

where you are on this, but I served 8 years on the Armed Services 

Committee, and I hope we don’t do any more BRACs, and that is 

my hope, because there is no doubt that they have been real costly 

and there is a tendency to lowball them at the beginning, but they 

have been expensive. 

But it is something now that we have to fulfill and we have done 

it. So we need to make sure we do the right thing and beef up in 

those areas where we have to. 

And coming from a city where we have the largest base ever 

closed, which is Kelly Air Force Base, I am here to tell you that 

it has got 14,000 people working in there now and doing real well. 

The other base, the only legislation of its kind in the country, 

which was Brooks City Base legislation, where we chose to BRAC 

that base ourselves and I don’t have to tell you how hard that was 

in working with the labor side to assure them that they would have 

jobs. 

That community is booming at Brooks City Base, but we also 

have the other BRACs both at Fort Bliss and downtown at Fort 

Sam Houston that we have to beef up on, and those contracts and 

those projections that were made earlier are much higher than 

what initially were anticipated. 

So I would hope that we would come up to that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. Thank you for your comments. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. I just want to commend Ciro for his initiative. If we 

had more members of the House that actually took charge of things 

like this, did their research, advocated in this kind of an effective 

way, we would be better off. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
657 

And I am impressed and I am grateful for your appearance here 

today. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I hope you continue to do this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you for being here. 

We now have Cheryl Beversdorf. Ms. Beversdorf, welcome back 

to the subcommittee. It is good to have you back. 

By way of introduction, Ms. Beversdorf is president and CEO of 

the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, representing over 

280 community-based homeless veterans’ service providers in 48 

states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. 

Ms. Beversdorf is a former Army nurse, and thank you for that 

service, and a former staff member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee, and is a leading authority on homeless veterans’ 

issues. 

Let me just say, before you begin your remarks, we heard your 

testimony and that of others last year and that was a significant 

part of why we nearly doubled the funding for the Homeless Grant 

and Per Diem program. 

We know we are just beginning. We hope a lot of the mental 

health care dollars we put into the budget will also go to providing 

the continuum of care that our homeless veterans need. 

But to you and all those who testified, let me just say it may 

seem like a dog-and-pony show today as we run through this, but 

a lot of the ideas presented last year really did help us put together 

a historic bill for veterans last year. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. And it paid off. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So welcome back. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And the 5 minutes is yours. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS 

WITNESS 

CHERYL BEVERSDORF, PRESIDENT AND CEO 

STATEMENT OF CHERYL BEVERSDORF

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans appreciates the opportunity 

to submit testimony before this subcommittee regarding VA appropriations for fiscal year 2009. 

VA officials report the partnership between the VA and community-based organizations has substantially reduced the number of 

homeless veterans each night by more than 38 percent since 2003, 

a commendable record of achievement that must be continued if 

this nation is to provide the supportive services and housing options necessary to prevent homelessness among the newest generation of combat veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
658 

Regarding the appropriations for the VA homeless veteran programs, Congress has established a number of programs within the 

VA to address homelessness among veterans, and the primary goal 

for these programs is to return homeless veterans to self-sufficiency 

and stable independent living. 

Homeless veterans also receive primary medical care, mental 

health and substance abuse services at VA medical centers and 

community-based outpatient clinics through the health care for 

homeless veterans program, and my oral testimony contains recommendations for appropriations for several of these homeless veterans assistance initiatives. 

Regarding the one that you had mentioned, the Homeless Vet 

Provider Grant Per Diem program, it is the nation’s largest VA 

program to help address the needs of homeless veterans. 

And last September, the GAO presented testimony before the 

House Veterans’ Affairs Health Subcommittee regarding homeless 

veterans’ programs and reported an additional 11,100 transitional 

housing beds are necessary to meet the demands of the estimated 

number of homeless veterans needing assistance. 

And you are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, thanks to the sup- port of this subcommittee, Public Law 110–161 provided for $130 

million, the fully authorized level, to be expended for the Grant 

and Per Diem program. 

But based on the GAO’s findings and the VA’s projected needs, NCHV believes that $200 million authorization is now needed. The 

grant and per diem programs have evolved into a homelessness 

prevention network as much as a proven intervention, care and 

treatment collaborative partner with the VA, and an increase in 

the funding level for the next several years would help to ensure 

and expedite VA’s program expansion targets and guarantee continued declines in veterans homelessness. 

Regarding special needs, the VA provides these to VA health care 

facilities and existing grant and per diem recipients to assist them 

in serving homeless veterans with special needs. 

Before these grants, Public Law 109–461 authorized appropriations of $7 million for fiscal year 2007 through 2011. And the increased risk of homelessness among these populations, and I especially want to emphasize women veterans, which is, frankly, the 

fastest growing cohort, because of the fact that women now make 

up 15 percent of the military, and this warrants funding for the 

special needs grant above the currently authorized level, and additional grant and per diem program funding would address this 

need. 

Another program, HUD–VASH, which I remember you talked 

about last year, that program provides permanent housing and ongoing treatment services to the harder to serve homeless veterans 

with chronic mental health and substance abuse issues. 

NCHV was incredibly pleased with Public Law 110–161, which 

included $75 million to be used for 7,500 Section 8 vouchers for 

homeless and disabled programs. And we are pleased that HUD 

has requested an additional $75 million for this program in the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Under this program, VA must provide funding for the ongoing 

treatment services to veterans receiving these rental vouchers. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
659 

We believe that the $7.8 million which was proposed in their 

budget for fiscal year 2009 was agreed to before the dramatic increase and the HUD–VASH vouchers became law and without 

knowledge of the HUD’s fiscal year 2009 proposal. With each housing voucher requiring approximately $5,700 in supportive services, we estimate approximately $45 million will be 

needed to adequately serve 7,500 or more clients in the HUD– 

VASH housing units. 

Regarding mental health programs, you are right, virtually every 

community-based organization providing assistance to veterans in 

crisis depends on the VA for access to comprehensive health services, including screenings, counseling and necessary treatment as 

a matter of course. 

The VA’s mental health strategic plan has increased the number 

of clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals and 

VA medical centers, community-based outpatient clinics, and vets’ 

centers. 

We believe the budget’s proposed funding would facilitate further 

implementation to the plan and urge the subcommittee to provide 

adequate funding to support this effort. 

One last program, and that is the homeless veterans reintegration program. I know that this does not fall under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. However, I would just point out to this subcommittee that it is actually the only program wholly dedicated to 

providing employment assistance to homeless veterans. 

And based on the program’s success in terms of employment outcomes for one of the most difficult populations to serve and its costeffectiveness as compared to other employment placement programs, NCHV believes that this program should be funded in fiscal 

year 2009 at its full $50 million authorization level. 

An appropriation of this level would enable HVRP grantees to 

reach approximately 3,600 homeless veterans. 

NCHV thanks this subcommittee for its service to America’s veterans in crisis and would be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Cheryl Beversdorf follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
660 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1580 here 42754C.072
661 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1581 here 42754C.073
662 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1582 here 42754C.074
663 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1583 here 42754C.075
664 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1584 here 42754C.076
665 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1585 here 42754C.077
666 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1586 here 42754C.078
667 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1587 here 42754C.079
668 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1588 here 42754C.080
669 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your excellent testimony and always being very specific. 

The reintegration program, you said we don’t have responsibility 

for that. What subcommittee or committees? 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Labor HHS. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is Labor HHS. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. And it has actually been authorized for quite 

some years already at $50 million and each year, there is always 

about a $2 million increase. It is actually now about $25.6 million. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So let me just say to you, we are going to stay focused on homeless veterans. I think last year was the first time, 

at least to my knowledge, that this subcommittee had a hearing 

specifically on the homeless veterans issue and we are going to stay 

focused until there is not one homeless veterans anywhere in 

America. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you just one question about the per 

diem program. 

I understand that for a veteran to be able to use that, does the 

place where they are staying have to have a certain number of veterans in it or a majority of veterans in it? 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Seventy-five percent, between 60 percent and 

75 percent, and the grant comes from the VA and it goes to the organization. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What if you have got a mid-size or a rural community where there is one homeless veteran in that community, what 

would be wrong with them going into some local homeless shelter 

and they can prove that that person is a veteran, then that shelter 

could get reimbursement? 

Is it a quality control issue? 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. We may have to introduce new legislation for 

that. I mean, we certainly very much support the fact that, you are 

right, sometimes veterans live quite a ways from a VA medical center or from a community-based organization. 

So that would probably require some kind of legislation to be introduced that would allow reciprocity that that person could go to 

a non-grant and per diem program, but then ultimately get reimbursed. 

The one thing that is really very important to know about the 

grant and per diem program and the community-based organizations, it is veterans helping veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. And the idea is that—and, also, they are close 

to a VA medical center. But I do understand what you are saying 

and we would even like to see that, for example, community health 

centers or mental health centers, perhaps they, too, could get reimbursed, even if they are not homeless, but they might be in crisis. 

So the idea is if they could go to a civilian facility and at least 

get some help rather than say, ‘‘Oh, sorry, you are a veteran, you 

will have to go to the VA medical center,’’ by that time, it might 

be too late. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
670 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you look into those issues and would you 

specifically look at the question of what are the implications of 

being, good and bad, for the grant and per diem program, if we 

didn’t have that requirement? 

My hometown of Waco, I am told that one or two homeless veterans went to a local shelter and I think they received housing, but 

I don’t know why they shouldn’t be able to get some reimbursement. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Did they get supportive services then, too, do 

you know? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I don’t know. I don’t have the details. I will have 

to follow up on that. 

But I would welcome your coalition evaluating that and telling 

us what you think the pluses and minuses would be of opening up 

that program. 

Obviously, we would need additional money, because we don’t 

want to take away from the care providers we have. But if we could 

get additional money, are there any downsides to allowing a veteran to go in, whether it is 15 homeless people and they are one 

of 15. At least they would have a roof over their heads. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Right. And they would still get the benefits of 

the program itself. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. I understand what you are saying. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. As a longtime proponent of mental health parity veterans who are mentally healthy are not near as likely to be homeless. 

And so we are hearing from the psychologists, the psychiatrists, 

your organization, this is a huge priority and I am grateful that 

there is a coming together in this country around the criticality of 

mental health and the fact that if it is treated as a disease and 

people have their medications, they can become functional and 

operational and successful in our society, and that is at the heart 

of this. 

I am grateful for your work, but I join the chairman in a commitment to not leaving any veteran behind. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. And you are absolutely right. When people ask 

why veterans are homeless, it is actually three issues. It is the 

health issue, like PTSD, traumatic brain injury, substance abuse 

issues, then the employment issues. 

That is why HVRP is so important. And then affordable housing. 

I mean, all of these are factors which evolve as a result of their 

service in the military and they all need to be addressed in order 

to help these men and women not be homeless anymore. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would just like to thank you for the job that you 

do. Thank you for your advocacy and I appreciate very much your 

testimony here today, and that is all I have. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your noble service. 

Ms. BEVERSDORF. Thank you. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
671 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would now like to call our next witness, Terri 

Weaver, with the American Lung Association. 

Ms. Weaver, welcome back to the subcommittee. 

Ms. WEAVER. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Weaver is a nurse and a professor and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also past chair 

of the American Lung Association’s board of directors. 

We are glad to have you here. Again, your full testimony will be 

submitted for the record, but we would like to recognize you for 5 

minutes now, Ms. Weaver. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

TERRI WEAVER, PHD, RN, FAAN 

STATEMENT OF TERRI E. WEAVER

Dr. WEAVER. Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Mr. Wamp, Mr. 

Bishop. 

As Chairman Edwards introduced me, I am Dr. Terri Weaver. I 

am testifying on behalf of the American Lung Association in support of veterans’ medical care and research. 

I am a nurse, I am a professor, and I am a researcher, but I am 

also past chair of the board of directors of the American Lung Association, which was founded in 1904, which you might recall, to fight 

tuberculosis, and today we still fight to prevent lung disease and 

promote lung health through research, advocacy and education. 

And we are very strong in supporting the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in this important fight against respiratory disease. 

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs cares for over five million 

veterans, one million of which has chronic lung disease. 

First, I want to thank the Chairman and the committee for their 

support of our request to increase the VA medical research funding 

of $480 million in fiscal year 2008. This investment will save lives. 

We are also, however, pleased to see an increase in the president’s budget for VA medical care. However, when there is a time 

when we ask veterans to do so much, we feel that this is so little 

and we need to do more. 

The American Lung Association supports the nation’s leading 

veterans’ organization’s budget request of $42.8 billion for medical 

care called for in the Independent Budget. 

The American Lung Association is very concerned about the 

president’s budget proposing cuts in medical research by $38 million. The cut is unacceptable and it really rolls back the progress 

that we experienced last year. 

As a nurse, I support the urgent need for increased funding for 

medical care and research for the newer types of illnesses we are 

seeing, some of which you alluded to, but, also, acute traumatic injuries, central nervous system injuries, as well as pulmonary injuries. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
672 

We are also acutely aware of veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan 

who are also potentially exposed to bioterrorism and avian influenza that also affects the lungs, and we know there are men and 

women on the front lines and we have to really consider that. 

The nation has also committed to all veterans—nearly 40 percent 

are over the age of 65. So along with the existing illnesses that we 

see in our younger veterans are illnesses such as hypertension, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperglycemia, which usually affected older individuals, and now is the time to increase 

funding for research at the VA to meet emerging needs and existing disease burdens. 

The American Lung Association recommends and supports in- creasing VA Medical and Prosthetics Research program to $555 

million. 

I want to speak briefly about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is on the increase, primarily caused by smoking. It is 

composed of both bronchitis and emphysema, and we have a large 

human and financial cost within the VA. 

And 16 percent of veterans in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs health care system have a diagnosis of COPD. It ranks fifth 

in the most prevalent disease in the VA population. 

It is the fourth most common cause of death in the United States 

and by 2020, it will rise to the third leading cause of mortality. 

We have, however, proven interventions which are effective and 

good treatments and rehabilitation that decrease exacerbations, 

hospitalizations, and documented improved quality of life. 

In 2001, smoking prevalence was 43 percent higher for VA patients than the general population. In 2005, however, smoking 

prevalence among VA patients dropped to 23 percent, similar to 

that for the U.S. population of 21 percent. 

Most of this was due to VA smoking cessation programs. This is 

commendable and a life-saving achievement and this committee 

really should be very proud of this accomplishment. 

We urge the committee to continue to support smoking cessation 

efforts for all veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, in summary, our nation’s veterans deserve excellent care. They are giving the ultimate price and really sacrificing 

much. 

Research programs funded by the VA have potential to improve 

the quality of life and health outcomes for all Americans, especially 

our veterans. 

The American Lung Association supports increasing the investment in research to $555 million and funding VA medical care to 

$42.8 billion. 

And I thank you so much for this opportunity to testify. 

[Prepared statement of Terri E. Weaver follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
673 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1599 here 42754C.081
674 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1600 here 42754C.082
675 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1601 here 42754C.083
676 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1602 here 42754C.084
677 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1603 here 42754C.085
678 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1604 here 42754C.086
679 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Weaver. 

Am I correct in understanding that VA medical research played 

a key role in coming up with a cure to TB? Are you familiar with 

the VA’s role in that? 

Dr. WEAVER. Actually, there are many discoveries that have been 

attributed to research that has been conducted at the VA, TB being 

one of them. But there is a long list of really phenomenal discoveries that have come out of the VA medical system, even to this 

day, because I think one of the unique things that the VA medical 

system has that no other system has is a unified record of medical 

care. 

And so that electronic medical record enables us to really use 

that as a database, which no one else has. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Smart lady, great testimony. No questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for your testimony, appreciate it. 

Dr. WEAVER. You are welcome. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any questions? 

Mr. FARR. Are we going to take care of the air for the veterans 

at the Olympics? 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are going to go to China and clean that up. 

Dr. Weaver, thank you very much—— 

Dr. WEAVER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. For your testimony and your service. 

I would like to now call before the subcommittee Dr. John 

Maupin. Dr. Maupin is president of Morehouse School of Medicine 

and is testifying on behalf of the Association of Minority Health 

Profession Schools. 

Dr. Maupin, welcome to the subcommittee. 

Let me just say, before you begin, the witnesses have done very 

well on time. 

Dr. Maupin, thank you and the time is yours. 

Dr. MAUPIN. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious why the warning 

would come to a college president. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is great to have you here. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

THE ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONS 

SCHOOLS 

WITNESS 

JOHN E. MAUPIN, JR., PRESIDENT, MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. MAUPIN

Dr. MAUPIN. Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member, Mr. 

Wamp, we have known each other for some time. I am glad to be 

here. 

And to my own state representative, Congressman Bishop, I appreciate that, and to Mr. Farr, the vice chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
680 

You have my written testimony and I will cut mine short. I want 

to go directly to a couple of issues. 

I want to be sure that you understand one passionate piece about 

me. I am a veteran. I spent over 30 years in the military, most of 

which was in the Reserves, active Reserves, and spent time at Walter Reed and on active duty during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. 

And so I am very passionate about the care. I have been in the 

places, I have been at the various posts, and so I do understand. 

What I really want to highlight is that we have a number of institutions, which I represent, the Association of Minority Health 

Profession Schools, 12 of the nation’s minority institutions that represent medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and veterinary sciences. 

We have been, for many years, excluded from full participation 

as training opportunities and full participation in the VA. While 

today things are better, progress continues to be very slow. 

And I think at a time when we are trying to serve our veterans 

and we have institutions which really want to be a part of this, 

that it seems somewhat absurd to know that where there is a VA 

in a local town, that to have a surgery training program to be requested to say we can give you an opportunity, we want you to go 

from Atlanta to Montgomery, seems a little strange. 

Where we are participating in community-based clinics, working 

with people in the various community-based clinics to provide preventive care, primary care, we still would like to be a part of the 

training activity at the local VA in Atlanta, for example, at Morehouse, my institution, for internal medicine sub-specialties and surgery activity. 

This has gone on for a long time. We have worked with every administration of the VA to say, ‘‘Let’s open this up.’’ 

Progress has been made. There is more progress today than ever 

before. At one time, we were actually told, point blank, that when 

there is already a medical school in a VA hospital, there can only 

be one medical school, and it was, at one time, a written policy, at 

one time, an unwritten practice. 

And today that has opened up, but it still takes a lot once you 

have settled in and anchored in to share. 

Now, we share public hospitals across this country in more than 

one medical school and to say we can’t share a VA facility. While 

increased resources are given, we think priority should be given to 

the schools and programs that have been excluded from the participation. 

We would like to ensure that language is put into this bill, your 

report language would include language that the VA put together 

a plan of action that ensures the full integration of minority health 

profession schools into the training and care programs that exist 

throughout all the VAs, with especially focusing on those which 

have programs that are nearby, that are right across the street. 

In Nashville, where I was previously president, Meharry Medical 

College went to Murfreesboro. And I know at Morehouse, we were 

initially asked to go to and have gone to Tuskegee, Alabama to participate. 

That disruption and that kind of inclusion, distant inclusion, separate but equal, if you will, has created where you really don’t have 

the full advantages that the VA offers in training and experience 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
681 

and exposure, because our students come from poor backgrounds, 

want to go into areas and work in areas that will serve veterans. 

Many of them are public health service corps. Many of them have 

scholarships to the military service, will be veterans themselves. It 

is a great and wonderful experience and it is a great service we can 

offer. 

It also allows us to participate in research opportunities and we 

know that there are barriers in research when it comes to minorities trusting the research infrastructure and research enterprise. 

And so our participation is critical to a fair delivery of care, fair 

training, and an open research environment where there is a trusting relationship. 

So what we encourage is that the VA be encouraged now. They 

have removed the language of separation, but they have not been 

forceful enough to create a program of action to integrate. 

And I think when it is pushed a little harder, goodwill will come 

out and we have some people that have been very supportive of it, 

but there are others that still are somewhat resistant. 

And the institutions that are there now often will need a little 

more push, because they have to give up something, in their mind, 

to make room for the other institution to participate. 

So we encourage that language and ask for your support. We are 

ready to serve, as I have served over the years in the military and, 

most recently, just retired. 

So I look forward to my—now that I am 60, I can actually be a 

real full-fledged retiree. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of John E. Maupin follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
682 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1613 here 42754C.087
683 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1614 here 42754C.088
684 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1615 here 42754C.089
685 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1616 here 42754C.090
686 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1617 here 42754C.091
687 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1618 here 42754C.092
688 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Maupin, thank you for your excellent comments and for your 30 years of military service. 

Does your full formal testimony have some specific proposals for 

the VA that we could work together on? 

Dr. MAUPIN. It has some specific proposals and examples of the 

past, opportunities that are there, and, Mr. Chairman, I will add 

some. 

After reading the proposal, I think there are a couple of edits 

that can be put in there for the record and I will get those immediately back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

What is needed to put this recommendation into action? 

1. The VA—at the highest level—must commit efforts to foster equitable participation by historically black health professions schools, including historically black 

medical schools at the large VA Medical Centers in Atlanta, Nashville, Washington 

DC, and Los Angeles. The VA must also foster a closer collaboration with the HBCU 

dental, veterinary, and pharmacy schools in Washington, DC, Nashville, Tuskegee, 

Hampton, Tallahassee, New Orleans, and Houston. 

2. The VA must initiate efforts to foster collaborative initiatives between the current health professions school affiliates and historically black health professions 

schools to promote historically black health professions schools participation in inpatient and outpatient care, resident and student education and research. The VA efforts must be aligned with the individual efforts of each historically black health 

professions school working with its local VA Medical Center. Each VA medical center must establish an Affiliation Partnership Committee that includes the leadership of both the historically black health professions school and the current health 

professions school affiliate. 

3. HBCU medical schools must have access to VA faculty positions in all medical 

specialties and subspecialties. 

4. The Committee must get an annual progress report from each of the major VA 

Medical Centers in Atlanta, Nashville, Los Angeles and Washington, DC, on the 

medical affiliations. The Committee must also receive a progress report from sites 

of the other health professions affiliations in Washington, DC, Nashville, Tuskegee, 

Hampton, Tallahassee, New Orleans, and Houston. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you could, we would welcome that. And it only 

seems to be common sense, as the VA is expanding and we have 

increased its budget and it is out looking for new physicians and 

dentists and others, that we reach out to all of our health care 

training facilities and universities and colleges. 

I assume there is a higher percentage who have done a residency 

within the VA system—I haven’t seen the data, but my assumption, as a layman, would be that there is a higher percentage of 

those students who end up working in the VA system than those 

who haven’t done a residency in the VA system. 

Dr. MAUPIN. Many of them who have had exposure end up coming back. It is pretty true. Once you have been exposed, you have 

a desire to want to participate in those, and there are other new 

settings, the community-based settings. 

When you have the opportunity to go to primary care, but, also, 

a hub-and-spoke relationship, which is what they call super CBOCs 

or specialty centers to serve the surrounding community-based centers, and we want to participate in those and those are great opportunities for people to participate there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you also send us a list of all of the schools 

and colleges and universities in your organization? 

[The information follows:] 

Institutions which make up the Association of Minority Health Professions 

Schools (AMHPS): 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
689 

Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science 

Florida A&M University College of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 

Hampton University School of Pharmacy 

Howard University College of Medicine, College of Pharmacy, Nursing, & Allied 

Health Sciences, & College of Dentistry 

Meharry Medical College School of Medicine & School of Dentistry 

Morehouse School of Medicine 

Texas Southern University College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences 

Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, & Allied Health 

Xavier University of Louisiana College of Pharmacy 

Dr. MAUPIN. Yes. It is included in the testimony, and I will update it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. I live halfway between Meharry and Morehouse. I 

have seen these benefits. I have seen it not work, I have seen it 

work. 

Dr. Maupin didn’t even need notes. He just shared 5 minutes of 

very good summary of what we need to consider. And those specific 

proposals, I think, Mr. Chairman, are exactly what we need to do. 

This is a big win for the network and the support that the VA 

can use and then you can just imagine what it does in these 

schools across the country in terms of really stimulating people. 

And if we are going to—there is a lot of talk about equality and 

justice, but this is where the rubber meets the road. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sir. 

I appreciate very much your testimony, Dr. Maupin, and we have 

had conversations outside of the committee regarding this issue, 

and I would hope that the committee will seriously consider the 

language. 

There is some suggested language, I think, at the end of Dr. 

Maupin’s testimony and I think in his testimony, he lists all of the 

various members and the kinds of training that they provide. 

I would hope that we would take that seriously and take his language as a guide and perhaps fine-tune it so that we can try to get 

the most that we can from these institutions, so that we can overall 

enhance our VA health system. 

Dr. MAUPIN. And given that I have heard the numbers, I don’t 

know what the exact numbers are, but I have heard the approximate numbers that one out of three veterans is a minority. 

So those providing health care and working in the VA system 

ought to reflect the diversity of the great Americans who have 

served our country. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the other thing that has become so clear to me 

is veterans who go to the VA community, the outpatient clinics, as 

well as the hospitals, very seldom have access to enough physicians. 

The VA has had a problem getting the trained physicians to that 

and it—that established relationships. And so people who might 

not ordinarily go to work for the VA when they finish their 

residencies would see that as an opportunity and those relationships would be built early. 

Dr. MAUPIN. You bet. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
690 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I have no questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Maupin. 

Have you met with Dr. Kussman since he became secretary? 

Dr. MAUPIN. I have not personally, but many of our leadership, 

Dr. Sullivan—and others have met. David Morehouse—on the blue 

ribbon panel. 

We have people there. We are talking, but I think some of that 

needs a little bit more. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are going to encourage—— 

Dr. MAUPIN. I tell my students we have an arm of discipline and 

a hug of love. So we need a little arm of discipline while we are 

over here hugging with our love. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. We will see if we can’t give love and 

some encouragement. 

Thank you very much, Dr. Maupin. 

Dr. MAUPIN. Appreciate it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would now like to recognize our friend, Rick 

Jones. Rick, welcome back. 

Mr. Jones joined the National Association for Uniformed Services 

as legislative director in 2005. Before this position, he served for 

5 years, as we know, as the national legislative director for 

AMVETS. 

He is an Army veteran, and we thank you for that service, Rick. 

He served as a medical specialist during the Vietnam War. 

It is a privilege to welcome you back before the subcommittee, 

and the time is now yours. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIFORMED SERVICES 

WITNESS 

RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF RICK JONES

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Wamp, members of the subcommittee. 

On behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please accept our 

deep gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee, for working so hard with House leadership to provide 

the largest veterans funding increase in the 77-year history of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, a $6.6 billion increase in fiscal 

year 2008, the current fiscal year. 

Your attention to VA and military construction reflects enormously well on the Nation’s gratitude for these special people who 

serve in uniform and protect and preserve our liberties. 

Thank you. 

As we continue our base realignment and closure activities, it is 

essential that funding for construction is in place for housing, barracks, child care centers, medical treatment and training facilities 

exactly when they are needed. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
691 

We urge you to see that adequate funds for military construction 

and quality of life initiatives are in place for returning troops and 

their families. 

In the National Capital Region, we urge accelerated construction 

and development of the Bethesda facilities and we encourage the 

subcommittee to make certain that the Walter Reed and our military medical system is fully funded, to the extent you have influence there, so that we may fulfill all the missions that they are required to do. 

Together, we really need to work to do the right things so they 

have uninterrupted care. These individuals are catastrophically injured. They need everything we can give them in these premier 

medical centers. 

The National Association for Uniformed Services is concerned 

that VA remain sufficiently funded and we have seen the President’s budget and we believe that it requires $43.7 billion in medical care, which is $2.6 billion more than the administration’s request, $4.6 billion over current year funding. 

The National Association firmly believes that the veterans’ 

health care system is irreplaceable as a national investment. It is 

critical to the nation and its veterans. 

Our citizens have benefited from the advances made in medical 

care through VA research and through VA innovations, as well as 

the electronic health record, which is one example of those innovations. 

We strongly support, as well, the disability claims benefits. We 

need to provide timely benefits to those who are disabled. Benefits 

help offset the economic effects of their disability and it is a central 

function for the Department of Veterans Affairs. It needs to be 

funded adequately. 

And despite VA’s best efforts, they seem to be falling behind. We 

call on you all, lawmakers all, to make the VBA a priority within 

the upcoming budget. 

We know the challenges to provide timely decisions on claims. 

We believe the solution is to ensure that VBA has adequate funding to reduce the backlog and achieve its mission. 

We also urge members of the subcommittee to recognize the 

growing long-term care needs of American veterans. VA is a nationally recognized leader in providing quality nursing home care. 

One of the settings for nursing home expenditures is in the state 

veterans’ nursing home grant program. The association strongly 

supports additional funding for state veterans’ nursing homes. 

It is projected that the population of veterans aged 75 and older 

will increase to 4.5 million from the current 4 million population 

over the next 10 years. 

We are looking at veterans population in general decreasing, but 

this one is increasing. And in the current year, priority one nursing 

homes, there are 91 in line, all validated, submitted by 23 states. 

VA pays about one-third the cost of care in these state veterans’ 

homes. So it is affordable. It is a good way to go to take care of 

our elderly veterans. 

The administration’s request is for $85 million. That will fund 

fewer than 25 of those 92 homes that are ready and in line. We 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
692 

recommend that an increase be made in this area of $115 million 

above the administration’s request. 

We thank you, as well, for your work on the armed forces retirement home. 

[Prepared statement of Rick Jones follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
693 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1633 here 42754C.093
694 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1634 here 42754C.094
695 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1635 here 42754C.095
696 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1636 here 42754C.096
697 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1637 here 42754C.097
698 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1638 here 42754C.098
699 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1639 here 42754C.099
700 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1640 here 42754C.100
701 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1641 here 42754C.101
702 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1642 here 42754C.102
703 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1643 here 42754C.103
704 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1644 here 42754C.104
705 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1645 here 42754C.105
706 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1646 here 42754C.106
707 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1647 here 42754C.107
708 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1648 here 42754C.108
709 

Mr. EDWARDS. $115 million in addition to the $95 million? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. $85 million is what the administration has 

asked for and we would like to see $115 million more. There are 

92 homes in line. Very few of them will be funded, and, oftentimes, 

with all due respect, sir, all those fundings go to the larger states, 

California, which is wonderful, but there are also some smaller 

states, including perhaps Georgia, Utah, maybe Tennessee. 

And Texas is a large state and we are pleased to see some of the 

funding go to Texas, as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So you want $290 million. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 

We are pleased, also, and we thank you very much for your work 

on the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

The Gulfport facility is moving well, $240 million you provided 

for demolition of the towers and construction of the buildings. 

March 3 was the kickoff for the construction of the Gulfport facility. 

Thank you very much for your care and supply of resources to 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home and, again, thank you for all 

you do to honor our troops and remember our veterans. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Rick. And thank you for your partnership last year, as in previous years, but working together, you and 

your association were an important part of that historic VA budget. 

And as you know, we are addressing many of these and the new budget we are proposing, you said we needed $4.6 billion above fiscal year 2008 for the VA discretionary account. I think the budget before the House will be $4.9 billion above. 

So we are listening and all the—— 

Mr. JONES. Listening and exceeding. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. All the needs you have mentioned, including the long-term care. That is something we need to spend, I 

think, more attention on. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you for your service and your friendship to all 

of us. 

Mr. JONES. Thank the speaker for this morning’s celebration and 

remembrance of the 5-year anniversary. It was outstanding. I really enjoyed being there with families and friends who grieve for 

their loved ones lost. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It was a beautiful ceremony, very tastefully done, 

I thought. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I want to echo those thoughts. 

You indicated that you wanted $4.6 billion. That would be the 

ideal. 

Mr. JONES. That is what we believe would be sufficient to cover 

the new veterans, the current veterans, who are seeking care, disabled and sick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And I want to point out that because of our chair, the budget we are voting on right now upstairs has added $4.9 billion, 

you said. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
710 

Mr. EDWARDS. About. 

Mr. FARR. So the committee is responding to the veteran community far beyond their expectations, and I want to attribute that to 

the leadership of Chet Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great partnership. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FARR. I have one question. You are the National Association 

of Uniformed Services, and then we have the sergeants, the Air 

Force Sergeants, Reserve Association, the AMVETS Association, 

Disabled Vets Association, Paralyzed Vets Association, and Veterans’ of Foreign Wars Association. 

Mr. JONES. God bless America. 

Mr. FARR. There are a lot of association dues. 

What exactly is your organization? It sounds like both veterans 

and active duty. 

Mr. JONES. Some are specific. Air Force Sergeants Association, 

for example, you just cited. 

Our organization represents all ranks, all grades, all services. We 

represent all seven uniformed services, which include NOAA. 

Mr. FARR. Active duty. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Active and retired, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And retired. 

Mr. JONES. They are survivors, they are orphans, they are children. We represent as much as we can to advocate the voice of the 

veterans and the service members’ voice. 

We make sure that voice is heard in these corridors, and that is 

represented so well, as you are doing. We simply echo what you are 

saying, in some respects. 

There have been times, however, when it has been important for 

education to be made in some of these offices. 

Mr. FARR. Is your association bigger than VFW? 

Mr. JONES. VFW is one of the larger organizations. They have 

perhaps 2 million members. I think the American Legion, which 

you will hear from later today, may be the largest veterans’ service 

organization, somewhere around 3 million. 

Ours is somewhat smaller. We have about 200,000 members and 

supporters. So we are in that area. 

We began our service in 1968, with an effort to fulfill the promise 

made to those veterans who had committed a career in service, and 

that promise was to fulfill health care for themselves and their 

families. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you for your service and thank you for being 

an advocate for our veterans. 

Appreciate your coming today. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is now my privilege to call before the subcommittee a command sergeant, retired, Jonathan Hake. 

Sergeant Hake is the director of military and government relations for the Air Force Sergeants Association and served nearly 30 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
711 

years in the United States Air Force at 14 locations, and we thank 

you for that service. 

He joined the staff of the Air Force Sergeants Association this 

month. 

Sergeant Hake, it is great to have you here. 

Sergeant HAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be retired, 2 weeks and counting now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But you are like a lot of our military retirees and 

veterans. You take the uniform off, but you continue serving, and 

thank you for that. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN E. HAKE

Sergeant HAKE. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Sir, it is my honor and privilege to represent the 125,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, and thank you for this 

opportunity. 

I understand and appreciate the daunting task before you, as I 

listen to the testimony. And we also realize that your trust did the 

budget wisely, because you’re trusted with the dollars that we contribute, and there are many factors that go into how you decide 

what is going to be funded, what is not going to be funded. 

So to address that, I would like to ask that all my written testimony be put in the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

JONATHAN E. HAKE, DIRECTOR, MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

Sergeant HAKE. But I would like to focus on three key areas that 

are relevant to enlisted men and women. 

The first is military construction as it is related to quality of life, 

and then VA funding, very briefly, and then the Montgomery GI 

bill. 

Much attention has been given to the combat capability of advanced weapons systems, but I would tell you the most valuable 

weapons system America has is the men and women who serve, especially those that have—enlisted men and women of the Air Force. 

If we expect to retain this precious resource, we must provide 

them, their families, facilities that reflect the level of commitment 

and sacrifice, and these facilities impact their desire to continue 

serving through multiple deployments and extended separations. 

We devote significant resources to training and equipping America’s sons and daughters, and that is a long-term investment, and 

we believe that the same level of commitment should be reflected 

in the facilities in which they live, work and play. 

We caution deferring these costs, as someone mentioned earlier 

about infrastructure, especially at installations that are being on 

the BRAC list. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
712 

We applaud Congress’s support for military housing privatization 

initiatives, because this is providing housing at a much faster pace 

than would have been possible through military construction alone. 

AFSA urges Congress to fully fund appropriate accounts to ensure all remaining installations eliminate substandard housing as 

quickly as possible. 

Those who are devoted to serving this nation deserve nothing 

less. 

Tremendous strides have been made to improve access to quality 

of child care and fitness centers at our military installations, and 

we are grateful to the Department of Defense and Congress for 

working together. 

But there is still more work to be done. As was mentioned by the 

gentleman that talked about VA care, a fit airman, a fit soldier, a 

fit marine, a fit sailor decreases the cost of medical care. 

The demand for child care facilities continues to grow as a larger 

percentage of our military are married, have young children, and, 

of course, like I said, a fit force is actually essential to the rigors 

of service. 

The next area I would like to talk about is VA funding, $4.9 billion, we thank you. We thank you for adding that and we believe 

the funding for the Veterans’ Affairs should be moved to mandatory 

annual spending. It shouldn’t be negotiated year after year after 

year. 

One of our nation’s highest obligations is the willingness to fully 

fund VA health care, facilities and other programs for those who 

have served in the past, those who are serving now, and those who 

will serve in the future. 

There are many challenges facing veterans and we are encouraged by the initiatives centered on improving access, on the continuity of care and addressing scars of wars. 

Some of those scars are obvious and others are not so obvious, 

such as traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders. 

My final key point is the Montgomery GI bill. AFSA, the Air 

Force Sergeants Association, is extremely pleased by the interest 

by so many in Congress to overhaul the Montgomery GI bill educational benefits for those that have stepped up to defend America’s interests at home and abroad. 

No doubt, making the Montgomery GI bill a more viable benefit 

will have an associated cost, and we unequivocally and respectfully 

offer the return on that investment is not just good for the military, 

it is good for America. 

We would like to see the Montgomery GI bill transformed into 

something like the post-World War II GI bill. This would go a long 

way toward recruiting this nation’s best and brightest to serve. 

There are many proposals worthy of consideration, but there are 

five key elements that we believe essential in the final product. 

The first, we would ask the committee to fund a program that 

pays for all books, tuition fees, and that that be indexed annually 

to reflect the actual cost of education. 

Second, we would ask you to eliminate the $1,200 user fee from 

Montgomery GI. To ask an airman basic, when going through 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
713 

schooling, to pay $1,200 to get a benefit that they earn through virtue of their service just seems wrong to me. 

The third is to make the Montgomery GI bill transferable to immediate family members, and I say immediate family members. 

Military members should be permitted to spend their benefit however best fits their situation, including those closest to them that 

have sacrificed. 

Fourth, give enlisted members who have declined enrollment in 

the veterans’ educational assistance program, better known as 

VEAP, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, an opportunity to enroll in the Montgomery GI bill. 

There are currently about 10,050 airmen remaining on active 

duty today in this situation, 5,600 of those—— 

They passed on that VEAP program because of bad advice, because they thought it was a bad program, because of lack of foresight, a lot of different reasons. But wouldn’t it be a travesty, as 

they have committed their life, decades of service, to leave without 

an educational benefit? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sergeant, I hate to interrupt, but out of respect 

to all the witnesses, we are a minute over time. 

Can you take about 15 seconds? I want to hear that fifth—to the 

GI bill. 

Sergeant HAKE. Well, fifth and final, sir, is total force Montgomery GI bill. Members of the Guard and Reserve contribute to 

the missions all over the world and they have been protecting the 

homeland here since 9/11. 

So, sir, I thank you again. I am sorry I ran over. 

[Prepared statement of Jonathan E. Hake follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
714 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1661 here 42754C.109
715 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1662 here 42754C.110
716 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1663 here 42754C.111
717 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1664 here 42754C.112
718 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1665 here 42754C.113
719 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1666 here 42754C.114
720 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1667 here 42754C.115
721 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. We will submit your testimony, very 

excellent presentation. 

We had the chief of staff of the Air Force sitting in this chair a 

couple of hours ago, General Moseley, but we know who runs the 

military. 

So that is why we are so proud to have you in that chair right 

now. 

Sergeant HAKE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And thank you for those years of service and excellent presentation, and we will follow up on those ideas. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. The good news for your members is, for the most 

part, your presentation is the agenda of this subcommittee. So I 

think we are going in the same direction. 

Sergeant HAKE. If you would, please, anything that our association can do to assist you or your staffs, don’t hesitate. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

You are in such close touch with the people who are really the 

backbone of our military and those that may not be making 

$100,000 a year in their service. 

So please stay in touch with us. Don’t just wait to hear from us. 

Let us know your ideas, specifically what we can do to be in support of the men and women you represent so well. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. The only comment I can make is that I appreciate 

your testimony. However, I disagree with the idea that we should 

have a fixed budget, because if you had a fixed budget, a steady 

budget, without this committee’s work and the Congress, it would 

be $12 billion less than it is going to be at the end of this year. 

So there is some merit in having the political discussion each 

year and being able to prioritize. 

Sergeant HAKE. I understand completely, sir. I certainly don’t 

want to put you out of work. 

Mr. FARR. No, it wouldn’t put us out of work. But if we stuck to 

the old budget, you would be out of work. 

Sergeant HAKE. Yes. Yes, sir. I understand. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate your testimony, because, although you didn’t dwell 

on it in your oral presentation, you talk about the base alignment 

and closure accounts and the need for attention to be given to the 

veterans’ health that will surround that, as well the military 

health. 

But you also talk about the seamless transition between DOD 

and the VA. We have had a number of witnesses over the last few 

weeks and that is one of the issues that has been raised, that it 

is very important to have that seamless transition. 

And I am just glad that you referenced it in your testimony 

about the budgets. It is what many of us have been seeing—and 

the DOD as we talk to the respective communities—of jurisdictions. 

So thank you for highlighting that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Sergeant, thank you for being here. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
722 

Sergeant HAKE. Sir, if I may, before I depart, I would like to 

draw attention to five gentlemen and ladies that entered in blue 

uniforms behind me. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please do. 

Sergeant HAKE. They are men and women of the Air Force Office 

of Special Investigations, stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, all 

military members, proud to be wearing Air Force blue. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much for your service. We are 

honored to be in your presence today. Thank you. 

Thank you, sir. 

Sergeant HAKE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask staff how much time we have before 

the next vote, before this vote finishes? So we could do one more 

witness. 

I would ask Mr. Davis, Mr. John R. Davis to please come forward. 

Mr. Davis served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and 

as a second lieutenant in the Illinois Army National Guard. He 

joined the Fleet Reserve Association in February of 2006 as director of legislative programs. 

Mr. Davis, welcome to the subcommittee and we would like to 

recognizes you for 5 minutes now. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Wamp, Congressman Bishop and Congressman Farr. Thanks for the opportunity to express FRA’s views. 

I also want to thank the chairman specifically for his leadership 

and sponsorship of H.R. 579 to prohibit Tricare fee increases. 

On a similar note, FRA strongly opposes the VA health care fees 

proposed in the budget for category seven and eight. 

The association wants to express its sincere gratitude to the subcommittee for funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget the largest annual budget increase in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs 77- 

year history. 

The subcommittee sent a clear message last year that there are 

no higher funding priorities than to ensure proper treatment of our 

wounded warriors and their families, to which we owe so much. 

FRA is also thankful for the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill, which includes the wounded warriors provision, supported 

by FRA. These reforms, though, are still a work in progress and 

will be successful only with adequate funding, adequate funding for 

the wounded warrior resource center, which is supposed to be a 

single point of contact for families, caregivers, and other interested 

parties; adequate funding for the joint DOD–VA agency that is 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
723 

going to set up the electronic health care records, an important 

step in realizing a true seamless transition; also, the VA budget, 

which is $1.7 billion more than last year’s, but is $3 billion less 

than the Independent Budget, which FRA supports. 

FRA is concerned that the Veterans’ Benefits Administration, the 

VBA, has a backlog of more than 650,000 claims. Over 25 percent 

of those have been pending for more than 6 months. 

The number of pending claims is actually increasing and the 

complexity of those claims is also increasing. 

In order to meet the increasing workload, the VA must have appropriations necessary to increase staffing and training. 

The proposed budget only increases VBA by about $50 million, 

which is less than a 4 percent increase over last year, which we 

think is woefully inadequate when you take into account the number of claims that will increase with the surge of troops in Iraq, the 

ongoing operations in Afghanistan and the aging veterans population. 

FRA strongly supports adequate funding for medical research 

and the needs for disabled veterans. Noteworthy, however, is the 

fact that the proposed VA budget for medical and prosthetic research reflects a reduction of $38 million, and that is one of the 

most successful aspects of all the VA medical programs. 

FRA strongly supports the Independent Budget recommendation 

to increase the funding for this program by $75 million. 

We believe there is strong bipartisan consensus for reform of the 

system for evaluating disabilities of wounded service members and 

for additional funding and staffing. 

The VA can properly deliver benefits to veterans only if it has 

adequate resources and staffing to process and adjudicate claims in 

a timely and accurate fashion. 

Double-digit inflation, education inflation, has dramatically diminished the value of the MGIB and benefits fall well short of the 

actual cost of the college education. 

FRA supports enactment of a total force MGIB, with the integration of active and Reserve MGIB programs under Title 38, which 

we think is very important to provide benefits for services performed and enable improved administration and better facilitate 

the purposes intended by the MGIB by Congress. 

The nation’s active duty and Reserve components are being integrated under the total force concept and we think that education 

benefits should be restructured and funded accordingly. 

FRA appreciates the administration’s call for transferability of 

MGIB benefits to family members, but notes there is no funding to 

request this in the current budget. 

There are also thousands of senior enlisted personnel who entered military service during the VEAP era and did not have the 

opportunity to enroll in that. 

The association, FRA, continues to advocate for the adoption of 

an open enrollment period and we believe that that will require 

some additional funding, as well. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for being the only one in Congress that regularly invites our outstanding senior enlisted leaders 

to testify each year on the quality of life issues. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
724 

FRA strongly supports funding for the Navy’s goal of adding 13 

additional child support centers by 2013 and plans to increase child 

care capacity by almost 7,000 in this fiscal year 2009 year coming 

up. 

There are, however, currently more than 8,000 children on waiting lists and the average waiting time for children is 6 months. In 

fleet concentration areas, it is more than a year. 

FRA also supports funding to support the Marine Corps’ plans to 

add 10 child care centers by 2013, since it has not met its DOD 

goal of providing at least 80 percent of its potential child care 

goals. 

Currently, the Marine Corps has only achieved 71 percent of its 

child care goals. 

And the association also supports funding necessary for the Marine Corps to build 35 new barracks for bachelor housing for—Marines in fiscal year 2009. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. 

[Prepared statement of John R. Davis follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
725 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1678 42754C.116
726 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1679 42754C.117
727 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1680 42754C.118
728 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1681 42754C.119
729 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1682 42754C.120
730 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1683 42754C.121
731 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1684 42754C.122
732 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1685 42754C.123
733 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1686 42754C.124
734 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Davis, thank you for your comments. 

Let me just say thanks for focusing on the backlog. With the 

funding that this subcommittee approved last year, the VA is in 

the process of hiring 3,100 new claims processors. 

I am told that the backlog is actually going down some now. I 

want to verify that. But once those are all trained and in place, I 

think you will see a significant drop in the wait time, and we intend to add to what we did last year. 

That wasn’t just a 1-year—— 

Mr. DAVIS. My sense of it is, what I have been told by some 

VSOs and other people that are very involved with the VA budget, 

is, in effect, that the VA, with its bigger budget, has sort of been 

a victim of its own success, that the quicker adjudication of claims 

has actually encouraged more people to file claims and that that 

actually brings in the workload. 

So even though we have added money, we had a 400,000 backlog 

last year and then we added money, we made it even bigger, we 

still ended up with six—right now, I believe it was last month, it 

was about 650,000 claims backlogged. 

That is according to the Disability Subcommittee for the House 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will follow up on that. So the waiting time period had gone down. 

But, of course, I would not want a single veteran not to apply for 

a claim because the backlog was so long. So I guess it is good news 

if these are veterans that may qualify and have earned benefits. 

We want them coming in. 

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If that means we have to hire more people, then 

we will do that. 

And your comment about the senior enlisted leaders testifying, 

that is one of the highlights of our year and they always do an outstanding job. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Straightforward and effective. No questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

My colleagues, I think we have got about 3 minutes and there 

is a 2-vote program upstairs. The second one is a quorum call. 

So perhaps we could vote quickly on that and come back down 

and continue on. 

Mr. WAMP. They are swearing in a member between the votes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Are they? 

Mr. WAMP. So if you want to come right back, we can. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I don’t mind coming back. So we will go vote, 

come back, and then we will get back and vote the second time. 

Good suggestion. 

We will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I call forward Mr. James Brown—Dr. 

Brown? Dr. Brown is a VA physician scientist at the San Francisco 

VA Medical Center. He is testifying on behalf of the VA Medical 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
735 

Care and Health Research, a coalition of over 90 national academic, medical and scientific societies. 

Dr. Brown, we are glad to have you here. 

Let me just say, while we have so many groups still represented 

here, we have provided a huge infusion of money into the VA system, both the health care system and VBA, and we ask you all to 

be partners with us in helping us exercise oversight, because it is 

just critical that we see that the VA spends this money wisely. 

So be our eyes and ears, be our partners. Let’s work together 

with the VA to see that this money is spent wisely, because if it 

is not, then we won’t have the opportunities to have the kinds of 

increases in VA funding that we saw last year and that I believe 

that we will see this year, as well. 

With that, Dr. Brown, thank you for your service, your work, and 

for being here today. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH 

RESEARCH 

WITNESS 

JAMES K. BROWN, VA-PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST, SAN FRANCISCO VA 

MEDICAL CENTER 

STATEMENT OF JAMES K. BROWN

Dr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you mentioned, I am Jim Brown. I am a lung doctor at the 

San Francisco VA and have been since 1981, and a professor of 

medicine at UC-San Francisco. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak about the VA research 

program. 

As you mentioned, this testimony is on behalf of FOVA, which 

is, as you said, a coalition of organizations that are very committed 

to the veterans’ health programs and, in particular, to the VA research program. 

And FOVA expresses its gratefulness to you for the increase provided last year in the VA research program. 

This year, FOVA recommends that the subcommittee provide 

$555 million for the VA research program in fiscal year 2009. 

So why support the VA research program? 

Because the VA research program helps attract outstanding physicians to serve our nations veterans. For the young medical graduate seeking a career exclusively in patient care, private practice 

usually pays more than the VA can provide. 

For the young physician wishing to do exclusively research, a 

university hospital or biotechnology company may be the best bets. 

But for one who aspires to providing care for patients and to 

doing research on illnesses, the VA is an extremely attractive option and, for this group of physicians, the opportunity to apply for 

VA research funds makes a career in the VA health care system 

particularly desirable. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
736 

So as you know, I think, outstanding research within the VA is 

of many different types. At my own center, Mike Weiner uses, for 

example, magnetic resonance imaging of the brain to study patients with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome, the goals being earlier diagnosis and better treatment. 

This work has, obviously, important implications for returning 

veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. 

The VA research programs across the country have made important contributions, including invention of implantable cardiac pacemaker devices, creation of new vaccines, and development of stateof-the-art prosthetics. 

Because the aging constitute an increasingly significant proportion of patients within the VA, investigators in VA have made significant advances in Alzheimer’s disease, coronary artery and valvular heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as you 

heard from Terri Weaver, diabetes and pain management—outstanding research within the VA and clearly has been good for veterans. 

A somewhat dark spot on the shining achievements of the VA research program is its laboratory space, which is too old and too 

small. 

As an example, our facility in San Francisco has 220 scientists and an annual research budget of $78 million, under guidelines 

provided by the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, 

or CARES, Commission report. 

A research program of this size should be housed in 435,000 

square feet of laboratory space, yet we have 131,000 square feet. 

We are literally turning bathrooms into offices for young physicians. 

This problem, along with the problem of a strong need to refurbish existing laboratory space within the VA has made it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain within the VA the very best 

physicians. 

FOVA expresses its great appreciation for the subcommittee’s efforts to provide funding for research laboratories in previous appropriation bills, but feels that the funds have not yet been available 

in the amounts needed. 

For fiscal year 2009, FOVA recommends that $45 million be provided specifically for research laboratory space renovation. 

So in summary, FOVA recommends $555 million for the VA research program and $45 million for VA research laboratories for 

fiscal year 2009. 

And, again, we greatly appreciate your support in the increase in 

the research budget last year very, very much. 

[Prepared statement of James K. Brown follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
737 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1695 42754C.125
738 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1696 42754C.126
739 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1697 42754C.127
740 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1698 42754C.128
741 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1699 42754C.129
742 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Brown. 

Let me ask you this, the lab renovation or construction work, 

does that money usually come out of VA construction accounts or 

does that come out of the VISNs’ operating budget? Are you familiar? 

Dr. BROWN. I am not as familiar as I should be. But as I understand it, it is out of so-called minor recurring space or construction 

budget. And I think what is happening is because that is where it 

is coming from, when there are needs for patients and clinical programs, appropriately, that is where the money is going and not for 

research. 

And so what is needed, at least in the view of FOVA, and I certainly agree, is sort of a dedicated allocation for laboratory research 

space. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. 

That is an important point and we will follow up on that. 

Another quick question. The VA peer review process for determining who gets VA research dollars, would it stand up to the test 

of close scrutiny as being a fair system and based on logical priorities and going out to the people who really are truly best qualified 

to do that research? 

Dr. BROWN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely with your comments. And the peer review system is the appropriate way to allocate money for research. 

I think it is an excellent system, the peer review system within 

the VA. So the answer to your question specifically is yes. I think 

it is very fair and it is an excellent program. 

And I think the reason it is important to sustain the peer review 

system is partly because it is very difficult to predict where the 

most important research observations are going to be made. 

Sometimes it comes from totally unanticipated lines of investigation. So funding the very best, brightest investigators, who are 

doing relevant research, through a peer review system is clearly 

the best way, at least in my opinion, to fund research, not trying 

to allocate for specific areas. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Try to withstand the pressure on Capitol Hill—— 

Dr. BROWN. Appreciate that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Overshadow the peer review process. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. No questions. 

Thank you, Dr. Brown. 

Dr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Brown, for being here, and very 

much for your service, as well. 

I would now like to call forward Marcie Granahan. Is that correct? 

Ms. GRANAHAN. Yes, it is. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. Granahan is the chief executive officer for the United States 

Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
743 

Thank you for being here. Clearly, you are doing a lot in the area 

of mental health care services and we welcome your input and your 

testimony today. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

U.S. PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

MARCIE GRANAHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

STATEMENT OF MARCIE GRANAHAN

Ms. GRANAHAN. Thank you so much. I am so pleased to be here 

today and I welcome the opportunity to speak before you here on 

a topic of great importance to our members and our constituencies. 

I want to give you a little bit of history about our organization 

to put it in context for you. 

About 33 years ago, USPRA and its members developed and designed—to promote the recovery of individuals with psychiatric disabilities, and that includes our disabled veterans. 

Today’s psychiatric rehabilitation services have become an integral part of the transformation of the mental health service system, 

as described by the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. 

Our organization brings together agencies, practitioners, families, persons living with psychiatric disabilities, leaders in psychiatric rehabilitation education, and research from major universities around the world, as well as state and federal government 

entities that are dedicated to improving the outcomes in a cost-effective and efficient way. 

So this afternoon, I would like to address the services available 

to our returning veterans. 

Since 1775, the men and women of our armed services have been 

fighting for our freedom and our rights, and that allows us to enjoy 

our citizenship here in the United States. 

And these soldiers go out and fight for us and they risk their 

lives to bravely defend our nation, and, unfortunately, for some, the 

potential cost is their mental well-being. 

USPRA has enjoyed a longstanding relationship with Department of Veterans Affairs and many veteran mental health centers 

across the country. 

The principals and practices of psychiatric rehabilitation have 

been incorporated into the treatment that is offered to our returning veterans. 

In fact, we have a grown number of credentialed, certified psychiatric rehabilitation professionals that are working within the 

Veterans’ Health Administration and we are very pleased about 

that. 

Unfortunately, there is a lack of funding to provide evidencebased rehabilitative programs to our returning vets and it is our 

belief that these veterans deserve a comprehensive range of rehabilitative services to assist them in fully returning to society and 

citizenship. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
744 

Whether they receive these services as a part of vocational training through the Veterans’ Benefits Administration or directly 

through the Veterans’ Health Administration, the system has been 

unable to sufficiently provide this comprehensive care. 

And without these services, isolation and homelessness are the 

most likely results. 

Psychiatric rehabilitation services are provided alongside medical 

or psychiatric treatment or, when appropriate, supported employment services in conjunction with vocational training can successfully assist veterans to achieve the goal of successful reintegration 

into society. 

Of course, returning veterans, they all share the same goal, 

which is to be a constructive and productive member of society, and 

psychiatric rehabilitation services provide the support and the tools 

for these veterans to be able to reenter the workforce, engage with 

their families, and to achieve their dreams of a long and productive 

life and citizenship. 

In the 1970s, the practice of psychiatric rehabilitation wasn’t as 

widely acknowledged as it is today. So the returning veterans 

weren’t given as many options for recovery as they have today. 

For some, this led to homelessness, some unemployment. The 

American dream that they fought so hard for, it slipped away from 

them and it left them with a very uncertain life, many out on the 

streets. 

Luckily, today, many returning veterans will make the journey 

to reclaim citizenship easily and with pride, however, for some, 

struggle. And so those are the ones that we are really concerned 

about and those with some sort of psychiatric disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Without these programs, such as supported employment, which 

is a proven model for helping individuals with severe disabilities 

reenter the labor force, we are afraid the stories of the past are 

going to become the stories of the future. 

Supported employment is widely considered as an evidence-based 

practice, a position that is supported in both quasi-experimental 

studies and, also, randomized control studies, as well. 

According to Dr. Gary Bond, specific targeted efforts towards 

competitive employment are the most effective than indirect strategies. The best means to assist those with psychiatric disabilities is 

not only their achieving employment, but also, in maintaining it. 

Assisting consumers of mental health services in managing their 

illness or improving their social competencies will have a spread effect on their vocational effectiveness. 

In 2003, a study, called the Employment Intervention Demonstration program, better known as the EIDP, was funded by 

SAMHSA, which is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to examine new ways of enhancing employment opportunities and the quality of life for mental illness consumers. 

The EIDP study included eight demonstration sites, as well as a 

coordinating center, and it found that a 246 percent increase in 

those who engaged in paid work after receiving supported services 

for 24 months compared to a similar group of individuals that have 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
745 

the same disabilities, which was part of the U.S. census taken in 

1994 and 1995. 

So they compared the two groups. 

The participants of the study included individuals with head injuries, learning disabilities, chronic mental health conditions, and 

those diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, so a number of the 

same population. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask you to just wrap up? 

Ms. GRANAHAN. Absolutely. I just wanted to say that I am here 

today to ask the committee to increase funding for psychiatric rehabilitation, especially supported employment services, within Veterans Affairs. 

We also believe that there is a need for research, as well. There 

hasn’t been a great deal of research on these programs for, and 

that we ask that you conduct research for the EIDP, a similar 

study to the EIDP for those specifically in the veterans population. 

[Prepared statement of Marcie Granahan follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
746 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1709 here 42754C.130
747 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1710 here 42754C.131
748 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1711 here 42754C.132
749 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1712 here 42754C.133
750 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1713 here 42754C.134
751 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, and for your focus on employment and 

the importance of that in the process of rehabilitation for veterans. 

Are your members psychiatrists and social workers with a range 

of backgrounds? Give me a little better understanding of your 

membership, if you don’t mind. 

Ms. GRANAHAN. Absolutely. About 20 percent to 30 percent of our 

membership are from the Veterans’ Administration, practicing in 

the Veterans’ Health Administration. 

About another 30 percent are those that are agencies in the behavioral health care field that are providing services. 

We have maybe about 10 percent that are researchers and educators in psychiatric rehabilitation and about another 5 percent 

that are those that are state mental health directors that are out 

in the field. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think, in terms of our need in the VA for 

psychiatrists, do you think loan forgiveness for student debt would 

be an attractive magnet to bring people into the VA care system? 

Ms. GRANAHAN. If you will entertain it, I would like to introduce 

Sandy Resnick. She is a researcher and probably has more expertise in this area than I. 

She works at Yale. She does have an affiliation, but is not here 

today to represent that. 

May I bring her up to answer that question? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Quickly. 

Ms. RESNICK. Absolutely. I think loan repayment programs are 

good for all students, quite frankly. It is certainly a draw. I know 

that there are many clinical psychologists, as well, in particular, 

who specifically seek out positions for loan payments. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Because we are in a unique situation right now 

where we have more money in medical services than we can spend 

in hiring new people and DOD and VA are competing for the same 

psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and it is a struggle out 

here. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Wamp, any questions? 

Mr. WAMP. Well, I could talk with her for an hour. I just want 

to say that over 20 years ago, I was starting a psychosocial rehabilitation center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, called the Ames Center. And so this piece of taking those that have gone through finding what medications they need, what treatments they need, and 

then trying to reintegrate into society in a productive way is the 

piece that was missing for so long. 

And we have seen the Ames Center be incredibly successful. It 

is supported by our local governments at every level and just about 

everybody, the United Way on over, support it. 

This is the piece and this is important that you are advocating 

that today. That is the part that I picked up on. 

And so, clearly, as we can help fill this need, we will be able to 

transition these people into a productive life, not just Medicaid and 

treat them, but actually allow them to live productive lives. 

Ms. GRANAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr, do you have any questions? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
752 

Mr. FARR. No. I didn’t hear the testimony, but I am very sympathetic. 

Ms. GRANAHAN. It was wonderful. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It was outstanding. 

Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Granahan. 

Mr. FARR. We need a lot of psychiatric rehabilitation right here 

in our own institution. 

Ms. GRANAHAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for being here. 

I would like to now call forward Dr. Steven Breckler. 

Dr. Breckler is the Executive Director for Science at the American Psychological Association, a scientific and professional organization of more than 148,000 psychologists and affiliates. 

Dr. Breckler, thank you for being here. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

STEVEN J. BRECKLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. BRECKLER

Dr. BRECKLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me, members of the subcommittee. 

I am Steven Breckler. I am Executive Director for Science at the 

American Psychological Association. 

APA is a scientific and professional association representing over 

148,000 psychologists and affiliates. Many of these psychologists 

work within the Department of Veterans Affairs both as research 

scientists and as clinicians, all of them committed to improving the 

lives of our nation’s veterans. 

On behalf of APA, thank you for your continued support of the 

VA medical and prosthetic research program. 

Yet, despite strong congressional support, the administration has 

again proposed to cut the overall VA research account in fiscal year 

2009 by $38 million. 

This is an 8-percent cut. The President’s budget proposes significant cuts in funding for eight of the VA’s 21 designated research 

areas, including mental health, central nervous system injury, 

acute and traumatic injury, and substance abuse. 

This would be in direct opposition to congressional language 

which calls for additional research in the areas of mental health, 

especially the causes, prevention, mitigation, treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, what we call PTSD, the full spectrum of 

traumatic brain injury, TBI, and substance abuse. 

A strong VA psychological research program provides the scientific foundation for high quality care within the VA system. 

VA’s psychologists play a dual role, providing care for veterans 

and conducting research in all areas of health, including high priority areas especially relevant to veterans, including mental health, 

brain injury, substance abuse, aging-related disorders, and physical 

and psychosocial rehabilitation. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
753 

In addition, psychologists often receive specialty training in rehabilitation psychology or in neuropsychology, which helps to improve 

the assessment, the treatment and research on many conditions affecting veterans of the current conflicts. 

This includes PTSD, burns, amputation, blindness, spinal cord 

injuries, and polytrauma. 

The current conflicts have presented new challenges for VA psychologists, as many veterans with PTSD have post-concussive 

symptoms stemming from blast injuries. 

Equally important are the positive impacts of psychological interventions on the care of veterans who suffer from chronic illnesses, 

such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV, and chronic pain. 

APA joins the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research, 

the FOVA coalition, in urging Congress to reserve another round 

of cuts and to appropriate $555 million in fiscal year 2009 for medical and prosthetic research. 

This recommendation is echoed in the Independent Budget and 

the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs views and estimates. 

In addition to stellar scientists, cutting-edge research requires 

cutting-edge technologies, equipment, and facilities. VA’s minor 

construction program has not provided the resources needed to adequately maintain, upgrade and replace aging research facilities. 

APA again joins FOVA in urging Congress to establish and appropriate a funding stream specifically for research facilities, with 

an annual appropriation of $45 million, beginning in fiscal year 

2009. 

The care of veterans suffering psychological wounds as a result 

of military service is at the heart of the VA’s mandate, which is to 

care for him who shall have borne the battle. 

We must not risk our ability to serve military personnel and veterans in this time of war. 

This is why we urge the committee and your colleagues in the 

Senate to reverse proposed cuts to the fiscal year 2009 VA research 

account. 

Thank you, as always. 

[Prepared statement of Steven J. Breckler follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
754 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1722 here 42754C.135
755 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1723 here 42754C.136
756 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1724 here 42754C.137
757 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1725 here 42754C.138
758 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1726 here 42754C.139
759 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1727 here 42754C.140
760 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1728 here 42754C.141
761 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Breckler, thank you. And let me say that I applaud the administration for using the new baseline, taking the 

emergency funding, that was technically emergency funding for the 

2008 year of $3.6 billion above the president’s request and use that 

as a new baseline and then added to medical services. 

So they set priorities in medical services, but I think you will see 

Congress—I hate to predict, but I think you will see Congress trying to maintain the increase in VA medical research passed last 

year. 

We don’t do much good to plus up in 1 year and then cut back by $38 million in the next year. 

So we thank you. 

I have one question. Is the VA competitive when it comes to salaries for psychologists, competitive with the private market? 

Dr. BRECKLER. You know, I don’t know the answer. I can provide 

the information. 

[The information follows:] 

APA Response: 

For entry level positions in psychology, the VA remains competitive with the private market. As psychologists within the VA system become more senior and accomplished, however, the VA becomes increasingly less competitive with the private sector both in terms of actual salaries and number of senior grade positions available. 

This has created a serious problem for recruiting and retaining psychologists, as 

many will see VA as a ‘‘dead-end’’ for their careers and will be attracted to other 

career options that offer more potential for advancement. 

In late 2003, the Hybrid Title 38 system was statutorily expanded to provide psychologists and a wide range of other non-physician disciplines some of the same personnel and pay considerations as their physician counterparts. The Title 38 Hybrid 

is a combination of Title 38 and Title 5 provisions for non-physician health care professionals at the VA. Historically, Title 38 was created to alleviate severe shortages 

of health care personnel, especially for physicians in VA, by reducing the bureaucratic red tape of the civil service recruiting and hiring system and the restrictive 

compensation practices inherent in Title 5. 

Psychologists remain the only health care providers requiring the doctorate who 

are not included in Title 38. The Title 38 Hybrid was created to provide a middle 

ground solution for health care professionals who needed some of the same considerations as their physician counterparts. The hybrid model requires Professional 

Standards Boards to make recommendations on employment, promotion and grade 

for psychologists, and is still more subjective than a pure Title 38 program, in which 

professionals are hired, promoted and retained based solely on their qualifications. 

The implementation of the new Title 38 Hybrid boarding process on the number 

of GS–14 and –15 psychologists is currently very mixed. Many psychologist leaders 

from facilities throughout the country have reported that their facilities and Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) have denied GS–14 and –15 promotions 

that have been recommended by the national boarding process. 

To address this issue, APA recommends that VACO field instructions be modified 

to eliminate any reference to ceilings or restrictions on the number of GS–15 psychologists within VISNs and facilities. Instead, VISNs and facilities should be directed to the national psychology boarding process to determine the appropriate 

number of GS–14 and –15 psychologists at their locations. VACO Human Resources, 

Office of Mental Health Services, and the National Psychology Professional Standards Board must collaborate on providing clear guidelines for the preparation of psychologist boarding packets and for proper construction of documentation. 

Dr. BRECKLER. I think that the private marketplace is always the 

competitor, it is the draw for talent and staffing, and that is true 

across federal agencies. 

So anything that can be done to make it an attractive option for 

psychologists and medical professionals and so on to work is always 

appreciated. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am told that for psychiatrists, we are actually 

competitive in terms of the salary caps, where it is hard for orthoVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00761 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
762 

pedic surgeons and radiologists and others who are making 

$400,000 and $500,000 in the private marketplace. 

But if you have any data in terms of how competitive we are on 

the salaries for psychologists. 

Dr. BRECKLER. We can provide that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Mental health issues for veterans is very much in the 

news today. We never know motives behind the administration, but 

sometimes they under-fund areas they think the Congress believes 

in. 

Again, I think the chairman is right not to speak ahead of time, 

but you saw the Congress speak very loudly last week on mental 

health parity in a bipartisan way. 

I am on that team. I think you will see the Congress band together on increasing these accounts. To what level, we don’t know. 

But I think the advocacy and the attention on these issues now is 

keen. 

So thank you for your testimony. I think it will help us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is appreciated. Thank you. 

Sam. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Do you represent the whole American Psychological Association 

or just those association members that are in VA employment? 

Dr. BRECKLER. Somewhere in between. APA represents a large 

body of psychologists, clinicians, researchers, educators and so on. 

We represent far more than just those who are employed within 

the VA. 

A large portion of our membership works in the VA and some of 

those as clinicians and some as researchers. 

Mr. FARR. So I thought their number one issue this year was 

being able to get authorized as private clinicians to handle PTSD 

cases. 

These are not VA employees. These are private clinicians. 

Dr. BRECKLER. I don’t know much about that particular issue, if 

it is the issue of private clinicians as opposed to those who are 

working within the VA. 

The practice community—— 

Mr. FARR. But that is what the association came here and asked 

for. 

Dr. BRECKLER. Yes, and that is an issue on the practice side of 

psychology, the delivery of mental health services, and it is not 

something I am prepared to speak to, although I am happy to—— 

Mr. FARR. You talked about the—and I am very interested in 

this—the medical and prosthetic research. 

Are you aware of what DARPA is doing in that area? 

Dr. BRECKLER. I am not aware of the details of the program. I 

am aware that research is taking place in many branches of DOD 

and DARPA and other segments of the federal infrastructure, at 

NIH and so on. 

They tend to complement one another. But the issues that surround the delivery of mental health services to veterans in particular and the challenges that face veterans in particular is what 

the VA is in the best position to address, because that is where returning vets are seen, that is where the delivery is provided, and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
763 

that is where the research is taking place on the issues that face 

them in particular. 

Mr. FARR. I guess what I missed here is what is missing. The 

money? 

I didn’t know until last year, but I am very impressed that 

DARPA is doing incredible kind of breakthrough technology advancement, but then the problem with prosthetics is that there is 

not a lot of market out there, so there is not a lot of ventured capital into those. 

You have got to have this research subsidy by the Federal Government. 

What is missing? Because you asked that there be more money 

put into it. 

Dr. BRECKLER. What is missing, sir, is in taking the basic advances in research and technology and materials and devices and 

so on and learning how to translate those advances into practice, 

into the delivery to people who need it. 

And so when you have basic research devoted to things like material development and so on, it is sometimes very difficult to make 

the leap, to make the step from there to the delivery of devices and 

rehabilitation on the front line and actually delivering that care. 

And so you will find branches of research where investments are 

being made in really the foundation—— 

Mr. FARR. Yes, but I am specifically interested in the prosthetic 

issue. If you could check in with where that missing link is, because DARPA was here and the people they were here with are all 

veterans. 

So there is something going on and I am curious. 

If there is something missing, I would like to see if we can fix 

it. Sometimes, it just needs collaboration. If you have any knowledge of that, please let me know. 

Dr. BRECKLER. I appreciate the interest. I will look into it and 

get back to you on it. 

[The information follows:] 

APA Response: 

Both the VA and DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, have 

active research programs seeking to advance the science and technology related to 

prosthetic devices. It is APA’s understanding that the VA and DARPA, along with 

the National Institutes of Health, maintain collaboration between scientists working 

in this area to leverage funding and key developments while avoiding duplication. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask staff. Do I understand we have a single vote? Rather 

than push the next witness, why don’t we just go vote and come 

back? 

We are in recess for about 2 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Abate, good to have you here, sir. 

Mr. ABATE. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is that the correct pronunciation, Abate? 

Mr. ABATE. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Paul Abate is Vice President of Government Services and Business Development of Champion Homes, and we appreciate, Mr. 

Abate, your being here and I recognize you for 5 minutes. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
764 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

CHAMPION HOMES 

WITNESS 

PAUL ABATE, Vice President of Gov’t Services and Business Dev., Champion Homes 

STATEMENT OF PAUL ABATE

Mr. ABATE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Paul 

Abate. I am Vice President of Government Services and Business 

Development for Champion Homes. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf 

of Champion and the modular building industry. 

Tom Hardiman, Executive Director of the Modular Building Industry, is in the audience today and joins me in support of this testimony. 

To be clear, we are not here before you today in search of funds 

for any particular project. 

Rather, we hope to educate members of the committee as to the 

benefits and advances in modular construction and offer our industry as a solution for the complicated future facing military housing 

and other mission-related facility requirements. 

As the military attempts to update its fighting style and organizational structure, the impact on housing, operational facilities and 

infrastructure cannot be overemphasized. 

As this committee knows all too well, annual funding uncertainties make the process of construction planning and implementation 

even more complicated. 

For these reasons, modular construction can be an important 

part of the solution due to its ability to deliver quality products in 

unprecedented timelines. 

Unfortunately, certain military branches have been slow to embrace modern modular technology. We recognize that change takes 

time and our military leaders are appropriately focused on fighting 

wars abroad. 

However, the challenges associated with the mission facility as 

it relates to BRAC, global re-basing, and grow-the-force require 

strategic planning. 

After several years of educating leaders in the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, our industry has recently seen improvement in opportunities with the Army. The Air Force and the Navy have not yet 

favored the modular approach to date and even with recent improvements within the Army, much more can be done to incorporate modular construction. 

We are not seeking extraordinary treatment during the contracting process. Conventional construction may very well be the 

best option in many instances. We do, however, seek a level playing 

field between the modular and onsite construction industries in future construction efforts. 

In short, we encourage branches of the military to remove certain 

impediments to modular construction, ensure that the modular solution is viewed as a viable alternative when establishing the fuVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00764 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
765 

ture standards via the U.S. Army Corps Centers of Standardization 

and/or any other military agency standards and to include the modular industry as an early entry partner in planning, discussions, 

meetings and events. 

The stereotype of modular construction as a trailer park is dated 

and completely inaccurate. 

Today’s modular building solutions are models of efficiency and 

quality. New technology has allowed modular manufacturers to 

build almost any style of home from a simple rancher to a highly 

customized contemporary mansion or to build commercial buildings 

such as banks, schools, hotels, condominiums, and even foreign embassies. 

Modular construction can meet these demanding timeframes and 

provide quality homes and facilities for soldiers and their families 

that are indistinguishable from those built onsite. 

Time is the single biggest advantage of modular construction 

over site-built construction. Building construction can begin at the 

same time or even before site work is completed, reducing construction schedules by as much as 50 percent. 

While it is hard to determine theoretical cost savings without 

specific plans, the old adage, time is money, is certainly true. 

In previous discussions, with military leaders, we have been 

asked about the strength and durability of modular construction. 

Modular buildings are built to the same codes and from the same 

materials as permanent site-built construction and they offer the 

same features as site-built construction. 

We also believe that utilizing modular construction methods is 

more environmentally friendly than site-built. We are quantifying 

specific environmental benefits of modular construction and we will 

be happy to share the results with this committee as soon as those 

reports become available. 

In short, modular construction is much different than it was 15 

years ago and we continue to evolve. The products are better. Fabrication technology has improved and we are faster than conventional construction. 

All we seek is a level playing field during future military construction opportunities and we stand ready to assist our troops, 

their families and the nation. 

In conclusion, we appreciate the committee’s time and attention 

to this issue. We have submitted potential report language for consideration and look forward to working with you as the 2009 appropriations bill is assembled. 

We would be happy to answer any questions. 

And this is Tom Hardiman behind me from the MBI, if there are 

any questions from an industry standpoint. 

[Prepared statement of Paul Abate follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
766 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1743 here 42754C.142
767 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1744 here 42754C.143
768 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1745 here 42754C.144
769 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Abate, and you, too, Mr. 

Hardiman, for being here. 

Could I just ask, do you have any kind of list of how many different Army installations you are building homes or other facilities 

for? 

Mr. ABATE. I don’t have a written list. We can get one. We have 

completed projects at Fort Bliss. There is some work going on right 

now at Fort Carson. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Housing at Bliss? 

Mr. ABATE. Barracks work, both temporary and permanent, was 

done at Bliss. 

Carson, Fort Sam, Fort Knox, all have either temporary or permanent barracks right now. 

We at Champion have completed a large privatization effort up 

at Fort Lewis. So that was for off-base housing through a developer. 

Those are the ones that come to mind right now. But, again, we 

can put a list together and get that to the committee. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
770 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1747 here 42754C.145
771 

Mr. EDWARDS. I have got to ask this question. What was the 

formaldehyde problem with the homes tied into Katrina? 

Mr. ABATE. Tom, do you want to—— 

Mr. HARDIMAN. I knew that was going to come up. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For the record, if you would identify yourself and 

who you represent. 

Mr. FARR. The reason it is an issue is this committee asked the 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs to look into FEMA to see if we 

could take the excess trailers and use them for housing. We had 

250,000 vets who were sleeping in the streets. 

And if the government owns a lot of excess trailers that aren’t 

full of formaldehyde, we wanted to use them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We were talking about this literally as we were 

walking back down from the last vote. 

Mr. HARDIMAN. Again, my name is Tom Hardiman, and I am the 

director of the Modular Building Institute. We are the trade association that represents the non-residential side of the modular industry. 

And I know the modular industry is a very small niche as it is, 

but there is a residential side and a non-residential side, and there 

are two or three associations running around representing those. 

We, as an industry, have been up on the Hill a few times trying 

to educate members, particularly in Louisiana, the Louisiana delegation, about the formaldehyde issue. 

On the non-residential side of the equation, there is no HUD 

code equivalent building code. It has to be built to whatever the 

local building codes are. Wherever that building is going, it has to 

meet those local building codes, no different than any school or any 

bank or any church that is built there. 

On the residential side, there is a HUD code standard for the 

manufactured housing and they do have—it is my understanding 

that they do have acceptable levels of formaldehyde that are allowed to be in those buildings. 

I think the problem with the FEMA travel-trailers was that a lot 

of those are travel-trailers and RVs and were never intended to be 

lived in and do not have—were not built to a building code. 

So there is no formaldehyde requirement or limit in those types 

of products, and, unfortunately, people have been living in those for 

far too long. 

Mr. ABATE. Back as far as 1980, if I could interject, the modular 

industry does comply with the reduced formaldehyde standard in 

all products that go into—the various components that go into the 

buildings. 

That is not true, as far as I understand, with the RV industry. 

A lot of times, when the word ‘‘trailers’’ flashes up on ‘‘CNN’’ at 

the bottom of the screen, we kind of all get lumped together. But 

we do have specific requirements on our side of the industry that 

we adhere to as opposed to the RV side of the industry. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That helps. Thank you for that answer. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. The diligence wasn’t done by the Department of 

Homeland Security then ahead of moving those trailers into the 

Katrina zone, bottom line. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
772 

Mr. ABATE. Well, I guess a lot of that was basically due to the 

speed of the need. 

Mr. WAMP. And that is when mistakes are made. We have done 

it a bunch of times just while the three of us have been here. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I have a lot of interest in this, because I agree with 

you on all the things you said about the advantages. 

This is a suggestion. When I was a county supervisor in California, the pressure was to prevent trailer parks from coming in, 

first, because they were classified as a mobile home and didn’t have 

to pay property taxes. 

Secondly, they were not built that well and, as you know, over 

time, would deteriorate. And the park owners had the problem of 

getting rid of these things and, obviously, also pressuring people 

out so that a new unit would come in. And so you were sort of displacing elderly people. 

So you had a social issue and a tax issue. 

And it seems to me what we have really seen in the modular industry take off is in this commercial use for school classrooms, for, 

obviously, office space, and I know we have used them in the military where they are usually used for office or storage space, not a 

living space. 

You are talking about getting into the RCI projects, the housing 

construction. 

Do you have any modular home developments that are just stateof-the-art? Because I think that is where the sales have to come. 

Fighting up through local government is going to be very difficult 

for the reasons I talked about. It is going to be hard to change 

them and their codes are changing faster than you can adopt them. 

I think that this is an image issue that has got to be overcome. 

Mr. ABATE. I think there are two aspects that you are touching 

on. Stigma is definitely a word that we—when people see trailer, 

they think of construction trailer. They think of that single-wide 

that sits in the mobile home park. 

The modular industry has evolved quite a bit in technology over 

the last 10–15 years. A lot of the stuff that we are doing today is 

IBC coded. So it is not HUD. It is a business code rather than a 

residential code. 

The technology to move to two-story and three-story office buildings, very common now. Part of the work that we have done in the 

industry for the military has involved battalion and brigade headquarters buildings as part of some of the BCTs down at Fort Bliss, 

VMS administration storage buildings have been part of that, as 

well. 

So there has been commercial application that has also already 

been done for the military. 

We at Champion have been a residential company for most of our 

history, with a scattering now of commercial, and we are now moving more toward that more commercial element to basically diversify the buildings. 

In single-wide, you are talking about, as far as HUD code and 

buildings, a drop in quantity. I think 397,000—produced about 4 or 

5 years ago—are down to 97,000 produced last year. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
773 

Part of that is the housing market in general and the condition 

of—for that. Financing, obviously, is part of it. 

But I think there is also a move more toward the modular home 

that you are basically describing as the house that you live in. 

It is a more sophisticated product. And these are some of the pictures of modular facilities that we have in a handout and we will 

be happy to hand you a copy. 

Technology is getting to the point now where we have an operation in the U.K. that is actually doing 17-story high-rise modular 

buildings, and we hope to introduce that technology in the U.S. 

within the next 12 months. 

So the industry itself is definitely evolving more toward the modular concept and, I think, away from the trailer park, away from 

HUD, and more toward IBC and IRC coded buildings. 

And you don’t have as much play with that local inspector anymore now, because most of the states have adopted the international codes, which gives you a little more uniformity, gives you 

a much better inspection and QC—— 

Mr. FARR. Do you have any military residential housing that is 

in that? 

Mr. ABATE. Fort Lewis is actually a 2.5 year project that we have 

done in conjunction with a developer and the Fort Bragg project 

was actually two-story barracks units. There were 63 buildings 

done last year by Champion. 

Tom, I don’t know if you have any of the other industry numbers 

that have also—— 

Mr. HARDIMAN. I do. If you would like, I have a copy of our collection of modular construction, our annual report, and it has representative pictures and it, as well, has a lot of the statistics about 

the non-residential side of the business. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
774 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1757 here 42754C.146
775 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1758 here 42754C.147
776 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1759 here 42754C.148
777 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1760 here 42754C.149
778 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1761 here 42754C.150
779 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1762 here 42754C.151
780 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1763 here 42754C.152
781 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1764 here 42754C.153
782 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1765 here 42754C.154
783 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1766 here 42754C.155
784 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1767 here 42754C.156
785 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1768 here 42754C.157
786 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1769 here 42754C.158
787 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1770 here 42754C.159
788 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1771 here 42754C.160
789 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1772 here 42754C.161
790 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1773 here 42754C.162
791 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1774 here 42754C.163
792 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1775 here 42754C.164
793 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1776 here 42754C.165
794 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1777 here 42754C.166
795 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1778 here 42754C.167
796 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1779 here 42754C.168
797 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1780 here 42754C.169
798 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1781 here 42754C.170
799 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1782 here 42754C.171
800 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1783 here 42754C.172
801 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1784 here 42754C.173
802 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1785 here 42754C.174
803 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1786 here 42754C.175
804 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1787 here 42754C.176
805 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1788 here 42754C.177
806 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1789 here 42754C.178
807 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1790 here 42754C.179
808 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1791 here 42754C.180
809 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1792 here 42754C.181
810 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1793 here 42754C.182
811 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1794 here 42754C.183
812 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1795 here 42754C.184
813 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1796 here 42754C.185
814 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1797 here 42754C.186
815 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1798 here 42754C.187
816 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1799 here 42754C.188
817 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1800 here 42754C.189
818 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1801 here 42754C.190
819 

Mr. HARDIMAN. There are any number of multi, concrete buildings that are out there. It is not a new technology. In fact, there 

is a 19-story hotel in San Antonio that was built in the 1960s using 

modular construction. 

Virtually every other industry in our country has already, to 

some degree, except construction and—a lot of it is the stigma and 

an image issue, but we are trying to break through that stigma and 

make some agencies realize, if time is a concern, this is certainly 

a viable option. 

Mr. FARR. And it is getting the military away from that idea of 

build this way because we always have. And that seems to be a lot 

of the feedback that we get from some of the military agencies. 

Mr. HARDIMAN. The devil we know. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We have seen that inertia. 

Sam, any additional questions? 

Mr. FARR. No. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, thank you both for your testimony. Thank 

you for being here. 

Members, we now have our friend, Steve Robertson, who we 

know has been director of the national legislative division of the 

American Legion since 1993. 

He served in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 as a military policeman and, prior to this, he served 12 years in the Air Force. 

We thank you for that service. But we all know him as a tremendous leader and voice for veterans. 

Steve, it is good to have you here. Thank you for your partnership over the years, but, in particular, last year, as we were working together to try to get the kind of historic increase in funding 

that our veterans deserved. 

The American Legion and you, representing the Legion, were a 

terribly important part of that partnership. Thank you for that effort. 

It is good to have you here today. Your full testimony will be put 

into the record and I would like to recognize you now. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROBERTSON

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, sir. And, gentlemen, before I even 

start the testimony, I want to thank both of you for the ceremony 

today in remembrance of the war. 

For me, it was very personal. I lost a cousin last year. He is buried in Waco, Staff Sergeant Chris Higgin. And then my son is over 

there right now. Matter of fact, my son landed on May 22nd in Iraq 

for his second tour. That was the day our cousin was killed, and 

my son is due back in May. So we are hoping for a speedy return. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Both he and you are in our prayers. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you. And please pass on to the leadership that we appreciate it very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will do that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
820 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

THE AMERICAN LEGION 

WITNESS 

STEVE ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 

Mr. ROBERTSON. First of all, I want to thank you for allowing me 

to testify today. Last year, you guys did a tremendous job. We really appreciate the appropriations package that you put together. 

The final appropriation was the numbers we were looking for. 

We greatly appreciate that. 

Clearly, for decades, this was the first time, at least in my memory, that the VA budget met or exceeded what the American Legion 

and many of the other veterans’ organizations had asked for and 

it is because of your leadership that VA now faces a paradigm 

change, a significant paradigm change. 

For years, they have been asked to do more with less. And now 

they are being asked to do more with the resources they need, and 

we greatly appreciate that. 

This change in philosophy about the resources is very, very critical. The American Legion has a team that goes out and visits VA 

facilities around the country and we kept hearing the same things 

every time we would visit—we are short of people, we are waiting 

for replacement of equipment or new equipment, we are waiting in 

renovations. 

I think Dr. Brown spoke to that today in his testimony. And it 

was always the demand for services just seems to overtake us. We 

have the inability to meet the demand. 

Historically, VA leadership was asked to achieve management efficiencies that were never specifically identified. As a result of that, 

when we went to the field, we saw things like hiring delays. They 

weren’t hiring freezes, but they were delays or there were equipment backlogs that were very noticeable, delay in maintenance, the 

manipulation of appointments, making appointments and then canceling them, then making them and then canceling them, then 

making them and canceling them, and other decisions that we believe were driven by limited resources and not sound management 

practices. 

In fact, many of these were peacetime decisions that have had 

their ramifications in this wartime environment, that the patient 

population has changed significantly. 

The transformation of the VA health care system is very, very 

impressive. Two decades ago, when I joined the staff of the American Legion, most of the complaints we got were about the quality 

of care. 

Today, the complaints we are getting are ‘‘Why can’t I get into 

the system?’’ It is the veterans that are locked out because of their 

income level, not because of their service. 

The VA claims adjudication process, on the other hand, needs a 

similar transformation that the health care industry has gone 

through, but it can’t be achieved without the resources. 

Recently, various commissions have made recommendations on 

how to improve the process. Some of these recommendations can be 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
821 

achieved administratively and then the others are going to require 

some congressional action. 

However, all of these changes are going to require the resources 

to aggressively attack the backlog problem. 

The American Legion believes the solution rests in additional 

staffing, in training, both the initial and the continuing education, 

and technology. 

Mr. Chairman, the American Legion understands the budget 

process and greatly appreciates the efforts of you and your colleagues, but I must stress the importance of three necessary elements in the VA budget—sufficiency, timeliness and predictability. 

We understand that the federal budget process is more complicated than explained in the civics textbooks, but these three aspects are critical for proper management of the VA system, especially the VA health care system. 

I wanted to bring up two specific things. The System Worth Saving Task Force, the team that we have that goes out and visits facilities, this year, are going to focus primarily on long-term care. 

Last year, we put a lot of emphasis on VA outpatient or the vets’ 

centers, but this year, we are going to look at the long-term care. 

Mr. Jones with NAUS brought up the comment about the extended 

care facilities and the amount of money they were asking for. 

One thing that people forget is this is a joint agreement between 

the states and VA. VA builds the facility, but the state assumes the 

responsibility for it after that point. 

Well, right now, a lot of states are going through budgetary 

shortfalls and the money that has been said, ‘‘Yes, we will commit 

this to a state veterans’ home,’’ if it is delayed year after year after 

year after year, it is very tough to convince those states to keep 

that money in the lock for us. 

So that is one thing we are really concerned about. 

When I was talking about the additional staff hiring for the VBA, 

one of the things we have really been trying to push is that they 

look to hire some of our veterans that are coming off of active duty, 

especially the ones that have serious disabilities that are going 

through vocational rehabilitation. 

They just seem like logical candidates to be working in the 

claims adjudication process. 

Mr. Chairman, the American Legion continues to work with you 

and your colleagues to make sure that the veterans of this nation, 

past, present and the ones that we are going to be getting, receive 

the earned benefits from a grateful nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Steve Robertson follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
822 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1811 here 42754C.191
823 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1812 here 42754C.192
824 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1813 here 42754C.193
825 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1814 here 42754C.194
826 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1815 here 42754C.195
827 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1816 here 42754C.196
828 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1817 here 42754C.197
829 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1818 here 42754C.198
830 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1819 here 42754C.199
831 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1820 here 42754C.200
832 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1821 here 42754C.201
833 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1822 here 42754C.202
834 

Mr. EDWARDS. Steve, thank you very, very much. 

We hear the message about sufficiency. We have done pretty well 

on that. Timeliness and predictability, we have got to be sure we 

do a better job on those and we are going to push for that. 

I had a conversation with some people today about the timeliness 

of the fiscal year 2009 VA Military Construction budget. So if the 

other subcommittee budgets get caught up and fight to the White 

House, I am, one, going to push very hard to see if we can’t get 

the VA Appropriation Bill passed on a bipartisan basis and down 

to the president and hopefully signed. 

We understand that not getting the money in a timely manner 

makes it more difficult to spend it as efficiently as we otherwise 

could. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. There is one other area that I think maybe it 

is time to take a look at, and that is the VERA formula. I think 

there were a couple of comments made about VERA today, the way 

that the money is distributed out to the facilities, because the formula works to get the money to the VISN director. 

Once it gets to the VISN director, then it is subjective as to 

where the money goes. 

With the offsets of third-party collections, a lot of times, facilities 

that do a good job collecting third-party reimbursements, they are 

rewarded with a reduction in the amount of discretionary money 

they are getting and they get an increase in the amount that they 

have got to collect through third-party reimbursements. 

And that is kind of like you do a good job and you get slapped 

around. What we would really encourage is to think about this offset. The money that is coming in from third-party reimbursements 

is really money above and beyond what we need to take care of, 

the patients that VA is focused on, i.e., the ones that are entitled 

to care, the priorities one through six. 

One year, they didn’t even calculate the sevens and eights at all 

in their budgets and we were short of money. 

Well, now they are counting the sevens and they are really not 

counting the eights. Many of the eights are Medicare eligible. So 

you can’t collect from Medicare. 

So you are already working at a deficit that you will never be 

able to achieve that money from. 

So I guess our concern is if we give them the discretionary money 

and then give them the goal of collecting, at least you are not penalizing them for what they do collect and it should be a surplus 

that they are going to get. 

Mr. FARR. What would you do with the surplus? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would plough it back into the system. 

Mr. FARR. But not deduct it from the next budget? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir. Again, the money that—the priority 

group veterans one through six are the ones that the government 

says we are going to take care of your health care and we also took 

on the obligation, and justifiably so, of all the new recently separated veterans from 2 years to 5 years. 

The recently separated veterans are now getting access to health 

care. 

So that is an additional obligation. 

Mr. FARR. Regardless of income. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
835 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Regardless of income. And after their 5 years is 

up, they are going to be reassigned to whatever priority group they 

belong to. So some of them will go into eights, which brings up another very controversial issue. 

Of the recently separated kids that are—are being able to go into 

the system. A guy that fought at the Battle of the Bulge, landed 

at Normandy, liberated the concentration camps can’t enroll today 

because of his income. 

So we are telling one guy that ‘‘We thank you for your service 

because you fought in Iraq and Afghanistan,’’ and then we are looking at the greatest generation and saying, ‘‘Sorry, buddy, you made 

a successful transition, you are worth money now, you can’t even 

come to the system,’’ which is a travesty. 

Some of these guys, they have paid their debt to the country 

many, many times not only through their military service, but as 

a taxpayer. They have paid Medicare all their life and now they 

want to come to the VA because they know the reputation of VA’s 

quality of care, and we are saying, ‘‘Sorry, see you later, go someplace else,’’ and that is wrong. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Steve, if your schedule permits, I would like you 

to stay here, let the VSOs that are part of the Independent Budget 

make their presentation, and then I would like to ask you to then 

come back up so we can ask questions. 

We have held you guys until last so that we didn’t have to keep 

you just to 5 minutes and one question, because you guys are such 

an important partner in this whole effort together with our subcommittee. 

So would you mind? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. We are actually friends. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I know you are. I know you are. 

Thank you, and we will have you come back up. 

We have got Ray Kelley, Kerry Baker, Carl Blake, and Christopher Needham. 

Do I understand Dennis did not want to come before this subcommittee, that he decided to get pneumonia? So tell him we have 

had people go to a lot of trouble not to have to talk to us, but he 

is the first pneumonia case. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is any consolation— 

was just hit in a car wreck last week and—his kid and his wife are 

at home sick, too. So he probably couldn’t be here either. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you all for being here. 

We all know you and have had the privilege of working with you, 

but, for the record, let me read the brief bios. 

Ray Kelley is the National Legislative Director for AMVETS, 

served 6 years in the Marine Corps and continues to serve in the 

Army Reserve. 

Kerry Baker, Disabled American Veterans, was appointed Associate National Legislative Director of the DAV in 2007. He is a 

service-connected disabled veteran of the Persian Gulf War. 

Carl Blake, with Paralyzed Veterans of America, is the National 

Legislative Director of that organization and has appeared before 

the subcommittee in that capacity several times. 

And then Christopher Needham is Senior Legislative Associate 

for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
836 

We thank you all for being here. 

I would like you to make your presentations. If you would identify yourself before you speak, so we can transcribe that testimony 

accurately. 

And as you have heard, we will accept all of your testimony into 

the record. 

So if you could keep each of your remarks to 5 minutes, we 

would appreciate that, and then we will ask Steve to come back up 

and we will have an ongoing discussion here. 

Carl, are you going to start? 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

WITNESS 

CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr, Mr. Wamp, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

I was one of the four co-authors of the Independent Budget. PVA 

is pleased to be here to present our views on the fiscal year 2009 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs health care budget. 

PVA, along with AMVETS, DAV, Veterans of Foreign Wars, is 

proud to come before you this year to present the 22nd edition of 

the Independent Budget. 

I would first like to extend a sincere thanks to all the members 

of the subcommittee for the outstanding achievements that you recognized last year in providing record funding levels for the VA 

that, without the cooperation of everyone on this subcommittee, 

would never have been achieved. 

Your actions certainly give us hope that the VA will continue to 

receive an adequate budget in the future and be able to truly meet 

the needs of the veterans who are returning from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who have served in the past, as well. 

For fiscal year 2009, the administration requests $41.2 billion for 

veterans’ health care. This includes approximately $2.5 billion for 

medical care collections. 

Although this represents another step forward in achieving adequate funding for the VA, it still falls short of the recommendations 

of the Independent Budget. 

For fiscal year 2009, the Independent Budget recommends approximately $42.8 billion for total medical care budget authority, 

an increase of about $3.7 billion over the 2008 appropriated level 

and approximately $1.6 billion above the administration’s requested level for fiscal year 2009. 

Perhaps the single biggest difference between our health care 

recommendation and the VA’s is the projected increase in new 

users for fiscal year 2009. We are particularly concerned that the 

VA’s budget might underestimate the number of OIF/OEF users 

once again. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
837 

The administration projects that only 39,000 new OIF/OEF users 

will enter the system in fiscal year 2009. The Independent Budget 

projects about 85,000. 

Our policy initiatives include $325 million for improvement of 

mental health services and TBI care, $250 million for long-term 

care services, $325 million for funding the force mission, that includes emergency preparedness and homeland security, and about 

$100 million to support centralized prosthetics funding. 

For medical facilities, the Independent Budget recommends approximately $4.6 billion. This amount includes an additional $250 

million for nonrecurring maintenance for the VA to begin addressing the massive backlog of infrastructure needs. 

Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee for recognizing 

this need last year and adding a lot of additional funding to the 

nonrecurring maintenance accounts. 

We are also pleased that the administration this year chose to 

request a more adequate level of funding for nonrecurring maintenance initiatives. 

Although not proposed to have a direct impact on veterans’ 

health care, we are deeply disappointed the administration once 

again recommends the index enrollment fee and the increase in the 

prescription drug co-payments. 

Although the VA does not overtly explain this proposal in its 

budget submission, past estimates have included about 200,000 

veterans that would leave the system and more than a million who 

would choose not to enroll. 

We would hope that Congress would once again reject this, as 

you have done in the past. 

For medical and prosthetic research, the Independent Budget is 

recommending $555 million. This represents a $75 million increase 

over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level and about $113 million 

over the administration’s request for fiscal year 2009. 

We are certainly concerned that the administration deeply 

slashes the funding level that the appropriations committee provided for for medical and prosthetic research last year. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the whole community of 

VSOs has been working on improved funding mechanisms for VA 

health care. However, we know that there is not necessarily the 

kind of support we would like for mandatory funding for VA health 

care, but there are alternatives that we believe could meet our 

goals of timely, sufficient and predictable funding. 

We are working on a proposal right now that would change VA’s 

medical care appropriation to an advanced appropriation, which 

would provide approval 1 year in advance, thereby guaranteeing its 

timeliness. 

Furthermore, by adding transparency to VA’s health care projection enrollee model, we can focus a debate on the most actuarially 

sound projection of veterans’ health care costs to ensure sufficiency. 

Under this proposal, Congress would retain its discretion to approve appropriations, retain all of its oversight authority, and, most 

importantly, there would be no PAYGO implications. 

We ask the subcommittee to consider language in its committee 

report that would call for either mandatory funding or this new adVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00837 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
838 

vanced appropriations approach to take the uncertainties out of the 

health care for our nation’s disabled veterans. 

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this proposal further with the committee staff. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Carl Blake follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
839 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1835 here 42754C.203
840 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1836 here 42754C.204
841 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1837 here 42754C.205
842 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1838 here 42754C.206
843 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1839 here 42754C.207
844 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1840 here 42754C.208
845 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1841 here 42754C.209
846 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1842 here 42754C.210
847 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1843 here 42754C.211
848 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1844 here 42754C.212
849 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

WITNESS 

KERRY BAKER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF KERRY BAKER

Mr. BAKER. My name is Kerry Baker, for the record, with the 

DAV. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I will focus my testimony on understaffing and the VBA claims 

backlog. 

Without a doubt, the claims backlog is growing. Rather than 

making headway and overcoming the delays in the claims processing, VA continues to lose ground on its claims backlog. 

According to VA’s weekly workload report as of January 26, 

2008, just prior to us submitting similar testimony to the House 

and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, there were over 

816,000 pending claims, which include appeals. 

By February 22, 2008, there were over 831,000 pending claims 

in VA, an increase of over 15,000 claims in less than 1 month. 

In the 3 years from the end of 2004 to the end of 2007, the total 

number of pending claims rose by over 188,000, for an average of 

63,000 additional pending claims per year. 

VA’s pending claims rose by over 21,500 just from the end of 

2007 to February 22, 2008, in less than 2 months. 

At this rate, VA’s caseload will pass one million claims in 3 

years. 

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still raging, together with 

the mass exodus from military service that usually occurs following 

cessation of combat operations, new and reopened claims are likely—claims received by VA are more likely to increase than decrease. 

VBA’s new claims per year also continue to increase from one 

year to the next. 

VA’s 2009 budget submission reveals that VA added 277,000 new 

beneficiaries to its C&P rolls in 2007. The significance of these new 

beneficiaries is that a large portion of VA’s workload increase via 

new claims each year are reopened claims rather than claims from 

veterans who have never filed for VA benefits. 

Therefore, the increase in brand new beneficiaries into the system will inevitably increase further the number of reopened claims, 

ultimately causing the total number of claims received by VA each 

year to continue growing at faster rates. 

The complexity of VA’s workload also continues to grow. Veterans are claiming a greater number of disabilities and the nature 

of those disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, complex traumatic brain injuries, diabetes and related conditions, and 

environmental diseases, are becoming more complex. 

For example, the number of cases with eight or more disabilities 

increased by 135 percent from under 22,000 in 2000 and over 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
850 

51,000 in 2006. Such complex cases will only further slow down 

VBA’s claims process. 

Based on our estimated receipt of 920,000 claims in fiscal year 

2009, Congress should authorize 12,184 FTE for fiscal year 2009. 

That number equates to 83 cases per year per each direct program 

FTE. 

We realize that 83 claims per FTE is below VA’s historical projections per FTE. Nonetheless, an infusion of new personnel into 

VBA’s workforce will certainly result in a reduced output per FTE 

for a significant length of time. 

These newly allotted employees will be unable to process claims 

at rates equal to experienced employees. Additionally, senior staff 

within VBA will be forced to frequently halt production of their 

own workload in order to provide the necessary training to inexperienced employees. 

Therefore, the reduction in workload per FTE is unavoidable. 

Mr. Chairman, I have only highlighted a few of the many important issues contained in our Independent Budget for fiscal year 

2009. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Kerry Baker follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
851 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1850 here 42754C.213
852 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1851 here 42754C.214
853 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1852 here 42754C.215
854 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1853 here 42754C.216
855 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1854 here 42754C.217
856 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1855 here 42754C.218
857 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1856 here 42754C.219
858 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1857 here 42754C.220
859 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

We will defer the questions until you are all finished with the 

testimony. 

Chris, do you want to go next? 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 

WITNESS 

CHRISTOPHER NEEDHAM, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS NEEDHAM

Mr. NEEDHAM. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Chris Needham. I am with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

And on behalf of the 2.3 million men and women of the VFW, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for major 

and minor construction will not meet the needs of America’s veterans. 

The VA budget is about half of what last year’s funded level was. The president’s request for major construction is $581.6 million for 

fiscal year 2009. This is a dramatic cut from last year’s level of $1.1 

billion. The total level of funding that the IB is recommending is 

about $1.257 billion, and we feel that would allow VA to fill in 

some of the large construction backlog that is building up. 

While the eight major construction projects called for in the 

budget request may seem like a lot, the funding levels requested 

for them are just a tiny blip in the overall cost. If the president’s 

budget is enacted as is, there will be a backlog of over $2 billion 

when VA begins the planning process for next year’s budget. 

Fully funding construction is necessary to ensure that VA properly reinvests in its aging physical infrastructure, where the average age of a VA facility is well over 50 years. 

On minor construction, we are also concerned with the proposed 

slashing of the budget there, as well. For fiscal year 2009, the recommendation is just $329 million, which is over $300 billion below 

last year’s funding level. The Independent Budget requested $621 

million. 

In its 5-year capital plan, VA has a list of 145 minor construction 

projects targeted for fiscal year 2009. Based on the average project 

cost for minor construction projects from past years, VHA would require a budget of over $800 million—requested. 

Minor construction is important because part of that goes to filling some of the maintenance needs. Every year, VA performs a facilities condition assessment which looks at the maintenance 

projects that are needed to keep the buildings up and running and 

provide health care in clean, safe and efficient places. 

VA has identified a backlog of between $4 billion and $5 billion 

in its FCA maintenance needs and a portion of the minor construction goes to fund those. But the main way in which the FCA backlog is funded is through nonrecurring maintenance. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
860 

As Carl mentioned earlier, we are pleased to see that the admin- istration has requested $802 million for nonrecurring maintenance, 

but that is just the first step. It is certainly in line with what we have asked for, but the $800 

million is basically a minimum of what is needed to fund current 

levels. If VA really needs to dip into that backlog, they are going 

to need an increase in that account, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Veterans of Foreign Wars follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
861 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1863 42754C.221
862 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1864 42754C.222
863 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1865 42754C.223
864 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1866 42754C.224
865 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1867 42754C.225
866 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chris, thank you. 

Ray. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

AMVETS 

WITNESS 

RAYMOND C. KELLEY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY

Mr. KELLEY. Ray Kelley from AMVETS. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for holding this hearing today. 

As a co-author of the Independent Budget, AMVETS is pleased 

to give our best estimates of resources necessary to carry out the 

responsibilities of the National Cemetery Administration. The administration has requested approximately $181 million in 

discretionary funding for operations and maintenance of NCA. Of 

that number, $105 million is dedicated for major construction, $25 

million for minor construction, as well as $32 million for state cemetery grants program. 

In contrast, the Independent Budget recommends Congress pro- vide $251.9 million for the operational requirements of the NCA, 

a figure that includes $50 million toward the national shrine initiative. 

In total, our funding recommendations represent a $71 million 

increase over the administration’s request. 

The national cemetery system continues to be seriously challenged. Adequate resources in developed acreage must keep pace 

with the increasing workload. 

Currently, there are 13 national cemeteries in some phase of development or expansion. The administration’s budget provides 

funding for only three of these, while the NCA expects to perform 

nearly 115,000 interments in 2009, an 8.7 percent increase from 

this current year. 

Congress must also address the needs of gravesite renovation 

and upkeep. Though there has been noteworthy progress made over 

the years, the NCA is still struggling to remove decades of blemishes and scars from military burial grounds across the country. 

To date, $99 million has been invested in restoring the appearance of our national cemeteries, completing nearly 300 of the 928 

deficiencies identified in 2002. 

Therefore, the Independent Budget recommends a $50 million 

commitment in fiscal year 2009, and we continue to recommend 

that Congress establish a 5-year $250 million plan for the national 

shrine, so NCA can fully restore the appearance of the national 

cemeteries to reflect the utmost dignity and respect for those who 

are interred. 

The state cemetery grant program is an important component of 

NCA. It has greatly assisted states in increasing burial services to 

veterans, especially those living in areas where national cemeteries 

are underserved. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
867 

NCA admits only 80 percent of those requesting interment meet 

the 170,000 veteran within a 75-mile radius threshold that they 

have set for themselves. This reemphasizes the importance of state 

grant program. 

Since 1978, the VA has more than doubled the acreage available 

to accommodate more than a 100 percent increase in the burials 

through these grants that the states have established. 

And states have identified that they want to establish 14 new 

cemeteries over the next 4 years. 

Therefore, to provide for these cemeteries and to reach NCA’s threshold goal, the Independent Budget requests $42 million for 

State Grant Cemetery Program in fiscal year 2009. 

Also, the Independent Budget strongly recommends Congress review the current burial benefits that have seriously eroded in value 

over the years. 

While these benefits were never intended to cover the full cost 

of burial, they now pay for just 6 percent of what they covered 

when the program was established in 1973. 

The Independent Budget requests that plot allowance be in- creased from $300 to $750, to increase the allowance for serviceconnected deaths from $2,000 to $4,100, and increase the non-service-connected burial benefits from $300 to $1,270. 

These increases would proportionately bring the benefits back to 

their original value. 

The NCA honors more than 2.8 million veterans with a final 

resting place that commemorates their service to this nation. Our 

national cemeteries are more than a final resting place. They are 

a memorial to those who died in our defense and hallowed ground 

for those who survived. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I am willing to 

take any questions at this time. 

[Prepared statement of Raymond C. Kelley follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
868 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1874 42754C.226
869 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1875 42754C.227
870 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1876 42754C.228
871 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1877 42754C.229
872 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1878 42754C.230
873 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1879 42754C.231
874 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1880 42754C.232
875 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1881 42754C.233
876 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1882 42754C.234
877 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ray. 

Thank you all for your excellent testimony. 

Steve, why don’t you come back up? 

As we ask questions, for the transcriber, if you would just mention your name once again so they can associate your name in the 

record with your comments. 

Let me just quickly say one of the things we have got to do in the immediate short run is try to get $17 million into the American 

Battle Monuments Commission budget for fiscal year 2008. 

With the drop in the value of the dollar, they have no reserve funds. They literally have to take $17 million, I believe that is the 

correct number, out of their budget in maintaining the cemeteries 

that they have responsibility for. 

So I hope we can do something quickly on that. 

Let me start out by asking one question and then I want to recognize Mr. Wamp and then Mr. Farr. 

On the claims backlog, Kerry, you focused on that. What is your 

projection? The number, I am told, is that our appropriation for fiscal year 2008 and the supplemental for the Iraq war that was 

passed last year allows for the hiring of 3,100 additional claims 

processors. 

I don’t know where the VA is in that process, although Admiral 

Cooper had told me that they were moving ahead aggressively. 

Once those 3,100 are hired, do we then begin to bring down the 

backlog or is the increased number of claims going up so dramatically that we are on a treadmill here? 

Mr. BAKER. Without that increase in staffing, I think that we 

will see exponential increases in claims, for a multitude of reasons. 

Without the increase in additional staffing, we are going to see 

exponential increases in claims. The staffing is not going to help 

us probably immediately, because in the claims business in the VA, 

you literally have—once you set foot in the shoes of a rating specialist, you don’t come in the door in VA as a ratings specialist. 

There is a couple of year’s process of training to get up to the 

point where you can really start handling cases in a sufficient manner. 

So that number of staff is initially going to draw away from the 

resources, but that is not going to be a permanent situation and 

I think you are going to start seeing this claims backlog going 

down a little bit more and faster as these guys get up to speed. 

I think the things that we don’t know is how many new claims 

we are going to keep getting into the system. Most of the reopened 

claims you have each year are people that are already in the system. 

So each year we are adding 250,000, 300,000 brand new people 

into the system. How that is going to affect the overall level of new 

claims filed each year on people currently in the system, I don’t 

think we can tell. But I think—— 

Mr. FARR. There are several steps to the claims process. There 

is one step that is just filing the claim for the first time. 

Mr. BAKER. Exactly. 

Mr. FARR. And I have just been told that that actually processes 

very fast. 

Mr. BAKER. That doesn’t take—— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
878 

Mr. FARR. A couple days or something or a week. 

Mr. BAKER. Not even that. It depends on if you have a representative or if you have everything that you need for that—— 

Mr. FARR. But then it is getting the rating, right? 

Mr. BAKER. The vast majority of the time spent in claims is not— 

I will say the shortest is filing the claim and then once that claim 

is actually ready to rate, all the evidence is developed, rating it. 

Those are the two fastest things in the process. 

Everything in between is where you get the backlog. 

Mr. FARR. So the rating comes pretty fast. You have got to have 

a lot of information and sometimes that is a problem. 

Mr. BAKER. Exactly. For a gentleman coming out of the service 

now, all the evidence is going to be there. That goes straight to the 

VA. 

Any examination that they might need that they didn’t get while 

in the service, which most of them are being done while they are 

in the service, you are going to have those claims filed fairly quickly. 

But if you have a Vietnam vet that can get the service records, 

any private treatment records, any verification of military records 

for stress or—incidents and things like that. 

That is where the time is eaten up in the initial rating decision 

is getting better—— 

So we have had a lot of hearings on IT development, artificial intelligence, things like that, to develop some type of rules-based decision-making process. 

Those resources would be put to good use by speeding up the development process and I think VA would agree with that, as well, 

because you can only do so much on—— 

Mr. FARR. The committee has been told, with all these 3,100 new 

claims processors, that it is going to be really quick. But you are 

saying that the delay is really between these levels. 

It is getting the file from the opening claim to the rating process. 

Mr. BAKER. The new staff is absolutely going to help. None of 

this would work without additional staff at this point. At what 

point in time would that new staff be able to make a difference? 

It is hard to tell. 

Mr. FARR. You file a claim essentially in your district, right? The 

rating is done somewhere else? 

Mr. BAKER. It is usually done within that state and regional offices within that state. 

Mr. FARR. So it has to go from the local to the regional. And then 

what? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, in most circumstances. I mean, most of the 

time, if you can fill out the application at home yourself, you can 

just mail it to the regional office. But a lot of times, you are going 

to go see a claims representative in the field at the regional office. 

People that go right to the regional office, they just go from one 

room to the next and they have got the claim. 

But it is all the evidence developing that is where time is eaten 

up. 

Now, there are some things that VA can’t do anything about. If 

it is private treatment records they need, if a claim is for post-traumatic stress disorder and the veteran doesn’t have a Purple Heart 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
879 

or a combat badge, they have to wait for people like the Center for 

Research of Unit Records to verify through official military records. 

So how do you go about speeding those processes up? That is a 

good question. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may add. Steve Robertson 

from American Legion. If I may add. 

Several years ago, we were allowed to hire a tremendous number 

of new claims adjudicators under the Exceptional Student Program. 

It was kids right out of college that were academically pretty bright 

kids. 

But there was a tremendous attrition rate. Once they got into 

the payroll, then got into the job, they realized, ‘‘This isn’t what I 

want to do’’ and there was an attrition rate that was pretty high, 

and that, coupled with the normal attrition rate of people getting 

older and retiring, et cetera. 

This is not an occupation that you put a notice out on the street 

saying, ‘‘Hey, we are looking to hire you guys.’’ I mean, it is a very 

concentrated science and the claims development is a very, very 

critical part of that. 

If you don’t put your package together properly, it is going to run 

into a series of ‘‘We need this documentation.’’ So it goes back to 

the veteran and then it goes forward and ‘‘we need this documentation’’ and that is one of the things that I think VA has gotten better at over the years. 

Used to, they would identify one thing and send it to you and 

say, ‘‘We need this,’’ and then they would go down the list and find 

the second thing. Now they are at least saying, ‘‘We need these following documents to be able to develop the case.’’ 

But just because we are going to be able to hire them, that attrition is what is the real key thing that we are concerned about, and 

that is why I mentioned we think that if they would focus on trying 

to hire veterans that are coming out of the military that see this 

as a career path that they are interested in doing, veterans helping 

veterans, that their learning curve will probably be a lot higher, because they don’t have to look in a book to figure out what an M– 

1–51A was, because they already are familiar with the terminology 

and they will know exactly, I think, how to communicate better 

with the veterans when they are looking for specific items. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is the VA not doing that? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I can’t answer that question, because we keep 

asking it and I don’t get an answer. I think that that is something 

that—we have got so many guys that are going through voc rehab 

that are really not certain what career path they want to take, that 

this may be something that VA might want to think about, saying, 

‘‘Son, have we got a deal for you.’’ 

And if you are going to spend money on training somebody for 

a vocation, why not train them to fill a vocation that you need people in? 

Mr. BAKER. I think they are looking at something like that. I 

can’t give you the details on it. 

But put the people to use, I think, to get to the point of your 

question, there has to be a lot of things that happen. 

One, you have to get them, and, two, you have to improve the 

training process. Right now, they are so short on resources, they 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
880 

cannot implement any additional policy initiatives, because it just 

takes people away from critical areas and they can’t afford any new 

changes. 

These extra people will allow them to do that, I think, but then 

those changes have to be implemented and training has to be improved. It absolutely has to be improved or we are going to keep 

making mistakes—appeals right back to day one. 

Accountability has to be improved. Right now, an average size regional office—their quality assurance program, we will leave it at 

that. 

They look at 10 to 12 cases per month for an average size regional office. That doesn’t even come to 1 percent. You can’t—problems are in the rating process when your people are 1 percent of 

analysis. 

So there are a lot of things that need to be done. 

Mr. FARR. I think the question is we originally got all this feedback that everything was hunky-dory, all this new staff, it was 

going to work well. 

You come in and say the claims backlog is a big problem. And 

it seems we are not talking apples to apples here, because there 

was a breakdown in different aspects of the process, maybe a 

breakdown in training, maybe a breakdown on qualifications. 

But once you get into the system—— 

Mr. BAKER. It is not as cut-and-dry as hiring new people, but 

nothing can be done to improve the system without hiring new people. But if you do a combination, in my opinion, I think all of our 

opinion, of various improvements at all levels, once you have got 

the people in place to do it—veterans’ appeals level, at the regional 

office level. 

When you have the personnel to put those initiatives in place, 

you are going to see improvements just in the new people that you 

have allocated funds for. But there are also the changes that you 

make that you really start putting those people to use in the most 

beneficial way. 

I had offered a lot of different numbers in the claims backlog, 

400,000, here earlier today. I am not sure where all those numbers 

come from. We get ours straight from the VA’s own Website that 

they put out weekly. 

Those include appeals and claims, but a pending claim is a pending claim—— 

Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Farr, Carl Blake. One other suggestion I would 

make, too, is kind of an oversight function. I would suggest that 

maybe late in summer, as you get close to the end of this current 

fiscal year, you bring the VA in and you ask them, ‘‘How many of 

the people did you actually hire that we gave you the funding to 

hire? Did you hire the 1,800 or the 3,100’’ or whatever the number 

is that is out there. 

And if they tell you, ‘‘No, we only hired 1,000,’’ well, that changes 

the game a little bit, too. 

It is easy to sit here and say, ‘‘We gave you the money to hire 

them’’ and the VA to say ‘‘We are going to hire them,’’ well, let’s 

see if you follow through on it and then their feet have to be held 

to the fire to do it or else I am not so certain they will do it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
881 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is a good suggestion. You guys have got to 

be partners with us in this oversight process. We don’t have 

enough staff to exercise the kind of oversight we would ideally like 

to have. 

But we have got great partners and I know you guys are out 

there in the hospitals and the field and help us with that. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And I just want to add one other thing. Our organization is really focusing on the case development that our service officers assist the veteran to make sure that we put together 

a package, in the final package, so that it is not being kicked back 

looking for more information. 

And we are doing—we have re-certifications every year of our 

people to make sure that they are up on the latest changes and 

make sure that they are doing it right, and then we also have our 

own inspection team that inspects our own people to make sure we 

are doing it right. 

All these little changes, as they are saying, once all the dominos 

start falling into place, then I think you will see a dramatic change. 

But it is not a light-switch fix, I mean, just because we have got 

the money and we have got the people, that it is all going to get 

well overnight, because it is a very interesting process. 

Mr. BLAKE. And as an example with the training, all of the organizations have their own service officer staff. We have very complex 

training programs that each of the organizations puts their own 

service officers through. 

Just from DVA’s perspective, we bring in a new hire as a service 

officer, they spend 18 months doing work where they are working 

hand-in-hand with an experienced service officer, where they never, 

at any point in time, have their hands only on a claim file for the 

veteran. 

So they are always being held step-by-step and there are constant reviews of their performance as they do this. And even after 

that point, they are only kind of halfway released and then there 

is a continued follow up so that, at another 18 months, they are 

reevaluated and tested, and then this testing and training regime 

continues on throughout their career at every step as they go 

through the service officer levels in our own organization. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And I think that is one of the mistakes that 

VBA has made, because once guys get certified and blessed, their 

recurring training is almost nonexistent. And that was one of the 

biggest complaints that we heard. 

If a guy keeps making the same mistake over and over and over 

for 10 years, it is going to add to the backlog. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good point. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. At our first veterans hearing of the year, the first 

concern was record funding, new baseline, all good news, tons of 

money, but we are going to really mess ourselves up if we don’t demand accountability coming with the money, if we don’t measure 

our progress. 

If we have any Walter Reed related type inefficiencies or scandals in this new money, it will kick back on us and veterans will 

be the victims. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
882 

He is exactly right. You all are like deputies for us. But I can 

tell you what the members of your organizations in southeast Tennessee and north Georgia, the 18,000 that use CBOC in Chattanooga tell me is that they still want to be empowered with more 

options on how to use that veterans’ health care money. 

They would like to have a voucher in their hand where they can 

use the VA facility if they choose. But, see, our hospital is 2 hours 

from where they live, in some cases, 3.5 hours from where they 

live. 

They are not satisfied. They would like to have the option of 

going to the local hospital and using that Medicare reimbursed 

voucher that Medicare rates to use a local hospital, so their family 

can come see them, so that they don’t have to be transported in a 

dangerous van, where veterans died 2 years ago going across the 

mountains to the hospital. 

They also don’t want to have to wait. So I think we have got to 

be careful. Our job here is twofold, in my view, to make sure the 

resources are there, but it is not just a money thing, and I will give 

you an example. 

Your Independent Budget advocates an increase. Well, ranking 

members of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee here put forth a proposal to trump that, raise the independent request across the 

board, and it is incorporated in the Republican budget up on the 

floor right this minute, making room for $2.1 billion more than you 

all asked for. 

So before we just have a high stakes poker game and everybody 

raises everybody, our second responsibility, besides making sure 

the resources are there and actually determining how much can be 

expended in an official way over the next 12 months, is what reforms are in place to make sure that we are holding the people accountable for spending the money. 

The inspector general comes in here from the VA and says, ‘‘Very 

problematic financial management practices at the VA.’’ Whoa, big 

red flag. How can the organization with state-of-the-art medical 

records, best in the world, also have weak and poor financial management? It is there. 

So those are the challenges we face and we do need the input 

and we need the input not just got to have more, got to have more, 

got to have more, because, again, there is a contest here on how 

much is more, how much is enough. 

But I will guarantee you you are right on a whole lot of fronts, 

because I sit and listen and I see. 

In our federal national cemetery in Chattanooga, we have an opportunity to pick up land, because it runs out of space in a few 

years. And why in the world the cemetery division of the VA 

doesn’t go ahead and take the land on these facilities when it is 

available, I don’t know. 

I hope this committee will move on that in some places, because 

otherwise you are going to end up—they don’t exactly respond 

quickly when it is time. 

So if you don’t plan ahead to 10 years from now, based on veterans’ interments, there is not going to be places to bury these people, and that is unfortunate. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
883 

So we want to do this work in a bipartisan way. I think it is up 

to this subcommittee. The chairman is incredibly fair and bipartisan. It is up to us to cut through some of the noise out there and 

get to the facts with a surgical knife, and that is where we need 

you all to tell us exactly what is not happening and needs to happen on behalf of your members. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Wamp, if I may point out something about 

vouchers. 

There are doctors that won’t accept Medicare patients because 

Medicare’s reimbursement rates are too low. There are Tricare veterans, veterans who are eligible under Tricare that doctors refuse 

to take Tricare patients because the reimbursements rates are too 

low. 

Mr. WAMP. Let me tell you that we set up a demonstration for 

2 years for the money in place for veterans to go to our full-service, 

$500 million a year public hospital and the VA wouldn’t refer people to them, because the mindset is, at the VA, if you don’t get the 

health care at the VA, it is not acceptable. 

So the flipside of what you are saying is there are veterans without the options that they want from providers that will accept 

Medicare. 

I am not saying go in that direction. I am saying if the veteran 

chooses and the provider will do it, don’t deny that option. That is 

what I am saying. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And you are exactly right. VA has the authority 

now to contract out services. 

Mr. WAMP. They won’t do it even when you put the money in a 

pot and say here it is. It is not the money that would come away 

from your benefits. This is for this purpose. They wouldn’t do it. 

They wouldn’t do it for 2 years. They won’t do it in other parts of 

the country. 

They need to do it. I mean, Sam and I have talked about it. In 

no way should this take away from the current system. This should 

be in addition to the current system, where it is appropriate, where 

it is acceptable, where there is an agreement. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. We have advocated that on rural health care 

initiatives. 

Mr. WAMP. Right. We are not going to build a new hospital in 

my service area. I wish we would. I wouldn’t have this problem. 

But we are in the top five in the country in degraded service the 

VA studies. In Las Vegas, they were in the top five with us. They 

got a hospital. We are not going to get a hospital, not a fast-growing area like Las Vegas. 

So there are areas, like pockets of pain, where more options are 

better than less. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Wamp, just a couple of comments. 

I don’t disagree with the fact that if you give that as an option 

for something like a voucher, that they wouldn’t take it. 

Our concern is we believe there are far greater unintended consequences, taken on the whole. Kind of to Steve’s point, we have 

fully advocated for the fact that VA has the authority under circumstances like a lot of your veterans face about access to care, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
884 

they have the authority to make sure those veterans get the care 

and they just don’t use it properly. 

That is the purpose of fee-basis care. I think the idea of 

vouchering has a far more dangerous consequence, potentially, because, I hate to say, but veterans might—I think the convenience 

of being able to go wherever, while, on its face, sounds like a good 

thing, the VA does rely on a critical mass of patients. 

And if you give veterans the option to go somewhere, I think they 

will just go because they think, ‘‘Well, it works out better for me 

in this case,’’ and I don’t think you want to put the VA in a situation where now they don’t have the facilities, doesn’t have the critical mass of patients it requires to continue to operate, and that 

creates a little bit of a slippery slope for maybe a facility. 

But I think the VA has the authority to address exactly what 

your concern is. 

Your point about the financial management of the VA, I couldn’t 

agree more. And one of our concerns, I think all the organizations 

have had since the record funding level was put in place for 2008 

is can the VA efficiently and properly handle that kind of money 

and spend it wisely. 

The one kind of passing comment I would make in defense of the 

VA is let’s not forget that that was provided in January–February. 

So a third of the fiscal year has gone by and, yet, they still have 

to get that money spent by October 1, in theory, with some authority for carryover. 

But the vast majority of that money has to be spent in a substantially shortened amount of time and while I think they could do it 

if they had the mechanisms in place and did it right, I am not sure 

that I am entirely confident that they can, and it is going to definitely be incumbent on all of us to hold the VA’s feet to the fire 

to make sure they spend it wisely. 

Mr. WAMP. Unfortunately, we are headed for another year like 

that in the coming year, if we are honest with ourselves, because 

of the situation we find ourselves in. 

I was talking with Mr. Murtha about that today. We are probably headed for another half a year C.R. kind of a scenario, which 

is going to cause a pinch for even the hiring that we are talking 

about holding them accountable for. 

If you don’t have the money until 6 months before the end of the 

fiscal year and you have got measurements for new hires, it is hard 

to do all that in a shorter period of time. 

Mr. BLAKE. The other thing to think about, too, is while the appropriations bill was enacted in January, by the time that gets to 

the level where that money is spent, the year is almost entirely 

gone. 

By the time the medical facilities, and even filter down to the individual CBOCs, get that money, we are already looking at October 

1. It is summertime usually by the time that money is doled out 

to the people that spend the money. That is just crazy. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And it is a hell of a ripple effect. It impacts construction, it impacts medical research, because the timetable on 

when research projects come along, if there is not money there to 

grant the next continuation, you lose it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
885 

Employees, you are talking about how hard it is to bring in a 

psychiatrist or an orthopedic surgeon. If there is no security that, 

‘‘Hey, my job is going to be there next year or I am not going to 

be released because there is not funding or they are going to have 

to, for whatever reason, curtail my staff,’’ that is not what people 

want to do. 

They want to be able to go someplace and practice their medicine 

and know that they are going to have full staffing and be able to 

do the things that they need to do. 

Mr. WAMP. One final note, and I am done, too. 

This idea that the VA is not hiring a certain percentage of veterans for these positions is terrible. We ought to all mandate that 

that is the number one mantra of the VA, so that we all know always that that is their top priority. 

I mean, my gosh, that is like the biggest no-brainer that I have 

heard in the 2 months that I have been coming to these hearings. 

If they are not doing that as number one priority and we have got 

people trying to reintegrate into our society in a productive way 

from war, what in the world do they exist for? 

So that needs to be right up at the very front of their mission 

statement that they stand for that and can report to us on that 

progress. 

Mr. BLAKE. And as a perfect example, there is a federal goal established for contracting that says that any federal agency should 

contract with 3 percent of veteran-owned and service-disabled veterans on small businesses, and the VA does not meet that 3 percent goal. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The VA doesn’t. 

Mr. BLAKE. The VA does not. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The VA ought to have job counselors going out 

there to the military installation where troops are retiring and say, 

‘‘Hey, come to work for VBA or VHA,’’ and get people for whom it 

would be a labor of love. 

Mr. BAKER. I was going to suggest some of the hiring in DVA— 

for VHA is not that they won’t do it—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sam? 

Mr. FARR. I wanted to ask you, Carl, are you working on my little issue of getting specialty golf carts on all the courses? 

Mr. BLAKE. I don’t know that I would be handling that, but I 

could take that back to some of our government relations folks and 

ask about it. 

Mr. FARR. Well, we won the battle with DOD. They now realize 

that they have to do it under the ADA. They are going to go out 

and buy two golf carts. 

Then I predict they are going to come back and say, ‘‘But they 

are never used, because nobody who is disabled plays golf.’’ 

Mr. BLAKE. I would have to take that back. I am sure between 

our force folks and—— 

Mr. FARR. You ought to be very involved in that. 

Mr. BLAKE. Between our sports and recreation folks and our advocacy people who deal with the ADA, I will be glad to talk to them 

about that. 

Mr. FARR. Would you look into that? 

Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
886 

Mr. FARR. And the second, I guess, is with Ray. Maybe you could 

help me. 

California has decided, as a state policy, that they won’t build 

any more state veterans’ cemeteries. 

We have property at Fort Ord that is still in DOD’s ownership, 

and what we have had to do is go to a third party process. We are 

doing a feasibility study, about a $250,000 feasibility study that the 

local governments are paying for on how to bring in a developer to 

develop a veteran’s cemetary on the property. 

We have enough land there to develop a full-scale veterans’ cemetery and enough land to do something else, perhaps another civilian cemetery, private cemetery. 

Because of the cost, the state refuses to participate in it. They 

don’t want the ongoing administrative costs. 

The state will actually make the application, but they won’t have 

any skin in the game. 

I would be very interested in how you might be able to work with 

us, because the VA is going to accept the state’s application and 

they are going to reimburse what is reimbursable. 

But you have still got this big gap. How do you bring the private 

sector in? 

If you know how to do that, I would appreciate hearing from you. 

Mr. KELLEY. I will take that back and I will work with—I have 

got a fairly good relationship with the people at the cemetery administration. 

Mr. FARR. They are not opposing this. They can understand why 

California doesn’t want to do it, but we have tried for 5 years to 

change the politics and we can’t. 

The last thing I want to ask all of you, is for help spreading the 

word about the Veterans History Project. Congress authorized the 

Library of Congress to set up a depository for all of the histories 

of veterans that can be gathered. 

I did one about a week ago—you have to be trained on how to 

ask questions. But they have a kit that shows what kind of questions to ask because the veterans have to talk. 

And what we are finding is we need to get the outreach where 

the veterans are. The American Legion ought to take it on as sort 

of their mantra. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Sir, just to let you know—— 

Mr. FARR. Every chapter could be the recorder who sits down 

with a vet and asks questions. You can tape it on any kind of recording device, either a video camera or if the vet doesn’t want 

video, you can just do it with voice. 

The benefit is, that a lot of the old vets who have never wanted 

to tell their story are talking now. 

High school teachers want this as a project for students, for writing projects and for learning how to put together papers. 

The teachers are asking the students if they will go out and 

interview their grandparents. And these vets will say, ‘‘You know 

what? I am at an age now where I want to tell that story.’’ And 

it is really tear-jerking, it is incredible. 

Then these will all be sent to the Library of Congress. 

Senator Lugar has done the best job of this in the United States. 

He has collected 7,000 of them. But what we find is that when I 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
887 

go talk to veterans’ organizations, they have heard about it, but 

they don’t know what to do about it. 

And I think that you, as Washington connections, ought to encourage all of your members to engage in this project and find out 

how to get it done all over the country, because Congress wants to 

get every one of those stories down. 

Mr. WAMP. Will you yield on that? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. WAMP. I was involved 7 years on leg branch with Representative Hoyer in setting that up and in Chattanooga, where I live, 

I was actually able to recruit one of the network television stations, 

the same hospital that we did the demo in, $500 million hospital, 

and the largest bank in our state, to sponsor the Veterans’ History 

Project every week for 3 years on network television. 

And the stories that were told and the videos that were drawn 

and the outreach that the TV stations did to our World War II era 

veterans was the most emotional thing you have seen. 

I have been to multiple funerals of my constituents where videos 

were played at the veteran’s funeral of their telling the story that 

they wouldn’t have told had it not been for the Veterans’ History 

Project. 

You are talking about the crowning moment for the family is 

that not only did they finally draw it out, but they were actually 

able to honor them with that at their funeral. 

Mr. FARR. But we are having still a little difficulty with the outreach. 

Mr. WAMP. No doubt, no doubt. 

Mr. FARR. A lot of paper without anything on it. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. At our national conventions, where we draw 

about 15,000 each year, we have had the national history or the 

Veterans’ History Project to come in and they actually put up a 

booth and they distribute the material and information. 

We have no authorization over our individual posts. I mean, they 

are basically on their own. We are the national organization. We 

can’t give directions. 

But we have been encouraging. We have had articles in our magazine, which has a circulation of over 3 million. 

So as far as getting the word out, I think we are doing a good 

job of that. 

Now, the execution at the local level, we can try to put some 

more emphasis on that. 

But I agree with you, it is an outstanding program and I have 

seen several of the productions that have been done and it is really 

something that needs to be captured. 

Mr. BAKER. I was going to say I ran our New Orleans office for 

a couple of years and it was among the various offices I have 

worked at. 

By nine in the morning, that is when we opened the doors, we 

probably had about 25 veterans waiting in the hall to see us and 

we would run through 35 to 40 sometimes a day of—that went on 

5 days a week. 

You hear some amazing things and this is at the local level. So 

the information is there. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
888 

Mr. FARR. There is no funding for the professional collection, like 

you would normally have some like an oral history project that was 

funded and somebody professionally trained. 

The training is voluntary and it would be interesting, in each of 

these chapters, if somebody would step up and say, ‘‘You know, I 

don’t mind doing that. I will go around and do this. I will collect 

them from everybody.’’ 

And all they need is a little digital tape recorder. Others have 

done it as a TV station did, which probably even is a better way, 

with a video camera. 

Mr. WAMP. Sam, will you yield again? 

Mr. FARR. But it is getting that volunteer, somebody saying, ‘‘I 

will collect the information and I will put it together,’’ and then 

putting it into a kit and sending it to the Library of Congress. 

They don’t have to worry about any of the cataloging problem. 

Mr. WAMP. Sam, one final note, if you will yield, please. The Library of Congress honored that station because they did over 400 

interviews for this show and one photographer shot almost all of 

them and he wept at the Library of Congress and said that it was 

the greatest blessing of his life to be able to actually videotape all 

those interviews. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I am going to go talk to my TV station. 

Could I get a little information from your office on that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. ‘‘PBS’’ in Waco did a program for 30 minutes prior 

to the Ken Burns story and the veterans they interviewed, it was 

very, very powerful. 

Let me ask. I know we have a vote coming up very soon, actually 

a series of votes. So we will wrap up pretty quickly here. 

We are going to be working with you formally and informally 

multiple times this year and the years ahead. 

Let me just ask one last question, because it goes back to the 

oversight issue that Zach and Sam and I have mentioned. I just 

think we have all got to feel a burden. It is our responsibility to 

see that the new money the VA has gotten and will get this year 

is spent wisely. 

That is one of the reasons we plused up significantly the Office 

of Inspector General at the VA this past year, and I think the administration’s budget request brings that back down. We are not 

going to do that. 

But let me ask your general opinion of the Office of Inspector 

General, given the limited resources they have. 

Do you review their reports? Have you found them to be well researched and credible? Do they have the independence that an office of inspector general needs to have or do they have a heavy 

hammer somehow over their head, they can’t be too rough on reviewing a VA hospital? 

What are your general impressions of OIG? 

Mr. BAKER. I will take a shot at it. They are not here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Kerry, go ahead. 

Mr. BAKER. I think you absolutely did the right thing by increasing it. I can’t, I don’t think, justify decreasing that staff in the 

budget. I think I mentioned in one of the previous hearings the 

incidences in Marion, Illinois VA Medical Center as a good example. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
889 

How much that happens elsewhere, we won’t know if staff is reduced. 

As far as them being overly generous in their reports or not firm 

enough, I don’t think they are too firm, that is for sure. But how 

much are they influenced because they have to report their bosses 

to their bosses? I guess you could look at it that way. 

Do they hold back a little bit? It is hard to say. I think it would 

be nice to have an independent counsel or inspector general. I 

think you would have more independence. 

Now, I don’t know what kind of difference you would come up 

with. I mean, I have my own personal opinion. I have been involved in some litigation, when I was in the court before I came 

to legislative staff, that deals with some medical issues that I probably can’t get into. 

But it would fall under their shoes and it is probably for an informal conversation, but I think you have to increase their staff—decrease it, I think probably more of the things that happened such 

as Marion that we don’t know about, just on a smaller scale. 

Although I am not knocking the VA health care, but you are always going to have things that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. There are always going to be imperfections and 

we need to identify them and weed them out. 

Mr. BAKER. They need to have the staff to look at those little, 

small incidents, whether it is one or two incidents at a medical center. I don’t think they can probably do that to the degree they need 

to. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We have never had them testify before, at least 

not in my time on this subcommittee, and we had them testify recently and these are the four assistant OIGs, they are inspector 

generals, because we wanted people with their boots on the ground, 

and I was impressed with them. 

But I was shocked when the inspector general, assistant inspector general for health said that they don’t have any resources to 

go out to a single clinic. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I think they have been, historically, at least in 

my opinion, they have been more as validation of things that have 

been identified rather than being the one that identified the problems and said—blowing the whistle, saying, ‘‘Here is what needs to 

be looked at.’’ 

Like if you had something that occurred in any facility, yes, they 

may go and investigate it and say, ‘‘Yes, GAO was right or the veteran that filed the lawsuit was right.’’ 

And in my mind’s eye, an inspector general is supposed to be the 

guy that discovers, with boots on the ground experience, investigating and identifying and ringing the bell. 

And I think most of the reports that I have ever witnessed, it 

was more validating what problem we all knew was there was actually there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do they send each of your organizations a copy of 

their reports? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The ones I have seen I have had passed to me 

by—— 

Mr. BLAKE. Most of the time, you have to ask for them politely 

and hope you get them. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
890 

Mr. EDWARDS. I think I would like to ask our staff to ask them 

to send out to the VSOs their report for the next year and then let 

you guys review those and give us some feedback on what you 

think, because I just think oversight, oversight, oversight. 

We will work on sufficiency and timeliness and defendable budgets, but oversight, oversight, oversight I think has got to be something we take seriously, and Zach and Sam and I are going to work 

very, very hard on that with our staff, but we need you all’s help. 

Mr. BLAKE. And we also have to lean on the authorizers, too, because they have an oversight function, as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. 

Mr. BLAKE. That is not suggesting—because they did a lot of 

hearings on a lot of issues last year, but they have to continue to 

look and hopefully we can help steer them to look at certain things 

that need to be investigated or looked into. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would encourage your colleagues to have veterans’ town hall meetings. I know that your schedules are pretty 

tight, but I think that maybe it might benefit you to say let’s have 

veteran town hall meetings, where we are going to talk about the 

status of health care in the VA system. 

That way, you are getting it up close and personal from the folks. 

Mr. FARR. We can do that electronically now with our telephones. 

We can call our constituents at home and they don’t have to get 

up and go anywhere. We can put every one of them on one conference call. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that I think the 

IG has all the reports up online in terms of access now to them. 

I really appreciate all of you for what you do, who you represent, 

and the way you come before us here, because this is good collaboration. This has been one of the best opportunities we have had to 

come together. 

Also, though, you had a comment about the authorization committee. The best part about serving where we serve is that our bills 

have to become law and a whole lot of times, those guys, they will 

go here and there and yawn and back and forth between the two 

bodies, but a lot of it never becomes law. 

All of our bills become law. And so this is where the action is and 

wherever we can make changes, respecting their jurisdiction and 

their authorization, our bills can move things quicker than sometimes theirs can. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And please don’t wait to hear a formal request 

from us. As you are having your meetings with VA officials and 

veterans out there in the real world, give us your constant feedback 

so that we can keep on being a partner with and be a hawk overlooking VA to see how they are doing. 

I hope your members understand the important role you played 

this past year in putting together that historic VA budget. I feel 

if a truck ran over all of us tomorrow, we have raised the bar. We 

are going to raise it again this year. 

So after we are gone, that bar will never go down. It is going to 

have to go up. Whether we can sustain the kind of increases we 

have had the last 2 years every 2 years, I don’t know. But whatever happens, the bar is set higher and that is going to benefit vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00890 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
891 

erans for a long time, and it wouldn’t have happened without your 

organizations’ tremendous leadership. 

The Independent Budget and the American Legion budget were 

really a fundamental building block we used to put that budget together, and thank you for that and your continued work. 

And if there are no additional questions—Sam, any additional 

comments? 

Mr. FARR. No. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, thank you for being here. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(893) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008. 

VETERANS AFFAIRS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

WITNESSES 

ROBERT T. HOWARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

PAUL A. TIBBITS, DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

STEPHEN W. WARREN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. Secretary Howard, welcome to the subcommittee. 

This afternoon the subcommittee will hear testimony in support 

of the budget request for information technology programs at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. The budget request for fiscal year 

2009 is more than $2.4 billion, about $475 million more than the 

fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

Our witness this afternoon is Mr. Robert T. Howard, Assistant 

Secretary for Information and Technology and Chief Information 

Officer. Secretary Howard, again welcome to the committee. 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Starting in fiscal year 2006, the Congress directed 

the department to reform its information technology budget to provide the chief information officer with centralized management and 

responsibility for the development and operations of all the IT functions. We know and respect the fact this has been a complicated 

and somewhat disruptive process for the department to undertake, 

but prior to this centralization there was absolutely no way to 

know what the department was proposing to spend on its IT programs, and there was no meaningful oversight control within the 

department. 

With the increased control that centralized management can provide, we hope that the expensive mistakes of the past will not be 

repeated and that the department can move forward in developing 

and implementing information technology systems to provide necessary services for the veterans and value to the taxpayer alike. 

At this time, before I introduce Secretary Howard, I would like 

to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he 

would care to make. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the new guy here, 

but we have had a host of hearings, and I have actually been out 

and seen a major VA facility in the state of Tennessee. I now understand the challenges that we face. Thank you for your service 

and I look forward to your testimony. I don’t really have any further comments, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
894 

Mr. EDWARDS. For the record, Secretary Howard was confirmed 

as Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology on September 30, 2006. I imagine it has been a busy time since then, Mr. 

Secretary. We want to thank you genuinely and deeply for your 33 

years of active duty service in the United States Army. You culminated that service in your last assignment as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army for Budget. 

Always saving the very best for last, his civil engineering education includes a graduate degree from Texas A&M University. 

[Laughter.] 

As an Aggie, Mr. Secretary, I am proud to welcome you before 

our subcommittee. 

Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted for the 

record, but we would like to begin by recognizing you for 5 minutes 

for any comments you care to make, and then we will go into questions and answers. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. I might add, I did a lot better down there 

than I did at Northeastern in Boston. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, you are prepared, and I know they made you 

work hard at Texas A&M. 

Mr. HOWARD. Maybe they couldn’t understand me. I don’t know. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is great to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT T. HOWARD

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member 

Wamp, good afternoon. Thank you for your invitation to discuss the 

president’s fiscal year 2009 information technology budget proposal 

for the Department of Veterans Affairs. With me today, my Principal Deputy, Stephen Warren, and my Deputy for Enterprise Development, Dr. Paul Tibbits. 

As we look forward to the upcoming year, we remain focused on 

VA’s primary mission, the health and well being of our nation’s veterans. To assure that we succeed in our mission, it is imperative 

that we employ all of our resources, including IT, in the most effective way possible. 

Let me begin this afternoon by discussing the IT reorganization 

and some of our experience to date. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal 

year 2007, and continuing on into fiscal year 2008, the Office of Information and Technology began the transition to a new centralized 

organization by detailing IT personnel outside of OI&T and combining them with the original OI&T staff. This transition has led 

to the president’s budget request of 6,780 FTE for fiscal year 2009. 

Through this consolidation, we are discovering activities that 

need improvement and enhancement, especially in the area of data 

security, privacy and infrastructure improvements. We have increased our emphasis on certification and accreditation, and are developing better procedures for asset management. Progress is being 

made, but there is still much to be done in establishing the organization and providing the IT support that VA and veterans deserve. 

One of the most critical changes in OI&T was the establishment 

of the new IT appropriation in fiscal year 2006. In that regard, we 

continue to focus our efforts in structuring and funding the IT appropriation along programmatic lines, relating IT to the principal 

missions of VA. Since this is a line-item appropriation, prior planVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00894 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
895 

ning is critically important and establishing the funding correctly 

up front is essential. 

VA is requesting $2.442 billion to support IT development and 

operational expenses, including payroll, for fiscal year 2009, an 

18.9 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 level. This request 

reflects the consolidation of VA IT into one appropriation, with certain exceptions such as non-payroll IT for credit reform programs 

and insurance benefit programs. 

In fiscal year 2009, the majority of increases represent program 

priorities to enhance the support to veterans, both directly and indirectly, especially in the area of medical care. Placing all IT staffing, equipment and budgetary resources under the VA chief information officer has provided an objective capability with visibility 

over all IT activity across the department. 

This capability will also provide for a more standardized approach to our critical developmental efforts. An example is the urgent need to accelerate the design and implementation of our electronic health record, which will meet the national health IT standards and improve interoperability with DOD. 

The non-pay portion of the fiscal year 2009 budget has been realigned from previous submissions to focus on two major classifications: veteran-facing IT systems and internal-facing IT systems. 

This has been done to better link the appropriation to the missions 

of VA. Veteran-facing IT systems enable support of VA programs 

for veterans such as medical care, compensation and pension benefits, vocational rehabilitation, employment services, and burial 

services. Veteran-facing programs account for $1.295 billion of our 

request. 

Internal-facing IT systems are those that provide the capability 

to work more effectively in managing IT resources, such as corporate management, financial management, asset management, 

human capital management, IT infrastructure, and information 

protection. The internal-facing programs account for $418 million. 

Finally, the pay portion of our fiscal year 2009 budget request accounts for $729 million. 

The total of $2.442 billion for fiscal year 2009 reflects a sizable 

increase, as I mentioned before, over fiscal year 2008. Over the 

past several years, VA IT has had a fairly level budget, yet the organizations we support have increased in size, both in facilities and 

people. To sustain our efforts, VA must apply the necessary IT talent and tools required. The increase will allow us to accelerate 

some programs and begin a concerted effort to enhance our IT infrastructure. 

In closing, VA IT is committed to providing effective and efficient 

support to veterans, and in turn the VA community at large. Over 

the past year, we have made progress and have experienced challenges, so much remains to be accomplished. 

I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss this with you and 

will gladly respond to your questions, sir. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Robert T. Howard follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
896 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2009 here 42754D.001
897 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2010 here 42754D.002
898 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2011 here 42754D.003
899 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2012 here 42754D.004
900 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2013 here 42754D.005
901 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2014 here 42754D.006
902 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2015 here 42754D.007
903 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2016 here 42754D.008
904 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2017 here 42754D.009
905 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2018 here 42754D.010
906 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2019 here 42754D.011
907 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2020 here 42754D.012
908 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2021 here 42754D.013
909 

SECURITY BREACH DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me begin by asking you about the latest security. We are all 

aware of the breaches that occurred over the last several years and 

all of the national attention regarding that. Can you tell me what 

steps we have taken to see that doesn’t happen again? How confident are you, given what we have done, that it will not happen 

again? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. We have done a lot, quite frankly, but I 

will say right up front there is an awful lot remaining to be done. 

This is an enormously difficult problem, particularly in an organization like VA that deals with a lot of information. We are basically 

an information organization, whether it is health or private information. 

Starting right at the beginning, we fabricated or we put together 

a very extensive action plan to address a lot of things. It has over 

400 tasks in it—all sorts of things from encryption to background 

investigations to training programs and what have you. We have 

put a lot of effort in, and so we have tried to approach this from 

a people process and tools standpoint. 

The people issue is the most critical, and that is making sure 

that we embed the organization with cultural awareness, awareness of our problem, because if every employee did what they were 

supposed to do, we wouldn’t have the difficulty. That really is the 

central focus. We have a long way to go on that. We really do, in 

spite of the communications efforts we have had and the training 

programs. 

Our processes have been improved. An example of that would be 

incident reporting processes. We are infinitely better than we were 

back in May of 2006. We have very good processes put in place. Of 

course, unfortunately we see a lot of incidents because people report them. They don’t hold them back, and we encourage that. We 

say, don’t even think twice. If you have one, we want to see it. And 

we send that immediately to the U.S.-CERT. We don’t even think 

hardly about it, because we want to make sure it gets registered. 

And then we go in and analyze it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Who would report that? I take a laptop home that 

I should not have taken home. Who would know about that? And 

who would report it? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, many times it is actually the individual who 

had the incident. You know, they put the laptop in their car and 

it was stolen or whatever, and we have many incidents that are actually reported by employees who realize they have made a mistake. Although we have had some disciplinary action, it hasn’t been 

extensive. We have to be very careful about that, because as soon 

as you go overboard, you just shut that right down. 

We also have information security offices throughout the organization, whose job it is to monitor activity. If they find paper folders 

in the trash somewhere, they will report that as an incident. So it 

can come from any source. It can also come from my oversight and 

compliance capability I have put in place. They go around and do 

assessments, and every once in a while they discover things that 

should be reported as incidents. So the processes are important. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
910 

The other area that is extremely important, sir, is to provide the 

tools necessary—encryption for the laptops. We have mandated full 

hard-drive encryption on VA laptops. We have mandated the use 

of encrypted thumb drives. The young docs running around with 

their medical information, it is like your kids. It is hard to keep 

them disciplined so that they keep thinking about that. So we use 

encrypted thumb drives. If you lose it, no problem. Nobody is going 

to be able to get in there. 

Monitoring software—we now have the capability. We are starting to implement that, where if you hook into the VA network, we 

can view the computer. If it doesn’t pass scrutiny in terms of the 

correct software, if it has things on it that we don’t particularly 

like, shut it off. You can’t get in. We have just started implementing that. 

So there are a number of software tools that we have put out, 

if that answers your question, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. HOWARD. There are many, many things. 

Mr. EDWARDS. When was the largest incident? Was it in May of 

2006? 

Mr. HOWARD. I remember it well, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. That employee had access to a massive 

amount of data. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would that same employee today, or a similar employee, another person in that same position today, be able to put 

that much information on their laptop? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, the rules are in place where they should not 

do that. Now, you know, if you are really bent to do that and you 

work hard enough, you can figure out a way to do it. But the access 

controls are much better than they were before. We also have completed Handbook 6500, which is our physical security program, 

with very clear instructions on what you can do and what you can’t 

do. 

But you did hit on a very critical area, and that is any activity 

that by nature of the activity deals with large amounts of information. Research is a good example of that. The individual that had 

that laptop stolen and the hard-drive stolen back in May of 2006 

was an analyst in the policy and planning organization. They deal 

with actuarial analysis and things like that, so they have to deal 

with large amounts of information. But no way should he have removed that from the VA premises, or taken it out of a protected 

environment. He never should have done that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there anything in the system in place today 

that if somebody purposely did that when they were not supposed 

to that a red flag would show up on somebody’s computer somewhere? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, we don’t have a system that is fool-proof and 

across the board, but what we do do is we monitor network activity. In other words, we can tell, at least at the network level. We 

haven’t quite gotten all the way down to the hospital level yet. But 

we can monitor that. We can see masses of information being 

downloaded. But we haven’t completed rolling all that out. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
911 

One of the reasons it has taken us time, you have to be real careful because these things could disrupt day-to-day operations. We 

are very concerned about that. For example, the software I mentioned to you, we can shut off a laptop that is hooked in from your 

kitchen or whatever. It could be some doctor analyzing some imaging or whatever. So we have to be sure that that is done correctly. 

We have completed that rollout in region IV, which is the Northeast, and now we are moving into regions II and III. We have already got it set up in region II, but we haven’t turned on all the 

locking parts of it yet as we gradually move into that because it 

could be disruptive and we want to be sure that that does not happen. 

Mr. EDWARDS. One more follow up. Do you have an outside entity 

to review what you have put in place to then determine from the 

security standpoint how well you are doing? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, we have our own oversight and compliance capability, which is very robust. They go around and they assess all 

this stuff. It has proven to be one of the better things that we have 

done. This was established right after May of 2006 in fact. The 

other thing is we have the IG who goes out. We also have a certification and accreditation program in fact that is well underway 

right now that involves an outside contractor to review. We do the 

work and they review to see what we are doing, but we don’t have 

an outside contractor whose sole job is to do what the IG does, if 

you know what I mean. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Okay. Well, thank you for the progress you 

have made, and thank you for your honesty in saying there is no 

fool-proof system. I respect that. 

Mr. Wamp. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, this is part of our responsibility that we probably 

know the least amount about, when you are talking about IT systems and technical-type stuff. This is a very sophisticated system, 

obviously, with 24 million veterans and you have to keep up with 

everything and comply with all the laws. But you have a $2.444 

billion budget request, a $475 million increase, which is like a 25 

percent increase all in 1 year. 

You made the case for why, but the inspector general was here 

and said ‘‘VA cannot effectively manage its contracting activities 

because it has no corporate database that provides national visibility over procurement activities or identifies contract awards, individual purchase orders, credit card purchases, or the amount of 

money spent on goods and services.’’ 

We told him that it was fascinating that the VA’s medical records 

were the best in the world, yet their financial management was not 

acceptable. That is a real irony at the same organization. So just 

from your perspective in the IT portfolio, what is being done about 

this problem? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, you homed in on a major problem the VA has. 

Maybe it is typical of organizations that are as large as ours—you 

know, inadequate focus on the day-to-day running of the operVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00911 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
912 

ation—the financial systems, the logistics systems. I actually saw 

some of that in the Pentagon during my days over there. 

You are right. The IG is right. The contracting program that is 

being put in place will help us. It is now being implemented or 

being designed, really. It has not been implemented fully, but the 

intent is to begin to capture some of that information. So contracting is a problem. The financial programs, the FLITE program—the financial and logistics integrated technology enterprise 

program—is also underway. That is going to take a while. 

We have the logistics part of it beginning to be implemented, but 

the financial side we have not even selected the contractor yet. We 

are going to do that in the beginning of the next fiscal year. We 

are already under the RFP development standpoint. Again, the experience we had with Core FLS. We should not need to repeat 

that—that happened several years ago. 

If we had we done Core FLS correctly, we would have had a good 

financial logistics system already, right now, but we didn’t. I don’t 

know if you remember that one or not, but that was the program 

that was killed back in 2005, I believe, or 2004 and 2005, as you 

may know, somewhere in that background where Secretary 

Principi killed the program because he was very upset with the 

way it was being managed. The FLITE program is not the replacement for it, but the step to try to get it right this time. 

So in answer to your question, sir, it is a correct observation. We 

do not have adequate IT applications in place to help us do that 

kind of work. I will add a third one. The third one is human resource management. In fact, that is in the budget—the HRIS program, Human Resources Information System. That is going to be 

a line of business when we purchase the service from OPM. That 

is the approach we are taking on the HR system. 

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

Mr. WAMP. Speaking of the HR side, I think you have a re- programming request for $294 million to hire 1,590 people by August under the 2008 mandate. How do you do that? What steps are 

you taking to hire 1,590 people between here and August? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, if you are talking about the IT transfer request, the amount I believe will handle a little over about 170 

FTEs. Is that the $20 million? 

Mr. WAMP. It is $294 million from Veterans Health Administration to VA IT. It is my understanding that there is a reprogramming request to meet the 2008 staffing requirement, which means 

there are 1,590 people who have to be hired by August of 2008. 

That is a tremendous amount. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, that amount is actually for about 197 FTEs. 

There is $20 million in there. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. My information is inaccurate. Let me ask you 

this—— 

Mr. HOWARD. Of that $294 million, $20 million is associated with 

FTEs. To just comment a bit on that, IT staffing levels throughout 

the VA are a great concern to us right now. We are seeing a lot 

of that right now. That is an additional effort to begin to ramp up 

to what we believe to be the correct amount of FTEs. So that is 

what that is, sir. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
913 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. When I was at the Alvin York facility last 

week in Tennessee, I was very encouraged to see several recent 

veterans that have gone to work there. How successful in your 

ramp-up of the staffing requirements are you at actually hiring veterans to take these positions? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, we do that. I couldn’t give you a precise answer right now. I could get back to you on that. 

Mr. WAMP. Do you make a conscious effort to try and do that? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. That is one of the kind of no-brainers that we come 

across as we have these hearings, that that needs to be done, and 

everything possible needs to be done to see that we are hiring veterans, and even preparing them training-wise for these jobs as 

much as possible so that they can take these jobs. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. There are programs underway and we can 

give you some numbers on it. 

Mr. TIBBITS. I can add one additional thought on that on the contracting side as well. We are very good at exercising the full prerogatives that are offered before we testified to Congress to use 

services to enable veteran-owned small businesses. We are also 

very committed to pursue that. It is a substantial benefit to us—— 

Mr. HOWARD. And the IT community has a very good record on 

what Paul just mentioned, sir. We are doing very well there. 

COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

Mr. WAMP. One other quick question in this round, I think the 

2008 budget requires 53 new CBOCs. Your IT funding request 

amounts to about $500,000 per new CBOC. OI&T now contends 

that the VHA did not inform them of the funding requirement and 

the IT money is still in VHA’s medical discretionary budget and 

should therefore be transferred to OI&T. Has this issue been settled? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, we intend to fund those CBOCs, even if we 

have to take it from somewhere else. Obviously, those have to be 

stood up. We did get a $10 million increment in the emergency supplemental in 2008, specifically earmarked for CBOCs, and that is 

going to help. 

The other good story part of that is that we are now communicating. In the past, there was no planning for IT for new facilities. It was just not there. And now we see that not only for CBOCs 

and major hospitals, but for Vet centers. You build almost anything 

and you put one person in it, you have an IT problem, or at least 

a computer or something. Now, that is recognized and there is 

much better communication. In fact, in the 2009 budget, that was 

a major discussion point. We definitely are doing much better in 

that regard, but we intend to fund those facilities. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. With Mr. Wamp’s permission, could I follow up on 

that? 

You got $10.2 million in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for 

the CBOCs and their IT needs. How much more do you need? 

Mr. HOWARD. I believe the number is 63 CBOCs in fiscal year 

2009. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about the new CBOCs for fiscal year 2008? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
914 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, that is covered. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For 2008, it is now covered, 2008 is covered. So 

the 14 new CBOCs that were just announced by the secretary last 

week, the IT costs for those are covered? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, as far as I know we are okay up to now, as 

long as there aren’t more thrown on the table, and we don’t expect 

that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. And for 2009, was the money you needed requested via the IT budget? Or is there where you are having 

a discussion with VHA? 

Mr. HOWARD. This is IT. This is IT money. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is in the request? 

Mr. HOWARD. Right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Great. 

We have been joined by Mr. Berry and Mr. Bishop, which we appreciate given the House is out of session until next week. Thank 

you both for being here. 

Mr. Berry, do you have any questions you would like to ask, or 

comments you care to make? 

DATA EXCHANGE

Mr. BERRY. I probably should know the answer to this, but it 

won’t be the first question that I ever asked that I didn’t know the 

answer to. In our office as we try to help veterans get the benefits 

that they are entitled to, over and over we run into the problem 

of being able to get their military records made available to the VA, 

so that they can conclude whatever process has to take place. Has 

that always been that way? Is it something that we are not doing 

right or the veterans are not doing right when they leave active 

duty? 

We have even been told by the VA that they can’t get that information because it belongs to the (INAUDIBLE) for instance. 

Should we expect that to stay that way? It seems to me that with 

the ability to handle information that we have today, it should be 

a simple thing. Maybe there is a good reason for it not being that 

way, but for the VA to be able to access the military records of 

these people. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, it was that way in the past. I can tell you that 

there have been very, very significant improvements in that area. 

We are not completely there yet. You know, there is still a lot more 

that needs to be done. For example, through our electronic health 

record system, you can access information. In fact, DOD can as 

well. There are programs in place to continue to enhance the sharing of information between VA and DOD. In fact, I will let Paul 

talk to this in just a moment because he is intimately involved in 

all of this. 

In answer to your question, sir, there may be individual cases 

where veterans are having difficulty, but I can tell you for a fact 

it has improved substantially over the last couple of years, and 

there is a major push underway particularly with standardization 

of information—you know, in exchange between VA and DOD—and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
915 

also to come closer in terms of the applications used to actually access the information. 

Paul, you may want to speak to that. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

We do have miles to go before we sleep, but we have made substantial progress with the current exchange, both with regard to 

health information and the other information necessary to establish a veteran’s eligibility for all other kinds of—— 

On the health side, let me just stay with the electronic. From the 

electronic perspective, we are today exchanging information between both departments, which would cover about I will say 95 

percent of the (INAUDIBLE) primary care doctor to deliver health 

care. On the benefits side, there is again a high percentage. I don’t 

know the benefits side quite as well, but could potentially guess 

there, but I will tell you that you are probably familiar with the 

DEER system at the Department of Defense. VA has now stood up 

an analog to that called BADIR. 

We have many data interchanges between both departments, 31 

of them in fact from DOD to VA, and 11 back from VA to DOD, 

which are point-to-point and which are all being compressed into 

a single data-feed with some quality assurances on top of those to 

improve (INAUDIBLE) information. All of those data-feeds, the 31 

and the 11 back and forth, are to support the compensation and 

pension determination in terms of GI bill benefits for both rehab, 

home loan guarantees, et cetera, et cetera. 

Those data-feeds, both on the health and benefits side, are not 

a complete representation of what we at the VA need, however, to 

comprehensively serve all of the eligibilities that a veteran has. So 

to supplement that, we have now just as of the end of March created a draft plan which is going through vetting right now. We call 

it the VA–DOD information interoperability plan. That information 

interoperability plan will be suitable for let’s say public consumption probably by the end of the summer, in August. 

It is to supplement the data exchanges. It is to define the pathway and create requirements to supplement the data exchanges 

that I am currently describing to you to add the data we are missing. On the DD–214, for example, what exactly is the plan to get 

all the military awards. We don’t get military awards today on (INAUDIBLE). That, in turn, is some benefit to the eligibility (INAUDIBLE). To get the DD–214 in its entirety (INAUDIBLE) format will be part of that new plan. 

If a neurologist needs the electro-encephalogram to treat traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, yes or no, 

that will be part of the follow-on plan that I just described. So 

there is a big bucket of stuff we have done now, and then we are 

putting this plan in place to acquire what remains (INAUDIBLE). 

Mr. BERRY. I applaud what you are doing. It makes a whole lot 

of sense to me. I personally have gotten involved with some of 

these cases and experienced it. I think one thing that could help, 

and this may not be your area of responsibility, but we have run 

from time to time into personnel at the VA that just simply, for 

whatever reason there is, find it more to their liking to just say we 

can’t find it, than to try to help these veterans that supposedly we 

are all here to try to help. I think if you could do anything you 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
916 

could do to try to improve the attitude of those folks, it would also 

be helpful. I know you all haven’t got a wire hooked up to all of 

them. 

Mr. TIBBITS. That is a great comment. Yes. That is a very good 

comment. Part of that actually does fall in our arena and part of 

it does not. Some of the things we are doing to ameliorate that— 

first of all for example, to further empower the veteran, him- or 

herself, so they know actually what they can get. We are improving 

our electronic face to the veteran. We are developing a portal strategy. 

We are standing up the My e-Benefits portal, which turn out to 

be a tailored way that a veteran can say if I am missing my left 

leg, if I have to be a resident of the state of West Virginia, if I have 

to be (INAUDIBLE), whatever it is, if all those conditions (INAUDIBLE), I am eligible for all these possible claims from the Department of Labor, from the government of West Virginia, where 

in fact (INAUDIBLE). So that will give them some— 

Next, we have outreach activities underway where our secretary 

(INAUDIBLE) beyond what I just said, from looking at our databases, there are indicators in there and is there enough data to 

where we could identify a subset of veterans who should have applied for some veterans benefit and who have not. So we are 

launching an outreach activity to try to make them aware of the 

fact that they are eligible for more things than they are currently 

asking for. 

Okay. The last one that does fall in our area that I want to mention is, for example with these information exchanges, they are 

coming on so fast that there are a substantial number of let’s say 

physicians or nurse practitioners who at some of our medical facilities don’t know that that data is in there three clicks behind that 

front screening, even though it is there. So with (INAUDIBLE) in 

our arena is also some sort of (INAUDIBLE) internal outreach program, internal to the VA to make sure all of our (INAUDIBLE) 

know that that stuff is there. 

So the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs and myself have now, in addition to trying to take 

some programmatic means of outreach, are going on a road show 

around the country to have meetings with the senior leadership of 

the VA and the senior leadership of a military treatment facility 

together—we just did Central Texas—to say here is all the stuff, 

and then the people and go ahead and say, gee, when is that going 

to be available. And we say, well, it is now—just click through your 

screen here, three clicks in and there it is. 

So there is an awareness piece that does fall upon us, that we 

need to put more energy into to make sure the staff out there are 

aware of what actually technically is already up and running. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, adding to that, it is a unique situation. The IT 

organization is centralized. The VA, as you know, is decentralized. 

So what we are discovering is we can actually serve as a catalyst 

in some of these areas because communication is a difficult thing 

anyway. In a decentralized organization, it is extremely difficult. 

We know that this communication issue that Paul is describing 

is one of our challenges. We believe in the IT world we may have 

a better shot at trying to improve that because we have folks all 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
917 

the way down to the facility level. But even with what I said, it 

is a major challenge to get the word out so that folks understand 

what Paul is describing. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I was very interested in a lot of what Mr. Berry was exploring. 

I appreciate the efforts. I think last year we were told we were well 

on the way; we were making progress. My caseworkers are still 

frustrated because they say it takes too long to process the claims. 

And then on a more personal basis, I have a brother-in-law who 

is a veteran. He had a heart attack—in fact, he had two or three. 

He has to go into the civilian hospital. As soon as he gets out, he 

has to get medication. He takes his medical records from the hospital directly to the VA community clinic. He leaves them there. 

The information doesn’t get inputted into whatever database the 

VA has. 

The person who has to authorize his medication that has been 

prescribed from his hospitalization is over at Tuskegee and is on 

vacation for 2 or 3 days, so there is no pharmacist there to fill it, 

so it can’t be sent by pony express mail from Tuskegee-Montgomery 

back over to Columbus, Georgia. He is supposed to be taking the 

medication immediately. 

These kinds of things seem to be problematic. It seems as if there 

ought to be—and I don’t know, maybe it is an input problem in getting whatever the hospital records were from into the VA system 

once he hand-delivers them, and having somebody that can respond 

quickly. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Yes, sir. Okay. That is another excellent question, 

and it is definitely an area of weakness. The example you are describing, if you will permit me to dwell on it a little bit because it 

is a big issue that you have touched on, and that is the ability of 

us as a federal agency in health care to communicate information 

with the private sector doctors, who do not belong to the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. 

Mr. TIBBITS. That has been an issue. My background, by the 

way, I have been here in VA since 2006. Before that, I had 26 

years-plus in DOD. That communication of clinical information 

with the care that we purchase from the private sector has been 

a probably 21⁄2 decade problem at the Department of Defense, and 

it is an equally obstinate problem in the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. It happens to be a little bit smaller problem here because 

we purchase a little bit less care outside than DOD does, but nonetheless for those who are getting the care, there is a problem. 

Okay. In order to deal with that transmission of electronic health 

records, there are several things we can do. First of all, VA is very 

interested and fully participative in the HHS initiative, which is 

called the AHIC, the American Health Information Community, 

and the standard-setting that Secretary Leavitt is trying to accomplish with respect to information exchange among many health 

care entities. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
918 

It sets sort of a standard-based approach to all of this, with some 

sort of a medium- to long-term flavor to that. Nonetheless, we are 

fully engaged in it at the top level and have (INAUDIBLE) people 

from VHA in the standard-setting committee to try to move that 

forward. We are very interested in that. 

Number two, through that HHS initiative and what I described, 

we are moving forward to link ourselves as fast as HHS looks like 

they are getting ready, to link ourselves to the national health information network, and through the national health information 

network, to these RIOs that are distributed around the country. 

Well, the RIOs are a very interesting entity, because they represent—if I can use the term—a coalition of the willing, of physicians who raised their hand and said I am willing to go electronic. 

So we have a self-declared subset of physicians who are willing to 

go electronic and they are hooking themselves up to these RIOs, so 

you don’t need to do a sales job on them. Right? They are already 

there. So as that grows and matures, we will have at least that 

much connectivity out there to those who declare themselves willing. 

I am the co-chair for one of the lines of action in VA—the cooperation, we can talk about later. But anyway, I mentioned my 

partner in crime, the principal deputy assistant secretary for 

health care. He and I work very closely together. One of the things 

we are working through that collaborative network is also trying 

to understand better what the information exchange needs are for 

the Guard and Reserve. And so the Guard and Reserve represents 

a special subset which you just mentioned. The (INAUDIBLE) care 

issue becomes especially important for them. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the (INAUDIBLE) issue, too. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Exactly right. They demobilize and go out to see 

their doctor in Kansas, and how do we know when that person 

comes back what the doctor in Kansas did and how does the doctor 

in Kansas know what we did. So we are trying to work out with 

the Guard and Reserve exactly an understanding of what their requirements are. 

Mr. BISHOP. They don’t have medical records either—electronic 

medical records. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Well, it depends. When they are mobilized, when 

they are on active duty, you couldn’t differentiate someone who 

came from the Guard and Reserve from someone who wasn’t—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Except their records are not updated. 

Mr. TIBBITS. When they are on active duty, they are all treated 

the same. The issue becomes when they separate. 

Mr. HOWARD. But their private records—— 

Mr. BISHOP. What I am saying, before they get deployed, their 

records at their unit, at the National Guard armory or at the Reserve unit station. And then they are deployed, they physically 

carry a folder that may or may not be current with them. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. Or they may not carry a folder at all. The only thing 

that they will have is, once they are deployed, they are into the 

DOD system prospectively. 

Mr. TIBBITS. That is right. 

Mr. BISHOP. But not retroactively. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
919 

Mr. TIBBITS. That is exactly correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is a problem also. 

Mr. TIBBITS. It is definitely a problem, and that is part of the understanding on the front and back end that we are trying to develop better understanding with DOD of what that is. You can say, 

why are we interested in that. Well, we are interested in that because those Guard and Reserve members become veterans, so we 

want a complete record on both the front end and the back end as 

much as DOD does. 

But to go do a (INAUDIBLE) on that, you really would have to 

ask questions directly of DOD as to what the funding profile is they 

can lay down to put their electronic medical system and other 

connectivity out to the Guard and Reserve. I don’t have those details to tell you. But I can tell you this for sure, it is one of the 

high priority focus areas for the senior oversight committee that 

DOD (INAUDIBLE). 

Mr. BISHOP. Just the interoperability between VA and DOD is 

the basic that you have to get established. What is the timeline on 

that? How long is it going to take to get that done so you have the 

DD–214, so you have a common database that the military people 

will have from discharges and medical conditions and all of that, 

so that it is already there so that when somebody walks in the Veterans office, all they have to do is click, as you say, and they can 

pull out all the necessary information from DOD in terms of their 

discharge, where they were located, if they had any kind of exposures. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Yes, sir. To reach that level of completeness is what 

I mentioned earlier. We have this activity underway to create this 

information interoperability plan. The first draft of that now became available at the end of March. We are going through vetting 

and a critique of it right now. It will be finished in August. In August, we should have the timeline and the specific data on this to 

answer your question. So by the end of the summer, we should 

have it all about laid out, whatever it is that DOD is willing to 

commit to by way of automating all those inputs that they currently don’t. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. If I could just have one other question? 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you make it quick. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will be brief. Spina bifida. I have had some veterans come to see me recently about the fact that they are having 

a great deal of difficulty because I think Congress passed a law 

that made the kids eligible for assistance, but not from the time 

of birth, only from the date that the law was passed. These families 

are suffering with these kids who were born with spina bifida, who 

because their parents were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam 

and subsequent exposures. 

Now, these kids are getting some help, but it is not retroactive 

to the dates of their birth, which is a problem. Is VA taking that 

into account now? 

Mr. TIBBITS. I don’t know that that is an IT issue per se, so I 

think I would have to (INAUDIBLE) off on that question. 

Mr. BISHOP. You don’t have any information on that? 

Mr. TIBBITS. I don’t have any information on it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
920 

Mr. TIBBITS. No, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You have to ask someone medical. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. We can ask—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Or the benefits administration—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will start on round two. 

Secretary Howard, let me ask you, we all understand and respect 

the need to have centralized IT for the VA and you have outlined 

some of the benefits of that. I have heard anecdotally, and I have 

heard it now from enough sources that I think it is more than just 

an isolated case, where when you have long lead time, you know, 

there are enough communications going to VHA employees and 

your employees to get systems in place. 

But you know, at a time when we have hired I think in the last 

year 1,335 new doctors, 4,986 new nurses. We have added well over 

$1 billion for new construction in hospitals. The times when one 

doctor just needs one work station computer, and one researcher 

needs one computer—and I know first-hand there are some cases 

where a researcher, a probably $100,000-plus VA employee, 

couldn’t do this person’s work simply because they didn’t have a 

$1,500 computer. 

Has this problem come to your attention? I am not here to lay 

blame on whether it is VHA or IT. It is just a fact and I can understand how this could come up as you are looking at a big system 

and long-term issues. Any thoughts about how we can streamline 

this process? 

We have these just minuscule purchases, but it makes a huge 

difference in terms of some key people being able to—doctors, 

nurses and researchers—being able to do the work the taxpayers 

are paying them to do. Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, first of all, if an individual like that shows up 

in the VA and needs a computer, they can get a computer. They 

don’t have to come to E–10 to get approval for that. Now, with that 

said—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do they know that? I have talked to people. 

Mr. HOWARD. That is the point. There is confusion. Where there 

is smoke, there is fire. You are exactly right. These things have 

come to my attention. In order to be sure that we are able to overcome those issues, we have in fact established a line. In fact, it is 

actually in the budget called IT allocation—you know, facility allocation. Our intent is to provide a pot of money that is available to 

the facility CIO down there at that hospital, and the hospital director, to use where they want. 

Unfortunately, we were not able to put much against that in fiscal year 2008. We are still struggling to try to find a way to do 

that. There is an amount in the transfer request that came over 

to begin to infuse some money down at the facility level. I think 

it is $35 million. If I am not mistaken, it is in there somewhere. 

And that will be allocated together with us and VHA, depending 

on the size of the facility and what have you. But the intent of that 

money is to do exactly what you just described. If they need a 

mouse or a keyboard or screen or whatever, they can go get it. It 

is not a problem. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
921 

Now, we are introducing—what I don’t like them to do is go buy 

six servers. That is a different story there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. 

Mr. HOWARD. But just normal day-to-day expenses is what we 

are trying to overcome. This will help us a lot. We actually put a 

line in the 2009 budget that is zero right now. We hope to be able 

to figure out how to back-need depending on what the final appropriation is. We definitely believe we need to do that. We definitely 

believe the CIO at the facility, and the hospital director, if you will, 

needs to have that authority, within reason, of course. We don’t 

want them establishing their own network or whatever, but they 

are not going to do that because we can control that to some degree. 

So you are right. It is a problem. We have heard it and we intend 

to fix it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And when you said not much in the 2008 budget 

to put on that line, how much? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, right now it is zero, but I have given instruc- tions to my infrastructure guys. If you give us the $35 million, that 

is great. It will help a lot. But if you don’t, I will try to find some 

money somewhere to solve it, because it is a problem. You are absolutely right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will work with you on this. I just think, you 

know, Mr. Wamp and I and members of the committee have talked 

about with this historic increase in funding for the VA, it is just 

critical that we use every dollar efficiently and wisely, or we are 

going to end up on some 20/20 program and we will never be able 

to have the kind of raising of the bar that we have been able to 

historically do over these past 11⁄2 years. We have a good mark in 

the budget resolution for the 2009 year. 

And you said they can get it right now. I am a researcher. I have 

just been hired today. No, I was hired 3 weeks ago, so I have been 

working at a VA hospital as a researcher for 3 weeks. Something 

has happened and I just haven’t been able to get a work station. 

What do I do? Do I go to the VA medical director up there at the 

hospital? 

Mr. HOWARD. There is a CIO at the facility, sir. There is an IT 

staff at each medical facility. They are right there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. At each medical facility, they are supposed to be 

able to get that done. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. HOWARD. And if he still can’t get it done, most of them know 

my e-mail address. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. I am going to follow up on one of the 

cases I am aware of. But most importantly, I am thrilled you recognize there were some issues. You have made a request to get some 

resources to change it and to address those problems, and I salute 

you. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. The one thing I will add, though, is the 

communications is important. Like, for example, if 3,000 doctors 

are going to be hired, you know, we kind of need to know. It was 

especially a problem from 2005 to 2008, which has been pretty 

much flatlined—you know, the IT budget. The 2009 is very, very 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
922 

helpful in terms of the increase, as well as the transfer. Dr. 

Kussman agreed to transfer that money because they recognized 

VHA was growing and the IT appropriation was not able to support 

it. So there is a communication issue that we are also solving. Talk 

to us. Tell us. These guys are coming in and they need computers. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And one of the things that we asked the secretary 

this year, and he has apparently in the last 48 hours responded to 

that, is don’t wait until August to send us reprogramming requests. 

If the VA knows right now there are some needs where you can 

spend money by moving it around more efficiently to help more veterans, we want to hear it now. I think we got that officially, or it 

is about to come officially. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, it is here officially. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So it is here officially. Good. 

Mr. Wamp. 

ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with your 

comments, especially because I am almost stunned today that the 

budget for IT at the VA rivals the entire budget for the legislative 

branch of the United States government. I just came from that subcommittee, and just the IT piece of this budget is very comparable 

to the entire budget of all the staff, all the functions of the entire 

legislative branch of our government. 

This increase, at 25 percent, is a large number. These are important investments, but I have heard today this is a weakness in the 

system. I have heard you are exactly right that these systems are 

problematic. The IG is right. And this is an example where the 

money is not enough. The reforms, the new systems, the accountability—changes are as or more important than the resources. The 

resources are important. I don’t want to take anything away from 

them, but we need to really think long and hard about that so that 

we are good stewards. 

RESCHEDULING PROJECTS

Now, two questions—rescheduling projects. I am learning as I go, 

but it was established to improve the access, decrease wait times 

and increase provider availability. I think the first rollout is in 

Muskogee, Oklahoma and in 2011 it is going to be a national program. Are we on schedule, total costs, how will this impact wait 

times? Mr. Bishop talked about that. In the news today, we see a 

lot about wait times and responsiveness, and this is kind of a 

demo. Give us an update on it. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, the alpha test this summer will happen. We 

don’t anticipate a problem there. The beta test can follow in Texas 

and we should hit that okay. We are dealing with a couple of problems right now. One of them is the infrastructure. As we roll out, 

this particular application will go everywhere. Unlike some that 

will be sort of at a central location, this one will be implemented 

throughout the VHA. 

There are some infrastructure issues that we are addressing, so 

that should not slow things down. There was a delay previously, 

but right now we seem to be on track. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
923 

I am going to let Paul elaborate on the timeline, but I will say 

one thing to pick up on what you said. For example, associated 

with that transfer, as we were going through debating what to 

even ask for, one of the criteria we laid down is we have to be able 

to do it. 

You know, this is not just money. You can’t just throw a pile of 

money on it. You have to be able to manage it properly. So we are 

very sensitive to that, particularly in the project management of 

large, complex programs. Scheduling is one of them. It is an issue 

that we are dealing with, because you need skilled people that 

know what they are doing so that we don’t waste the money you 

provide us. 

But on the timeline, Paul, do you want to elaborate on that—the 

scheduling package? 

Mr. TIBBITS. Yes. The timeline, we would anticipate a planned 

finish in 2011, as you said. That is correct. The total life-cycle costs 

we have for that right now, as best we can estimate for both software and hardware and infrastructure, et cetera—about $180 million, total life-cycle costs to deploy and run it. 

With respect to wait times, I don’t have exact percentages here 

for you. I would have to follow up with you. 

But the reason they are doing this is two reasons, really, is not 

only to improve the wait times for veterans, but also to improve the 

measurement of those wait times so when someone asks how many 

are on the waiting list, how long have they been on the waiting list, 

we have a consistent measurement of that across VHA, so that actually those numbers can be more effectively managed. 

Mr. HOWARD. Do you want to pick up on that? 

Mr. WARREN. Sir, if I could go back to your original point about 

given the IG’s concerns about how you manage these dollars and 

the size of the budget (INAUDIBLE). One of the things that we 

have done over the last year, and I think the investigative survey 

validated it, one of the fundamental changes that has happened between pre-centralization and centralization, we actually have a 

plan of what we are going to do. 

One of the things that I spend a lot of time on is why did it cost 

so much money. Just to give you some numbers, our must-pay bills, 

if we do no other development, no infrastructure investments, just 

to pay what we have in fiscal year 2008 is $942 million (INAUDIBLE). We have 154 medical centers, 1,000 (INAUDIBLE), regional 

offices, so if you add all those things on, it takes a lot to keep that 

going. 

Are we satisfied that that is the right number? No. As we get our 

arms around it, where are some of the efficiencies, where can we 

consolidate things into a national contract versus everybody doing 

it, which then gets into the concern about to do that you need a 

contracting force to allow you to do that. So we are working with 

them on that. 

When we have laid out this budget plan, it is to try and find the 

balance among the three areas. What do you have to pay? The 

mortgage, the phone bill—you have to pay that. You have no 

choice. What does our customer—the health organization, the benefits organization, the staff organizations—need to do their job? So 

there is about $270 million in 2008 just to pay that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
924 

The area that hadn’t been funded in the past is you need to keep 

your infrastructure fresh. You can’t drive the same car for 20 years 

if you don’t do maintenance on it and you don’t change the oil, and 

you don’t replace the brakes. 

Mr. HOWARD. And this is not just computers. These are the servers, the whole network that supports what we are trying to do. 

Mr. WARREN. And if you had asked the question 2 years ago, give 

me a lay-down; where are you spending the money. We couldn’t do 

it. Today, sir, we can lay down month by month, contract by contract, and we have monthly meetings with the leadership. Okay, 

this contract is due in this month. Are you done? Where is it? Is 

it in contracting? Do you have a statement of work? 

So yes, it is a large increase, but it is an increase that we are 

going to manage to execution. It is not just a bunch of money we 

are throwing away. (INAUDIBLE) concern. We can’t wait for a 

cost-computerized system. You have to use manual processes and 

we are spending time, a lot of time in the senior leadership to 

make sure we have control of this budget and we are managing it. 

IT SYSTEMS

Mr. WAMP. Okay. Tell me the difference between veteran-facing 

IT systems and internal-facing IT systems, and then tell the lady 

sitting behind me of the $1.295 billion request for veteran-facing IT 

systems and the $418 million request for internal-facing IT systems, how much of it is maintenance and how much of it is new 

procurement. 

Mr. HOWARD. Sir, first of all, in the budget book, there are some 

excellent tables. I know you don’t have time to look at this, but I 

use them all the time. They are right in the back of our budget 

book. It is very helpful in terms of seeing where the money goes. 

For example, the veteran-facing are things you can think of right 

way—you know, medical care, vocational rehabilitation—things 

that the veterans touch directly. Although our role continues to be 

an indirect role, what we are working on in that particular application definitely is a front-facing application to help the veteran. 

The internal-facing ones, as I mentioned earlier, are those that 

we need to manage the enterprise. For example, the program and 

financial logistics modernization—that is an example of an internal 

program. The veteran may not see it, but yet it is very important 

to just running the operation. Your contract management issue 

that you mentioned earlier is an internal kind of program, as is 

cyber-security and telecommunications—the phones and all that 

sort of thing. Those are internal-facing systems. 

Now, we have in fact for the first time in fiscal year 2008, we 

have broken out that portion of the infrastructure, for example, 

that really should be more in a veteran-facing kind of activity. For 

example, on this table I was showing you, here is the medical 

breakdown. You see VistA, imaging, and all the things that help 

the medical arena. But right down there at the bottom is medical 

program IT support. Read that. That is the infrastructure piece 

that we can directly relate to these medical programs that we are 

supporting. 

The other infrastructure that is sort of across the enterprise is 

on a separate sheet. It is on the internal-facing programs. We have 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
925 

just started this kind of a relationship in fiscal year 2008 that we 

have continued into fiscal year 2009. And we will continue to improve it, because one of the attempts here is to tie the money to 

what you are supporting. What is it really buying you here? And 

hopefully we will continue to help in that regard. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOWARD. But these are helpful sheets. Tim has them memorized. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I have no questions. 

DATA EXCHANGE

Mr. EDWARDS. I just have one other line of questions. Dr. Tibbits, 

in coming into this hearing, one of the most important things I 

wanted to ask about was the interoperability of our electronic 

record systems between DOD and VA. I just want to be sure I am 

clear where we are when we leave today. 

Do I understand you to say that in August of this year, a plan 

will be laid out that will be accessible to Congress and others that 

will have a specific recommendation of what kind of system it 

would be? A timeline on when Private Smith will be able to have 

someone push a button and have his or her records sent to the VA? 

Give me a little more detail about what will be available in August. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Yes, sir. What we are expecting is a requirement 

that says what is the data exchange that is necessary over and 

above what we currently do, and a timeline on which our clinicians 

and VA clinicians both need that data. So I would expect that in 

this plan. 

What I would not expect in this plan yet is specific detail on 

which particular set of computer systems or which software or 

what will accomplish that yet. So I don’t think we are going to go 

that far. But so far, we don’t have a good needs statement of what 

the next phase is. This should fill that hole. So we are then going 

to stand up—we are now standing up a program office under the— 

you are probably familiar with the Joint Executive Council of the 

Health Executive Committee—the (INAUDIBLE) executive committee. We are standing up a joint program office under that structure, whose job it will be to continue to oversee the implementation 

activities that that plan requires. 

So I would think that plan should give you the answer of when 

it is (INAUDIBLE) you share across both departments, not necessarily how. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Just intuitively, when you are talking two of the 

largest, not the largest, federal agencies we have, the Department 

of Defense and the VA. VA will have its prejudices about what kind 

of system we want for records for VA purposes, and DOD will have 

their idiosyncrasies and the Army will differ from the Navy, which 

will differ from the Air Force, which will differ from the Marines. 

I could very well see some group of individuals sitting at this 

very same table 10 years from now and saying, well, when are we 

going to get an interoperable electronic medical system between 

DOD and the VA. Tell me, you know, we need some standard by 

which we judge both VA and DOD on how they are doing. It may 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
926 

take push from a president or a Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the VA together, or from Congress. 

What should be a time? What should be a reasonable date for 

when Sergeant Smith or Private Smith can have their records 

transferred when they leave Fort Hood, Texas and they move to 

Marion Berry’s hometown in Arkansas, before they move to Tennessee, and they can have those records moved from the Department of Defense to the VA, and have it accessible from many of 

those places. 

Mr. TIBBITS. Right. So let me work through your question here 

because there is a lot in it, so I am going to try to tease it apart. 

There is today electronic information. Some of it is computable, 

some of it is viewable, and other (INAUDIBLE) I can skip to later 

if you want to come back to it. (INAUDIBLE) information exchange 

between both departments today are already happening, that 

would meet 95 percent of the needs of a primary care doctor to deliver primary care today—already, as of about December of the last 

calendar year, December 2007. That information is going back and 

forth now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What DOD medical records are electronic? 

Mr. TIBBITS. All of the laboratory work, all of the pharmacy 

work, all of the radiology work, a good portion of doctor notes based 

on the system they call (INAUDIBLE). Well, it is a combination of 

(INAUDIBLE) plus what they call CHES and (INAUDIBLE) together. So a very large percentage on the outpatient side. 

On the in-patient side, I think it is at 14 facilities, I believe is 

the right number. They have a system on the in-patient side running a commercial system called DISENTIS, I believe is the name, 

which in electronic form captures a good portion of the in-patient 

data, discharge summary being the most important. These (INAUDIBLE) patient looked when they left the hospital. 

Where that exists, in those 14 places, that also is included in the 

electronic transmissions to us. DOD itself has to go through its own 

(INAUDIBLE) and budget process, which I am sure you are all familiar with. So with respect to spurring that in-patient capability 

in electronic form across the rest of the DOD, they go through their 

own prioritization activities. 

However, to ameliorate the costs and schedule (INAUDIBLE) of 

that in-patient thing on both sides—really on their side to do it for 

the first time; on our side to re-do it, which is what we are doing 

with HealtheVet. You all are probably familiar with the joint study 

that VA and DOD have already launched to look at joint development of the in-patient module of the electronic health record and 

hospital information system. Phase one of that has already been reported out. Phase one was the requirements and feasibility phase, 

which looked at the commonality of requirements between both departments. 

Other than that, we have long-term care. The Department of Defense has pediatric care and from a (INAUDIBLE) perspective, the 

Department of Defense has to operate in-theater, in combat. By 

and large with those caveats, 95 percent, some very high percentage of commonality of in-patient requirements exists between VA 

and DOD. So from a feasibility perspective, joint development 

makes sense, so that was phase one. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
927 

Phase two has now started. Phase two is I think best described 

as the technical analysis of alternatives. So phase two is to look at 

potential solutions to development—potential solution number one, 

potential solution number two, potential solution number three, et 

cetera; pros, cons, costs, schedules, risks, et cetera, et cetera—and 

see what might be the best way to go about jointly doing that inpatient piece. 

What I want to emphasize is with respect to a common system, 

just as all of you in this room in your private lives probably use 

email on your own private systems at home. I will bet none of you 

in this room know which email system each other of you uses at 

home, nor what telecommunication provider each of you have at 

home. It doesn’t matter to you because you all speak English and 

because your respective systems all follow a standard set of protocols for messaging. You can exchange information among yourselves without having any idea of what system is running on the 

other side. 

I am saying this because we want to be careful about not letting 

the great get in the way of the good. Information interoperability 

to serve the needs of active duty service members and veterans 

today is what is of paramount importance. The sending and receiving software for that purpose is irrelevant. The sending and receiving software is irrelevant. 

We want to look at joint development of the in-patient records 

and reduce costs and schedule risks, so perhaps the Department of 

Defense can get it faster, and perhaps we can get it a little bit faster, but in the meantime we don’t want to look back or get in front 

of the information exchange requirements that we are defining in 

this information interoperability plan, because that is what is 

meeting the needs of veterans and service members today, and will 

continue to do so next year and the year after and the year after, 

while we are going forward with (INAUDIBLE) alternatives to figure out what is the best way to jointly develop stuff. 

If all of you in this room had to come to agreement with everybody on a new address book as to what e-mail system you were 

going to use before you sent the first message, you wouldn’t be 

sending messages today. So the key to meeting the needs of those 

members is that information interoperability plan first and foremost, and then the joint development thing secondary. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Are you saying that every Army soldier that 

leaves the Army today, and say they move from Fort Drum, New 

York to Seattle, Washington, and are about to go see a private doctor in Seattle, Washington. Are you saying the Department of Defense health care records are electronic and they could have those 

transferred electronically to their family physician in Seattle, 

Washington? 

Mr. TIBBITS. No. About 80 percent of what you said is true. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. TIBBITS. If they move from Florida to Washington—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is pretty good for a politician. [Laughter.] 

Mr. TIBBITS. If they move from Florida to Washington state, and 

they go from treatment at the VA Florida to treatment at a VA in 

Washington state, absolutely their records are available out there. 

So yes to that. For every piece of electronic information, there is 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
928 

a caveat. This is a trick statement I am about to make. Every piece 

of electronic information that the DOD has is transferred to us at 

the time of separation. Every electron on that program. That 

doesn’t mean it is everything. 

It gets back to the information interoperability plan to make sure 

what may not be there electronically today is represented in that 

plan, so he gets it. And we have both deputy secretaries—Secretary 

England and Secretary Mansfield—on the top of that senior oversight committee who are signed up to do that plan by August. 

The private doctor in Washington state—we have My 

HealtheVet—that is a Web site. My HealtheVet is a viewport that 

the veteran can use to both upload data about him-or herself. I 

checked my blood pressure last night and it was such-and-such. 

Okay? It also represents a viewport into certain selected elements 

right now, and growing, but anyway certain selected items of their 

electronic medical record at the VA. 

Very soon, and I will need to say for the sake of discussion, this 

calendar year, but I don’t remember the exact month—but anyway, 

this year—delegation authority will be built into My HealtheVet as 

a function. So today the veteran could to his doctor in Kansas in 

the office say, let me sit at your browser for a minute, type in the 

URL, boom, up comes My HealtheVet, and as long as the veteran 

is doing it, the doctor can come over and look at the screen and hit 

the print button and print it out in the doctor’s office. So yes, that 

can be done today. 

With that delegation authority, if that veteran wishes his wife to 

do that or his brother to do that, with delegation authority, the veteran could actually say, brother, you can do that for me in case I 

am incapacitated, unconscious, whatever happens to me, and you 

can call up that information on my behalf and show it to the doctor 

in the emergency room who wishes to treat me. So it is delegation 

authority. So that will be there soon—the delegation authority. 

And then, of course, what My HealtheVet itself can view is going 

to continue to grow in time as well, so (INAUDIBLE) expand over 

time. And I will say, as a close, as an analogous system—and I 

can’t tell you exactly functionally how analogous it is—but it is 

analogous in general terms on the DOD side, which is TRICARE 

online. There is a very close working relationship, also I might add, 

between our team, My HealtheVet, and the DOD team, TRICARE 

online, to collaborate as much as possible and doing the same sort 

of things we need the capabilities connecting to each other, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

And lastly, just for a little bit of advertising here, this accreditation body called EURAC just had an awards competition for consumer empowerment in various categories. My HealtheVet was 

nominated, and it turned out at the ceremony, My HealtheVet 

wound up getting the top honors in the IT category for consumer 

empowerment. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Congratulations. That is great news. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. No further questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, I am sure there will be a lot of continuing 

questions and discussions in the months ahead. You have a lot of 

responsibility in building a relatively new organization. I know it 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
929 

is a challenge. Thank you, Secretary Howard, for taking on the 

challenge. Thank you very much, Dr. Tibbits. Thank you for your 

work, and we look forward to working with you. One last thought. This $35 million, if we get that to you in reprogramming, what are the probabilities that that will cover 100 

percent of your needs in fiscal year 2008 so that researchers, doctors and nurses don’t lack work stations. 

Mr. HOWARD. Those kinds of needs, sir, it is going to handle 

those kinds of needs. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. That will take care of that. 

Mr. HOWARD. Again, the allocation will be worked with VHA as 

we decide which hospital gets how much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

1. PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE

Mr. Howard, in the FY 2010 legislation submitted to the Congress, you propose 

to delete the requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs submit a detailed 

expenditure plan to the Committees on Appropriations. This expenditure plan must 

meet the capital planning and investment control review requirements established 

by OMB and comply with the Department’s enterprise architecture. 

Why is the Department proposing this change in legislation and what assurance 

would the Committee have that you are meeting basic acquisition benchmarks if we 

were to agree to this proposal? 

Response. VA is proposing to eliminate this appropriation language because the 

process we have in place for IT planning is mature and our normal business operations comply with requirements of the language for capital planning review, enterprise architecture review, life cycle review and follow appropriate acquisition rules. 

2. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

The Appropriation Committee’s Surveys and Investigations staff has recently completed a review of the Department’s information and technology programs and reports that the Office of Information and Technology has a staffing requirement of 

6,680 full-time equivalent employees. However, to satisfy this requirement in FY 

2009 you would need to hire 1,990 additional people. 

Does your budget include the necessary funding to hire almost 2,000 people in one 

year? And do you feel you can realistically find qualified applicants to satisfy this 

requirement? Is this shortfall in personnel the result of other Department organizations failing to identify and transfer existing information and technology personnel 

to your organization? 

Response. As of March 29, 2008, the Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) 

has 6,439 staff on-board. We only need to hire an additional 247 staff in FY 2008 

to reach our 6,686 staffing level entering into FY 2009. In addition, the FY 2009 

budget provides sufficient payroll funding to support 6,686 FTE as well as an additional 94 FTE for a total of 6,780 FTE. 

The ability to recruit and employ qualified applicants is, in large part, dependent 

on the duty station the employee is assigned to. At present, hiring has been constrained—OI&T organizations have been instructed to phase hiring to remain within current FY 2008 available funds, The need for an additional $20 million in payroll funds in FY 2008 is due to a number of factors. For example, the initial cost 

at the time of the transfers for the reorganization assumed a lower average salary 

for the IT staff than actually existed and required and leasing costs (which must 

be paid from the ‘‘pay’’ portion of the appropriation) were higher than anticipated. 

These additional payroll funds are included in the appropriation transfer request 

submitted to Congress on April 2, 2008. 

The impact on IT related tasks previously performed by individuals on a part time 

basis (part time program Administration support/part time IT support), has been 

difficult to determine. However, we are reassessing this impact currently to refine 

additional IT resource needs due to this split function that may not have been captured in the first transfer. In addition, we are also examining the operational impact 

on OIT of staffing retained in other VA organizations for business requirements determination work. OI&T is developing a staffing model relative to field operations 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
930 

and development, which will provide a more accurate estimate of the number of IT 

FTE required to support VA’s IT needs. 

3. VISTA CONTRACTING

The Appropriation Committee’s Surveys and Investigations staff has recently completed a review of the Department’s information and technology programs and reports that HealtheVet program offices are not able to obtain the skilled contractor 

support they require using the Department’s VistA Contracting Services (VCS) and, 

as a consequence, staffing problems are negatively impacting program schedules. 

The staff reports that the VCS process takes too long and that multiple contract 

modifications are required when labor hours change because of the multiple labor 

categories and contractors involved. As a result, VCS currently has a significant 

backlog of modifications it is trying to process. 

Would you agree that the VCS process takes too long and is having a negative 

impact on program schedules, and what steps are you taking to address the problem? 

Response. The VistA Contracting Services (VCS) is not so much a process but a 

Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with eight contractors for VistA Contractor support (VCS). Generally, orders competed against a BPA are the most efficient and 

timesaving way to acquiring goods and services. However, the delays we are experiencing are with acquisitions taking too long and having a negative impact on program schedules. It is important to note the VCS contract is focused primarily on 

the ongoing support to the VistA system and only Block I of the HealtheVet program. (See Attachment A.) To resolve the significant acquisition issues we are facing 

in OI&T, the Office of Enterprise Development (OED) and acquisitions staff are 

working very closely together. While an end-to-end acquisition strategy for the 

multi-phased HealtheVet program is not yet established, a jointly-chaired OED/Acquisitions HealtheVet Acquisition Strategy Integrated Project Team is now in place 

to work consistently on the plan. A critical aspect of this collaboration is the establishment of HealtheVet-dedicated ‘‘cells’’ within the Offices of the General Counsel 

(OGC) and Acquisition, a step that will be accomplished within the next few 

months. Additionally, OED management meets regularly with the Corporate Franchise Data Center in Austin, Texas to provide the contracting professionals working 

on the HealtheVet acquisition vehicles (contracting mechanisms) with an orientation 

to the transition from VistA to HealtheVet. These efforts will build a staff of acquisition and OGC professionals intimately familiar with the challenges of such a complex transition of applications. 

4. VISTA FOUNDATIONS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

The VistA Foundations Modernization program is the capital investment program 

that provides the architecture and foundational elements to the new HealtheVet effort. The budget for this program is $95 million, an increase of about 45 percent 

compared to the FY 2008 estimate. In a review of this program, the Appropriation 

Committee’s Surveys and Investigations staff found there is not yet a thorough integration plan for this program. In addition, they found the program is not able to 

hire qualified IT staff, and there is a lack of flexibility in existing contracting vehicles, both of which indicate it is unlikely this program will remain on schedule. 

What is the status of completing a thorough integration plan for this program? 

And would you comment on the efforts of the program to hire qualified staff? 

Response. HealtheVet, like VistA, is an extremely complex system requiring highly-developed integration. The dependencies inherent in a system like HealtheVet 

have become clearer as a result of the recent IT consolidation at VA and, in conjunction with this clarity, a recognition that a dedicated technical system integrator is 

required to provide the extensive oversight to make this program successful. This 

function is currently being served by multiple individuals and organizations. As a 

result, the Office of Enterprise Development is establishing a consolidated and collaborative system integration team led by an authoritative technical and architectural integration manager. This team will be comprised not only of health care-focused system engineers, but also system engineers from benefits and memorial affairs to provide a global perspective of HealtheVet within the VA architecture. The 

early form of this team will meet in May/June 2008 to establish a high-level serviceoriented architecture-centered plan for HealtheVet. 

In the interim, the health care-focused team of systems engineers and architects 

is working toward several milestones that will assist in expanding the existing integration plan: 

• System engineers continue to be embedded into Veterans Health IT portfolios 

and programs in order to provide real-time, matrixed support to application developVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00930 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
931 

ment and architecture. These individuals have cross-cutting contacts in both their 

assigned programs and the rest of the systems engineering team to ensure better 

understanding of integration challenges. 

• The team responsible for the integrated master schedule and plan presents 

weekly to the Veterans Health IT Change Control Board to apprise senior management of schedule changes. 

• A new work plan, process definition plan, and process flow documentation for 

a release management technical working group was created. The release management team provides integration between development, program management, and 

senior management in order to ensure software is correctly and appropriately released to the field. 

With respect to hiring the necessary qualified staff to ensure the management of 

the HealtheVet systems, OED is presently completing organizational streamlining 

to eliminate redundancies that existed when there were at least four different development organizations at VA, prior to the recent consolidation. As part of this 

streamlining, we are evaluating the required staffing skills and abilities mix required for HealtheVet as well as the other critical development projects presently 

underway at VA. We have had difficulties in hiring program/project leadership and 

as a result have reached out to the Space and Naval Systems Warfare Center 

(SPAWAR), with expertise in systems engineering and systems integration, to support our efforts in this area. In addition, we are developing the appropriate mix of 

Federal and contractor staff necessary to successfully develop and deploy 

HealtheVet. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Farr.] 

5. LOST DATA

In 2006, it was well publicized that VA laptops with personal information of thousands of veterans were stolen from a VA employee. Fortunately, we avoided an even 

bigger problem when the laptops were recovered with the sensitive information in 

tact. 

What safeguards has VA put in place to prevent a similar incident in the future? 

As VA moves more and more towards a complete electronic records system, what 

steps are being taken to prevent a similar theft of information through a breach of 

electronic security? 

How will the VA participate in the new Presidential Cyber Center? 

Response. Safeguards: In September 2007, VA published the Department’s information security policy—VA Handbook 6500. This document contains the primary 

cyber security procedural and operational requirements of the Department. It also 

includes the National Rules of Behavior—a document that all employes must sign 

before they are given access to our computer systems and sensitive information. In 

addition, VA 

• Is centrally managing implementation, enforcement and remediation of IT security controls throughout the Department via the Data Security—Assessment and 

Strengthening of Controls Program (DS–ASC) and the Secrity Management and Reporting Tool (SMART) database. 

• Has established the OI&T Office of IT Oversight & Compliance (ITOC) which 

consolidates existing IT security inspection and compliance program activities into 

one office to assist in centralized enforcement of VA IT security controls. 

• Has conducted risk assessments of its information systems and has incorporated the Formal Event Review Evaluation Tool (FERET) into VA’s incident reporting capability to provide a VA-wide risk analysis tool for the identification of 

data breach-related events as incidents. 

• Has provided security awareness training to 95 percent of its employees and 

specialized training to 100% of its employees with significant security responsibilities in FY 2007. 

Steps to prevent a similar theft of information throuqh a breach of electronic security. The VA National Security Operations Center (NSOC) audits and monitors: 

• Incident Management (initial report, information collection, follow up, closure) 

• Firewalls (monitor for known threats and anomalies) 

• Network Intrusion Prevention System (monitor for known threats and implementing blocks of new threats (policy tuning)) 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
932 

• Host-base Intrusion Prevention System (monitor for known threats and policy tuning) and • Anti-Virus (monitor definition updates and viral infections) 

Encryption is being implemented throughout VA in an expeditious yet cautious 

manner as to not halt business operations. VA has deployed several technologies to 

encrypt data in storage and in transit. VA has encrypted over 18,000 laptops and 

continues to encrypt new laptops as they are acquired. VA is in the process of deploying technology, Attachmate Reflections, which will encrypt data that is sent via 

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and Telnet. Data from applications such as the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), Veterans Health Information System and 

Technology Architecture (VistA) and Integrated Funds Distribution, Control Point 

Activity, Accounting and Procurement (IFCAP) will be encrypted using Attachmate 

Reflections. 

Also, the new VA remote access solution, the remote enterprise security compliance update environment (RESCUE), will encrypt data using Secure Socket Layer 

(SSL). VA has also turned on password and ‘‘content protection’’ on blackberry devices which encrypts blackberrys when they’re locked. VA has procured and deployed Trust Digital to encrypt SmartPhones. The VA Public Key Infrastructure 

(PKI) solution has been operational for several years and is used to encrypt email 

and for Web-authentication. Recently, VA deployed a Microsoft Rights Management 

Service (RMS) technology that compliments VA PKI, and can be used to encrypt 

emails, documents and files of VA information. VA is in the midst of pilot testing 

an extension of the RMS capability to mobile devices and business partners. 

VA is currently developing an enterprise level Identity and Access Management 

(IDAM) strategy. A cross-Departmental Tiger Team was created to perform data collection and analysis and provide recommendations to VA management on a One VA 

approach for IDAM. The Tiger Team has concluded its efforts and is drafting an executive report which will provide findings, recommendations and next steps. 

Presidential Cyber Center. The Presidential Cyber Center is a new initiative. VA 

will offer any support required for this important initiative. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Farr.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

6. REPROGRAMMING LETTER

The Committee received a reprogramming request from the VA for $294 million 

from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to go toward VA IT. VA Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) needs to hire 1,590 people by this August in order 

to meet the FY 2008 staffing requirement. Are these reprogramming funds going toward this staffing requirement? Where is VA looking to find and hire 1,600 people 

in the next 5 months? Is VA actively trying to hire vets to fill this staffing requirement? 

With the reprogramming, has VHA also moved its IT staff over to OI&T? 

Response. Of the $294 million transfer request from VHA to OI&T, $20 million 

is to enable us to hire an additional 247 staff up to the planned level of 6,686, so 

that we are positioned to start FY 2009 to achieve the budgeted staffing level. 

VA is planning on hiring 247 IT staff by the end of FY 2008. OI&T is an active 

supporter of the Department’s goal to hire veterans. The April transfer request does 

not propose to realign staff from VHA to OI&T. 

7. SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS REPORT

Based on the most recent Appropriation Committee’s Surveys and Investigations 

(S&I) report of VA IT, the Veterans Health Administration (which previously controlled 90 percent of VA’s IT funding) has been uncooperative with the VA OI&T 

and has continued to retain IT personnel as well as continued to purchase IT equipment without consulting with OI&T. In addition, Secretary James Peake has thus 

far not publicly expressed support for a strong, centralized IT management program 

which has caused concern that VHA will be able to persuade Secretary Peake that 

they should again control discretion about how best to allocate IT funding. Based 

on past performance by VHA, VHA’s ability to use IT funding in the most prudent 

way is questionable. According to the S&I report this internal struggle for control 

over IT funds between OI&T and VHA may jeopardize the initial success of VA’s 

centralized IT system. Are there concerns at the VA that the centralized IT system 

will become destabilized by internal struggle between VHA and OI&T? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
933 

Response. Secretary Peake is a strong supporter of information and technology 

and its ability to enhance the Department’s capability to provide quality services to 

our veterans. As a result of the recent consolidation OI&T has put in place a disciplined process to plan and manage the execution of the IT appropriation at VA. 

In conjunction with this we have also established a multi-year planning process to 

ensure we are planning for the future. The Chief Information Officer is actively 

working with VHA leadership to resolve any concerns at the staff level with the consolidation of IT functions. 

8. RESCHEDULING PROJECT

The goals of the Scheduling Rescheduling project are to improve access to care 

for veterans, decrease wait times for appointments, and increase provider availability. The first version of the project will be placed in production at the VA medical center in Muskogee, Oklahoma, during June 2008, followed by ‘‘several activities’’ in FY 2009 in preparation for completion of a national rollout in FY 2011. 

According to the testimony the first version of the Scheduling Replacement project 

will be placed in production at the Muskogee, Oklahoma, VA medical center in June 

2008. Are you on schedule to put that in place in June? 

Tell the Committee what has to be done to get that in place? What activities will 

take place for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 on the Scheduling Replacement 

project? Has the Scheduling Replacement Project been tested and validated? 

Please tell the Committee how this initial deployment was tested and validated? 

What other locations are included in the initial installation of the project? What application is being used for the project? What type of improvements do you anticipate 

having to make in fiscal year 2009? What type of hardware and software will have 

to be purchased, and at what cost? What is the total cost to implement the Scheduling Replacement Project? What are the projected annual costs to maintain this 

system? 

How will you know access to care has been improved? How will you know that 

wait times for appointments have decreased? 

How will you know that provider availability has increased? 

Response. Are you on schedule to put that in place in June? Tell the Committee 

what has to be done to qet that in place? 

The application is now scheduled to be in production in August 2008. Delays in 

vendor repairs to the application as well as the reintegration and retesting of new 

versions of external components required for deployment resulted in this delay. VA 

will continue with the product certification process and instituted weekly defect deliveries that will be tested by the business users for approval of operational readiness in order to mitigate any future time issues. 

What activities will take place for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 on the Scheduling Replacement project? 

The remainder of FY 2008 will be devoted to certification of the application for 

production, preparation for training activities at Muskogee and ensuring the support structure is in place for both technical and business issues that may arise during deployment. The testing and validation of the application is in process with certification expected in July 2008. 

Has the Scheduling Replacement Project been tested and validated? 

In order to prepare for initial deployment, the application undergoes several 

phases of testing, including functional testing, performance testing, integration testing, and disaster recovery testing prior to deployment. In addition, several levels of 

approval are required to field the application, including Independent Validation and 

Verification certification, user acceptance testing and approval, milestone review 

(operational readiness) by VA senior management, and formal agreement with the 

Muskogee VA Medical Center Director. Only one site (Muskogee VA Medical Center) 

will be included in the initial installation. The second site for the next phase is anticipated to be the Central Texas Healthcare System, which is a much larger and 

more complex medical center. 

The application being deployed is the Replacement Scheduling Application (RSA). 

In addition, commercial products such as Oracle, Linux, Weblogic and Crystal Reports are utilized as part of the overall system architecture. 

In FY 2009, the application will include additional enhancements such as group 

management of patients, improved ad hoc reporting capabilities, and local management of several files and tables. Also included will be upgraded versions of supporting components as part of the overall HealtheVet infrastructure. Expected business improvements include improved access to care, inter-facility scheduling, and 

new metrics designed to more accurately capture patient waiting times at any level 

of VHA. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
934 

What are the projected annual costs to maintain this system? 

Two application servers and supporting operating systems for each site must be 

purchased. This provides a primary server and a failover system in the event of failure to ensure continuity of operations. Other purchases for deployment are software 

licenses (Crystal Clear and Oranxo), Linux, Weblogic server licenses, and data storage at the Corporate Data Center in Austin, Texas. Estimated cost for the procurement of software and hardware is $12 million over FY 2009 and FY 2010 phased 

in through the deployment schedule. The total cost to complete is estimated at $180 

million for FY 2001 through FY 2011. Annual maintenance costs are approximately 

$13 million per year. Those costs include planned license renewals, planned equipment refreshes, operational support at the Corporate Data Center, and ongoing 

maintenance and support of the application. 

How will you know access to care has been improved? 

The deployment plan includes metrics that baseline the current access to care and 

wait times in order to verify improvement of care. This will be measured at each 

site prior to the installation of the application. Metrics will be gathered weekly to 

determine the improvement from the baseline in the areas of access to care (availability of appointment slots), provider availability, same day care, special appointment availability (such as compensation and pension and service connected), and 

overall improvement in the management of outpatient care. 

How will you know that wait times for appointments have decreased? 

Wait time statistics are historically available and will be used as the initial baseline for performance improvement. With the implementation of the business process 

reengineering and supporting application, the new metrics will be compared to the 

baseline to determine the percentage of improvement. The new wait lists also include long term and short term pending lists that send reminders for appointment 

scheduling, thus ensuring that future availability for care is not compromised or 

used as wait lists in lieu of a better solution. 

How will you know that provider availability has increased? 

Provider availability is historically available in VistA and will be used as the initial baseline for performance improvement. With the implementation of single calendars for every provider, the restriction of care is lifted that is currently imposed 

by the outdated clinic structure in place today. The single calendar will allow for 

the clinician to provide any type of health care, and also track provider availability 

in 5 minute increments. 

9. ENCRYPTION/PRIVACY OF MOBILE SERVICE DELIVERY

The testimony says portable IT equipment for benefit counselors is encrypted to 

protect veterans’ privacy. Are you facing challenges doing this? If so, what are some 

of the challenges you are facing to ensure the encryption of data? If you are not facing challenges in this regard, tell the Committee what you are doing to ensure the 

privacy of our veterans as it relates to delivering mobile services? 

Response. Are you facing challenges doing this? 

VA, OI&T Field Operations has taken a number of steps to ensure the privacy 

of our veterans when using portable IT media. Portable IT equipment for benefit 

counselors may include laptops and USB storage devices (thumb drives). All laptops 

that are issued to any VBA employee have been encrypted using the Guardian Edge 

software. This software package encrypts the entire hard drive so that no data is 

left unencrypted. 

The transmission of data over the Internet between field computers and the VA 

network is also encrypted. All laptops are registered to a specific user who is required to connect the laptop to the VA network at least every 90 days to ensure 

security updates occur. All laptops connect to the VA network via secure Virtual Private Network (VPN). Through this secure VPN connection, users can perform all 

necessary tasks within the VA network so that data is saved on the internal VA 

centralized system and not on the portable laptop. 

If a VBA employee requires a thumb drive to perform duties, only encrypted VAapproved thumb drives are authorized. These thumb drives contain a small amount 

of space that contains the encryption software. This space cannot be encrypted. This 

is a minor challenge for our organization that is being addressed by educating users 

of these devices. 

If so, what are some of the challenges you are facing to ensure the encryption of 

data? 

These security processes require significant effort on the part of IT staffs to enable encryption and train the users. This challenge applies to both laptop and 

thumb drive encryption. Additionally, the use of encrypted devices reduces response 

time. Most users have noted time delays when using encrypted laptops and thumb 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
935 

drives, especially when working with large amounts of data. Although this has presented some challenges, everyone agrees that this is the best solution available. 

10. VETERAN FACING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SYSTEMS

Veteran facing IT systems support VA programs such as medical care, delivering 

compensation benefits, providing pension benefits, enhancing educational opportunities, delivering vocational rehabilitation and employment services, promoting homeownership, providing insurance service, and delivering burial services. Veteran facing programs account for $1.295 million of the IT request. The payroll portion of 

IT is an additional $729.2 million. 

Response. Of the $1.295 billion for veteran facing IT systems, how much of that 

is maintenance of current systems and how much of that is for new procurement? 

Out of the $1.295 billion for veteran facing, $401 million represents the development projects (new procurement) and $893 million represents the maintenance and 

operations accounts. 

Of the payroll portion of your veteran facing IT systems, how much of that is for 

maintaining the personnel you have on board, how much of that is the fiscal year 

2009 pay raise, and how much is for hiring new personnel? What is the attrition rate 

of your VA IT staff? 

In FY 2009, the salary and other pay related costs for the 94 additional FTE is 

slightly over $10.8 million on top of maintaining the FY 2008 base of $699.1 million. 

Overhead costs such as travel, training, supplies, leases, and other support requirements are calculated to be approximately $19.3 million in FY 2009 for a total pay 

request of $729.2 million. The FY 2009 pay raise is calculated to be $21.1 million. 

The attrition rate for OI&T is currently planned at approximately 5 percent of the 

total workforce annually. 

11. INTERNAL FACING IT SYSTEMS

Internal facing IT systems are those systems that provide capability to more effectively manage IT resources such as corporate management, financial resources management, asset management, human capital management, IT infrastructure, and information protection. 

Of the $418 million for internal facing IT systems, how much of that is maintenance of current systems and how much of that is for new procurement? 

Response. Out of the $418 million for internal facing, $128.2 million represents 

the development projects (new procurement) and $289.8 million represents the 

maintenance and operations accounts. 

12. ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD DE 

The testimony says VA is working hard to support the President’s vision to have 

electronic health record capability for most Americans by 2014 and to implement the 

associated Executive Order. Please provide a copy of that Executive Order for the 

record. Tell the Committee specifically what VA is doing to support electronic health 

record capability implementation by 2014. How much is VA spending in fiscal year 

2008 for this activity? How much is in the fiscal year 2009 budget for this activity? 

Response. Executive Order: Incentives for the Use of Health Information Technology and Establishing the Position of the National Health Information Technology 

Coordinator http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040427-4.html 

(See Attachment B.) 

Tell the Committee specifically what the VA is doing to support electronic health 

record capability implementation by 2014. 

VA plans to achieve the core elements of HealtheVet by 2012 with full operating 

capability of the major components targeted for 2014. Primary components and capability planned for this next generation include: 

• Scheduling Replacement: 

• New/improved capability includes resource scheduling (provider, room, 

equipment) and coordination of those resources to improve patient scheduling 

• Inter-facility scheduling between VA medical centers (VAMC) 

• Ability to make/cancel/reschedule/check in/out appointments, etc. 

• Ability to track utilization and determine resource requirements 

• Improved reporting of patient wait times by specialty and services 

• CPRS Reengineering: 

• Personalized (individual patient) decision support incorporating medical 

knowledge, genomic information, and patient specific information 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
936 

• Enhancements to meeting accreditation requirement such as the Joint 

Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the legal 

health record requirements • Provides access to clinical information and decision support information 

from other VAMC and Department of Defense (DoD) sites through VistAWeb 

and remote data interoperability • LAB Reengineering: 

• Improved support of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services, meets accreditation standards • Auto-Verification of results, automated Specimen ID and tracking • Improved support for Emerging Lab Technologies • Reduced/eliminated patient and sample identification errors, enhanced 

data/info interoperability leading to improved decision support • Pharmacy Reengineering: 

• Reduced risk of medication errors and adverse events through enhanced 

medical management decision support tools; Inpatient and outpatient integrated 

pharmacy order processing system that supports Bar Code Management Application (BCMA) • Increases number of prescriptions to be filled within the same time frame, 

provides better formulary management, supports interoperability and 

ePharmacy claims processing • Health Data Repository (HDR): 

• Enables providers to obtain integrated data views and acquire the patient, 

specific clinical information needed to support treatment decisions—reduces patient safety issues by providing a consolidated national view (across all VA facilities and DoD) of the patient’s clinical data • Reduces costs by reducing redundant procedures, increasing data quality, 

promoting standards, and enhancing research, performance reviews and decision support. Note: HDR is also the lynchpin of VA/DoD sharing/interoperability 

Other major efforts ongoing include: 

• Storing the health records for all veterans served by Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care facilities and making them available in electronic form, including 

both text and image records. The records are available both at local facilities and 

at any remote VHA facility. • Facilitating the electronic transfer of laboratory and pharmacy orders not only 

among VHA facilities, but DoD and commercial vendors as well. VHA can also exchange some health records for active duty and veteran personnel between DoD and 

VA sharing facilities. • Establishing remote order of medical procedures (inter-facility consults) and 

telemedicine for specialty care through electronic technologies. 

• Providing secure information for veterans to manage their own health records 

via MyHealtheVet. This Web site not only provides veterans with their VA-based 

clinical records but also allow veterans to report/record their own data, such as 

blood pressures and information from private physicians. It also provides the capability for veterans to refill prescriptions if they so choose. 

• Modifying VistA in conjunction with Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) to provide a physician office system for rural health care providers. VHA also 

shares VistA with the Indian Health Services to further its effort in electronic 

health record. 

Future activities in this area include: 

• Continuous improvement of interoperability with DoD and other government or 

civilian health care entities via programs and projects that ensure timely information transfer and the expansion of the types of data sent. 

• Continuous effort in health care record standardization. Data standards will 

allow VHA, other governmental health care entities and the rest of the health care 

industry to achieve interoperability in the near future. 

• System and network security improvement to ensure privacy and security of 

electronic health records. For example, the identity service to manage system access 

and continuous monitoring for appropriate record access. 

How much is the VA spending in fiscal year 2008 for this activity? How much is 

in the fiscal year 2009 budget for this activity? 

VA considers the pursuit of an electronic health record integral to nearly all of 

its activities. For this reason, VA’s budget data does not excerpt electronic health 

record capability as a separate line item. As presented here and in question 13, you 

will find more detailed information regarding budget requests and a number of the 

programs listed provide support to the ultimate goal of an electronic health record. 

The budget information below includes non-pay data (dollars in millions): 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
937 

Initiative FY 2008 FY 2009 

VistA Application Development ............................................................................................................ $64.290 $116.721 

VistA Foundations Modernization ........................................................................................................ 65.728 94.966 

Scheduling Replacement ..................................................................................................................... 20.600 29.909 

Laboratory Systems Reengineering ...................................................................................................... 7.000 29.057 

Health Data Repository ........................................................................................................................ 25.000 24.830 

My HealtheVet ...................................................................................................................................... 12.740 18.427 

Pharmacy Reengineering ..................................................................................................................... 9.360 17.234 

Enrollment Enhancements ................................................................................................................... 13.418 15.637 

13. IT INITIATIVES

VA has at least eight IT initiatives in veteran facing medical programs. Those initiatives include: VistA Application Development; VistA Foundations Modernization; 

Scheduling Replacement; VistA Laboratory Information Systems Reengineering; 

Health Data Repository; MyHealtheVet; Pharmacy Reengineering; and Enrollment 

Enhancements; as well as maintaining VistA Legacy system. Do you believe that 

you have the necessary leadership in key positions to effectively carry out these initiatives? Do you believe that you have the support at the highest levels in the Department to carry out these initiatives? How much are you spending on each of 

these initiatives in fiscal year 2008, and how much is in the fiscal year 2009 request 

for each of these items? How do you rank these initiatives in order of importance? 

Response. Do you believe that you have the necessary leadership in key positions 

to effectively carry out these initiatives? 

Leadership positions for some of these programs have not been filled on a permanent basis. We are actively working to fill these key leadership positions. 

Do you believe that you have the support at the highest levels in the Department 

to carry out these initiatives? 

Yes. 

How much are you spending on each of these initiatives in fiscal year 2008, and 

how much is in the fiscal year 2009 request for each of these items? How do you rank 

these initiatives in order of importance? 

It is extremely difficult to rank these items in order of importance as each is a 

critical aspect of the migration from VistA to HealtheVet. Aspects of each are dependent on the others, and often a delay in one of the programs results in delay 

of future HealtheVet applications. The budget information below includes non-pay 

data (dollars in millions): 

Initiative FY 2008 FY 2009 

VistA Application Development ............................................................................................................ $64.290 $116.721 

VistA Foundations Modernization ........................................................................................................ 65.728 94.966 

Scheduling Replacement ..................................................................................................................... 20.600 29.909 

Laboratory Systems Reengineering ...................................................................................................... 7.000 29.057 

Health Data Repository ........................................................................................................................ 25.000 24.830 

My HealtheVet ...................................................................................................................................... 12.740 18.427 

Pharmacy Reengineering ..................................................................................................................... 9.360 17.234 

Enrollment Enhancements ................................................................................................................... 13.418 15.637 

14. VISTA LEGACY SYSTEM

According to the budget, VA is planning to spend $99 million for VistA Legacy 

system in fiscal year 2009. How many years do you project that you will have to 

be maintaining the VistA Legacy, and at what annual cost? 

Response. Costs associated with the VistA Legacy system will continue until 

VistA HealtheVet is fully deployed. Completion for VistA HealtheVet is anticipated 

in 2018. The annual cost associated with VistA Legacy maintenance will depend on 

the speed of development and the replacement with VistA HealtheVet components. 

We must maintain the existing VistA Legacy systems until the replacement is complete. It is not possible to predict costs involving all functions supporting the electronic medical record that are particular to VistA Legacy in this dynamic environment of transition toward VistA HealtheVet. We currently have recurring contract 

costs to specifically support the VistA Legacy Equipment of $51.4 million annually 

and this requirement will continue until the full transition to the VistA HealtheVet 

platform. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
938 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Bishop.] 

15. DISTRICT CASE WORK OVERLOAD

My District staff continues to tell me that it routinely takes up to two years or 

more for disability or related claims to be resolved by VA. I raised this issue with 

the former Secretary and others for the past two years, and every year we continue 

to be assured that this situation is being addressed and rectified. However, based 

on my experience, at least in Southwest Georgia, this is not the case, and frankly, 

I don’t have very much confidence in this Administration’s capacity to get its arms 

around this issue. 

I continue to see year after year where the Inspector General’s Office reviews this 

issue, and makes recommendations on how to improve the system, but I frankly still 

don’t see any measurable improvement in my area of the country. With all the investments we’re making to improve the Department’s technological resources, I 

would have expected this situation to be improved. Would you please to comment? 

Response. VA is committed to providing veterans and their families with more 

timely claims decisions. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has developed 

a comprehensive plan to address the continuing growth in the volume of incoming 

claims nationwide. The cornerstone of our plan is the development of a well-trained 

workforce that is sized commensurate with current and projected claims workload. 

Last year VBA began an aggressive hiring program that will add an unprecedented 3,100 additional employees by September 2008. Under this national hiring 

program, the Atlanta VA Regional Office actively recruited additional claims processors, increasing the number of Service Center employees from 232 in January 

2007 to 285 as of March 2008. 

The training process for new claims processors can take up to two years; therefore, our newest employees do not have an immediate impact on decision output. 

We have modified our centralized and local training curricula to enable new employees to become more productive earlier in their training program by focusing initial 

training on simpler types of claims, such as dependency changes and burial benefits 

claims. This frees our more experienced staff to focus on more complex disability 

claims processing. We anticipate significantly increased productivity over the next 

two to three years as our newest employees complete their training and gain experience in all aspects of disability claims processing. 

We also use a workload brokering strategy to help balance the claims inventory 

across the nation. Claims are sent from VA regional offices that are challenged by 

high inventories to other offices with capacity to process additional work. Because 

of the heavy workload at the Atlanta VA Regional Office, over 11,000 disability rating claims were brokered from Atlanta to other VA regional offices last year, and 

brokering of Atlanta’s work continues this year. 

We have focused our efforts on completing VETSNET, the replacement system for 

the Benefits Delivery Network. There are many reasons why the completion of the 

VETSNET system is important. VETSNET will ensure continuity of benefit payments to veterans and beneficiaries, and there are other advantages as well. With 

full implementation of VETSNET, VA will be able to readily make software modifications to support improved work processes, legislative mandates, and security enhancements. It will also be possible to incorporate and enhance decision-support and 

‘‘expert system’’ applications. 

We have made significant progress in the implementation of VETSNET over the 

past two years. Approximately 98 percent of all original compensation claims are 

being processed end-to-end in VETSNET, and we are now paying monthly compensation benefits to more than 850,000 veterans—or approximately one out of 

every three compensation recipients—using this modernized platform. With our next 

conversion of records from the legacy Benefits Delivery Network, scheduled for 

April, VETSNET will be the primary payment system for compensation and pension 

benefits. 

We are currently developing a comprehensive strategy to integrate various information technology initiatives to improve claims processing. At the core of our strategy is the implementation of a business model for compensation and pension claim 

processing that is less reliant on paper documents. Initial pilot efforts have demonstrated the feasibility of using imaging technology and computable data to support claims processing in the compensation and pension programs. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
939 

In addition to use of imaging and computable data, we are incorporating enhanced 

electronic workflow capabilities, enterprise content and correspondence management 

services, and integration with our modernized payment system, VETSNET. Further, 

we are exploring the utility of business rules engine software for both workflow 

management and to potentially support improved decision-making by claims processing personnel. 

16. VA/DOD COORDINATION ON DISABILITY CLAIMS

Are you aware that veterans are required to prove to the military medical that 

they are combat injured and disabled, as well as proving the same condition to the 

Veteran Affairs, but they must also prove to the CRSC program that the have combat related injuries. 

What is being done to improve coordination with DoD, including the possibility 

of a one-stop clearing house for the veterans as well as all claims processed at one 

Federal location? And, what is the status of DoD/NA technology integration efforts 

with respect to health records and disability claims? 

Response. What is being done to improve coordination with DoD, including the 

possibility of a one-stop clearing house for the veterans as well as all claims processed at one Federal location? 

The military service Departments make disability determinations based on the 

service member’s service treatment records in conjunction with other accumulated 

evidence. VA uses these same records in making disability determinations, adding 

in any post-service medical evidence that has been accumulated. Administration of 

the CRSC program relies heavily on disability data that VA has made a high priority to provide to DoD. 

One initiative to streamline and integrate the disability evaluation process is the 

Joint Disability Evaluation System (DES), which began in November 2007. This is 

a pilot project to modernize and improve the way disabilities are evaluated and compensation is awarded to injured servicemembers. The pilot focuses on a single comprehensive medical examination and a single disability evaluation provided by VA. 

The goals of the pilot program are to simplify the DES process, conduct one examination, make one disability evaluation, and reduce the overall time it takes a service member to progress from referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to receipt of VA benefits. In most instances where a service member is found unfit for 

continued active service, the rating evaluation provided by VA will serve as the 

foundation for VA disability compensation. The DES pilot is scheduled to conclude 

in November 2008, and the final report/recommendations are to be delivered in February 2009. 

The DES pilot is supported by a number of IT initiatives targeted to provide access to the health record. Currently, claims examiners are able to view through the 

CAPRI application, all medical records in VA’s VistA system including the records 

made available through VA/DoD’s bi-directional interfaces. 

Additionally, the Defense Personnel Record Information System (DPRIS) Web application provides direct on-line access to veterans’ official military personnel 

records that are maintained by DoD. The application provides electronic images of 

DD–214s, medical evaluations/findings, and other administrative records which are 

retrievable and can assist in the processing of PTSD claims, asbestos claims, and 

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) claims. Responses from the Army, Navy, and Air Force are received within 20 to 30 minutes, 

and responses from the Marine Corps are received within 24 hours. VBA is in the 

process of devising a national plan to deploy the application to all VA regional offices. 

VA and DoD are also involved in collaborative efforts to resolve issues and improve military paper health treatment record (HTR) processes and facilitate their 

seamless transfer from DoD to VA for benefits processing in support of service members, veterans, and deployed National Guard and Reserve personnel. This is part 

of the Military Records Working Group initiative of the VA/DoD Benefits Executive 

Council. 

And, what is the status of DoD/NA technology integration efforts with respect to 

health records and disability claims? 

VA and DoD are in currently engaged in conducting a pilot in the national capital 

region for the purpose of determining efficiencies that can be applied to the coordination of disability claims through joint operations. The pilot will be a service member-centric initiative designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the two current disability processes of the Departments. Key features of 

the pilot program include one medical examination and a single-sourced disability 

rating. One goal of the pilot is to enable service members to more effectively transiVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 00939 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
940 

tion to veteran status and provide them with their VA benefits and compensation. 

The pilot is scheduled to conclude in November 2008 and the final report/recommendations are to be delivered in February 2009. In addition to the new requirements that are expected as the result of the pilot report/recommendations, the disability claims evaluation system is supported by a number of IT initiatives targeted 

to provide access to the health record. 

17. CONSOLIDATED IT OPERATIONS

VA is requesting $2.442 billion to support IT development, operations, and maintenance expenses including payroll for FY 2009, an 18.9 percent increase over the 

FY 2008 level. This request reflects the consolidation of VA IT into one appropriation, with certain exceptions such as non-payroll IT for credit reform programs and 

insurance benefits programs. What would you say are the key challenges you’ve 

faced thus far in the consolidated environment and how can the Subcommittee assist in relieving and/or supporting the Department in achieving its goals in this 

area. 

Response. The IT consolidation has given VA the opportunity to look at all aspects 

of the ‘‘State of VA IT’’ and to support efforts to provide improved, standardized IT 

services, leading to consistency and dependability across the Department. In some 

cases, this will involve shoring up areas which have suffered from neglect in the 

past. One of the critical areas is staffing. We have discovered, as a result of the reorganization, there are certain skill sets, such as information security officers and certain areas, such as tracking IT assets, which were not properly staffed in the past. 

We are attempting to rectify these omissions to fully support those functions. Additionally, OI&T is developing a staffing model, which will provide a more accurate 

estimate of the number of IT FTE required to support VA. 

18. FY 2009 IT BUDGET REQUEST

In FY 2009, the majority of increases represent program priorities to enhance the 

support to veterans both directly and indirectly—especially in the area of medical 

care. The move toward a centralized IT Management System has been challenging, 

but it has also served to reinvigorate IT capability within VA. 

According to previous testimony, you’ve indicated that placing all IT staffing, 

equipment, and budgetary resources under the VA Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

has provided an objective capability with visibility over all IT activities across the 

Department. 

However, have we ‘‘materially’’ improved the delivery of services to the Department’s clients, our veterans? I am not sure these changes have filtered down to my 

constituents! 

Response. As a result of the single IT leadership authority, we are in a better position to discover and fix problems. Additionally, we are better postured in the area 

of information protection to secure the sensitive information of veterans and employees. Also, we have improved resource management (money and people) and have 

much better visibility in those areas, as desired by Congress. 

19. LOST RECORDS

It is my understanding that when a veteran’s service or medical records are lost 

or misplaced, through NO FAULT of the veteran, they are denied approval of benefits until such time the records are found (if they are ever found). This even applies 

when VA states they have lost the records. This is not fair to the men and women 

that have served. Shouldn’t the process allow for unique mitigating factors in such 

instances? 

Where is the Department in addressing this issue, and what role will the resources we’ve invested in technology improvements play in addressing this issue? 

Response. VA’s policy of assisting veterans with obtaining evidence to support 

their claims reflects the principles of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, 

Public Law 106–475. The duty to assist a veteran with prosecution of his or her 

claim is clarified in 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3.159 and the claims processing manual, M21–1MR, Part I, Chapter 1, Duty to Assist. 

Although loss of records is rare, VA has specific procedures in place to trace missing records. If VA cannot locate a claims folder, it searches the local office, the 

Records Management Center, and any other office that might have reason to have 

the claims folder. If all these attempts fail, VA then rebuilds the folder and attempts to obtain, with the veteran’s help, any available secondary evidence to support the claim. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
941 

If a claims folder is misplaced, or if VA is unable to obtain important evidence 

such as a veteran’s service medical record, VA requests alternative documents to 

support the claim for benefits. For example, VA can request a search of military 

unit sick logs, morning reports, or Surgeon General Office reports for records of 

military hospitalization. Additionally, VA will ask the veteran for any alternative 

records that may contain some evidence to support the claim for benefits. Such evidence may include statements from other service members, letters written during 

service, photographs taken during service, state or local accident reports, private 

medical reports, prescription records, or insurance examination records. 

When resolving any claim, and especially a claim in which records are missing, 

VA is governed by 38 CFR 3.102, in which a broad interpretation of available facts 

will be applied and any reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the veteran. This is 

particularly true in the absence of official records and when a claimed disability allegedly arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions. Claims examiners are 

required to apply the benefit of the doubt in any case when records are missing. 

After a decision on a claim, the veteran must be notified of the application of the 

benefit-of-the-doubt rule and told how VA weighed the positive and negative aspects 

of the available evidence. 

VA’s modern technology infrastructure is playing an important role in providing 

access to claim documentation. For example, over the past year, every disability rating decision and notification letter has been saved in an electronic file. Virtually 

every veteran getting disability benefits today has some documentation in an eFile, 

as a variety of correspondence is automatically captured into that file. Additionally, 

VETSNET contains a library of claim development letters sent to a veteran and a 

complete record of past claim authorization decisions. VA has complete eFiles on 

over 3,000 veterans, a number which grows everyday with the continued expansion 

of our Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits initiative. 

20. VA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

I’m also concerned that the Department’s communication capabilities and response times are not what they should be. What is the average wait time for vets 

calling into the VA centers? Callers often cannot get in touch with VA reps—frequently, the voice attendant says due to high volume you should call back later. 

Vets can only reach VA counselors at the state offices during normal business 

hours. This is not always going to work for many vets who have jobs during the 

day. If the vet is lucky enough to talk to VA rep on the phone it is someone in another region because the calls are routed to Kansas. How can technology assist in 

improving and addressing this issue? 

Response. The Department has several voice based systems where veterans can 

access VA. Primarily, there is the Nationwide Automated Response System (NARS), 

which is focused on general veteran’s benefits, and the Health Revenue Center 

(HRC), which is focused on health care benefits. NARS is a voice based automated 

response system designed to provide veterans general benefits information. HRC is 

a call center organization designed to provide veterans comprehensive information 

on their health care benefits and eligibility. From each system, a veteran can be redirected to the appropriate organization. Calls are only routed to the Kansas-based 

HRC if a NARS user requests information on health benefits. 

Data: The table below describes the average call volume and wait time for both 

of these systems: 

System Call volume (calls/ 

month) 

Average wait 

time 

(Minutes:seconds) 

Hours of operation 

HRC ................................................................................. 297,092 2:16 0600*–1900 (CT) 

*Part of operation opens at 

0700. 

NARS ................................................................................ 2,263,167 1:10 0700–1600* (Local Time to 

Veteran). 

*Expanding to 1900 in FY 

2008). 

Role of technology 

From a technology standpoint, there are three potential tracks that can be run 

in parallel and, to varying extents, are in use in VA already—online access to certain resources, state of the art call center technology and the strategic application 

of other communications technologies. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
942 

For many years, VA has had automation systems in place—primarily telephonic 

with voice menus—that allow our veterans the ability to perform certain functions, 

such as prescription refills and appointment cancellations, directly, at all hours and 

without the aid of live VA staff. With the veteran population being increasingly 

more comfortable with and adept at the use of e-commerce and self service via the 

Internet, more of those types of self service options could be provided online. Live 

customer service can also be provided interactively online. This would potentially 

improve flexibility in terms of the hours during which the veteran can access services. The shifting of some things to online self service can also, in some ways, improve how rapidly the response is to the veteran in some aspects of their care and 

benefits. 

For instances where the veteran wants or needs to speak directly to a live contact, 

call centers can be a very effective option. There are still staffing strategies and 

processes that must accompany the call centers in an effective way. Call center technologies and architectures decrease response times, lengthen the hours a veteran 

can access a representative, and improve system/employee flexibility. 

Routing of calls can be facilitated by various communication technologies. A modern architecture could include enterprise wide deployment of voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) and would be based on a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). This 

technology combined with a SOA will result in call volume to be more evenly and 

intelligently distributed over multiple call centers. For instance, if a veteran needs 

to speak to a specific individual or a subject matter expert, call routing technologies—including those linked to wireless networks—can be employed as can be 

‘‘unified communications’’ technologies to efficiently route messages for call back if 

appropriate. 

It must be stressed that technology can only facilitate the business processes and 

must still be accompanied by an effective quality management program and appropriate resources provided by the business owner to meet identified target metrics. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) answered over 17 million calls in FY 

2007. VBA calls are handled by our call centers, which are designed by business 

line. We have call centers for general benefits information and claims assistance; direct deposit of benefit payments; pension; various specialty missions; education; insurance; and the home loan guaranty program. Our general benefits call center handles the largest call volume, receiving approximately 11 million calls in FY 2007. 

VBA’s average waiting time to speak with a representative was 70 seconds in FY 

2007. In March 2008, our average waiting time was 18 seconds. 

Service hours on our general information and claims assistance telephone lines 

are being expanded to a 12-hour period from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. over the next few 

months. We are also expanding our call agent capabilities, while improving quality 

and efficiency of service, by acquiring current information technology for our call 

centers. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
943 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2095 42754D.014
944 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2096 42754D.015
945 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2097 42754D.016
946 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2098 42754D.017
(947) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

WITNESSES 

TINA W. JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) 

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I will call the subcommittee to order. 

Good afternoon to everyone. Secretary Arny, Secretary Jonas, 

welcome back. It is good to have you both here before the subcommittee again. Our hearing today is an overview of the fiscal 

year 2009 Department of Defense budget request. This year’s total 

request for military construction, family housing, BRAC, chemical 

demilitarization, and the NATO security investment program is 

$24.4 billion, an increase of 15 percent over last year’s request. 

Every year, we seem to be setting a new record for military construction. If current trends hold, we are in the middle of the longest sustained period of high military construction spending in U.S. 

history. In terms of constant dollars, the only period since World 

War II that rivals the present is the early 1950s, when the U.S. 

fought the Korean War and rearmed to contain the Soviet Union. 

The major initiatives, as we know, driving this spending are 

BRAC, growing the Army and Marine Corps by more than 100,000 

troops, and the biggest shift in the global posture of the armed 

forces in decades. There are numerous smaller factors driving more 

MILCON and family housing requirements in the foreseeable future. 

The requirements will be great, but as we are all aware there are 

growing pressures on the defense budget across the board. Military 

construction will be an increasingly tempting target for those who 

are looking for savings at the Pentagon in the coming years. We 

therefore need to ensure that the priorities are set and the initiatives do not outrun our ability to pay. 

Before I proceed, I would like to turn to our ranking member, 

Mr. Wamp, and give him whatever time he would like to make an 

opening statement. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if I tried to improve on your opening 

statement, I would surely say it. [Laughter.] 

Sometimes, you recognize me right out of the box, but I do agree 

with everything you just said, and I appreciate their service and 

their appearance before our subcommittee today. Any inquiries I 

have will come during the questions, but thank you both. I look forward to a good couple of hours. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
948 

Mr. EDWARDS. The witnesses today are no newcomers to this 

subcommittee, but for the record let me just say that the under secretary of Defense, the Comptroller, Tina Jonas, has been the Chief 

Financial Officer of Defense since July of 2004, but I bet it seems 

longer than that to you. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JONAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. She formerly served as Assistant Director and 

Chief Financial Officer of the FBI and as Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Financial Management. She is a former staff member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee from 1995 

to 2000. She is a graduate of Arizona State and Georgetown University. Again, welcome back. 

Ms. JONAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment is Mr. Wayne Arny, who was appointed 

to the current post in February of this year. Congratulations on 

that appointment and thank you for taking on that responsibility, 

as well as your past leadership. 

He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

for Installations and Facilities. He is a 1964 graduate of the Naval 

Academy and on active duty as a naval aviator until 1981. What 

kind of plane did you fly? 

Mr. ARNY. F–4s. 

Mr. EDWARDS. F–4s—a little faster than the TBYs my dad flew 

in World War II. 

He achieved the rank of commander and was a staff member of 

the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1981 to 1984. We will 

forgive him for having served on the other side of the Capitol. 

Mr. ARNY. It gave me balance. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is right. 

He was Program Associate Director for Financial Security and 

International Affairs at OMB from 1986 to 1989. And of great note, 

Secretary Arny has two sons, both serving as naval flight officers. 

We congratulate you and thank you for the kind of family that has 

made such a deep commitment to defend our country, Secretary 

Arny. 

It is great to have you both here. I would like to say that without 

objection, your full statements will be submitted for the record. We 

would like to recognize each of you to make an opening presentation of about 5 minutes, and then we will go into questions and 

answers. 

STATEMENT OF TINA JONAS

Ms. JONAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement, 

and I will submit it for the record. Mr. Arny has a lengthier statement for the record, so I will keep it brief. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the military construction component of 

President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of Defense. On behalf of the men and women of the department, both service members and civilians, I want to thank this 

committee for its continued support of America’s armed forces. We 

look forward to working with you to ensure that our military men 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
949 

and women have everything they need to carry out their vital mission. 

Mr. Chairman, the president’s base budget for defense in total is $515.4 billion in discretionary authority for fiscal year 2009. That 

is an increase of $35.9 billion or 7.5 percent over the enacted level 

for fiscal year 2008. Taking inflation into account, the real growth 

in this request is 5.4 percent, so we are very well pleased with that 

in the department. 

The base budget sustains the president’s commitment to ensure 

a high state of readiness and ground force strength; enhance the 

combat capabilities of the U.S. armed forces; continue the development and implementation of capabilities to maintain U.S. superiority against future threats; and continue the department’s strong 

support for service members and their families. 

The military construction portion of that request, which supports those strategic objectives, is $21.2 billion, an increase of $3.4 billion 

or approximately 19 percent over the prior year. It funds the department’s most pressing priorities and facilities requirements, including new construction, replacement of troop housing, and facilities to support the increase of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over a 

5-year period. Also included in that amount is $9.1 billion to implement the 

Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, 2005 Commission recommendations. This is the peak year for investment in BRAC, and 

these funds are critical if we are to successfully complete those 

projects by the deadline of 2011. We are also looking forward to 

reaping the savings from the anticipated BRAC, but we can’t realize these savings unless we are able to be successful in defense appropriations. In addition to the $21.2 billion needed for facilities, the depart- ment is also requesting $3.2 billion for family housing. This funding is vital for quality of life programs and will enable the department to privatize an additional 12,324 units and to eliminate inadequate housing units overseas. The requested amount is approximately $300 million or just over 10 percent higher than the prior 

year. A big portion of that is the grow-the-force initiative that we 

are pursuing. 

So on behalf of the department and the men and women of the 

armed services, I want to thank the committee for letting us appear here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Tina Jonas follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
950 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2106 42754D.018
951 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2107 42754D.019
952 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2108 42754D.020
953 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Secretary Jonas. 

Secretary Arny. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY

Mr. ARNY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I am very proud of my 

two sons, and the mother of those two sons is here today. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I will say this and have said it repeatedly, I consider military spouses to be—and moms and dads—to be 

the unsung heroes and heroines of our nation’s defense. We are 

honored to have you here today. 

Mr. ARNY. And her friend Allison Lewis, whose husband served 

with me. His son is a Marine pilot serving. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It is great to have you both here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ARNY. Chairman Edwards and Congressman Wamp, thank 

you, and distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure 

to join my long-time friend and now colleague in my new position, 

Tina Jonas, to testify before you on the MILCON budget. 

As you said, I have submitted formal testimony for the record, 

but I would like to make just a couple of short remarks, and then 

answer a couple of questions that you all have raised in the meetings we had. 

To recap our request, we believe, as I know you do, that military 

installations are the foundation of our entire military program. 

Without the installations, with their basing, admin, maintenance 

and repair facilities, our combat forces could not operate; without 

the housing, entertainment, personnel support facilities on and 

around those bases, our military members and their families would 

not have the quality of life we believe they deserve. 

For the MILCON bases, we are continuing to recalibrate our 

bases overseas and in the U.S. through global basing and BRAC. 

In the budget, we requested $9.2 billion for BRAC 2005 implementation and $393.4 million for prior BRAC cleanup efforts. This represents $1.1 billion more than our 2008 request. I need to note that 

this $9.2 billion assumes that the $939 million cut to last year’s appropriations is restored. I am asking you all to help us with that. 

We have talked about that before. We believe that if it is not restored, it will be extremely difficult to meet the September 15, 2011 

statutory BRAC deadline. 

For recap, sustainment and modernization, we have higher requests in this year’s budget than last. I know that no one likes our 

recap metric, including me, but it is better than nothing, which is 

what we had before. We are working with the services to introduce 

a far better one for the fiscal year 2010 program. 

Our housing and MILCON programs are higher this year than 

last, as you mentioned, and the Navy in particular is leading the 

way on bachelor housing privatization. All of these programs and 

others are discussed in much greater depth. 

Let me try to answer two of the questions that, Mr. Chairman, 

you and Congressman Wamp asked during my courtesy calls. One 

is the $50,000 level and the other is on joint basing. 

With regard to housing, the Chairman asked me why we used the metric of $50,000 as a measure of adequacy or inadequacy of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
954 

our housing. I have to admit that I have been using it for the past 

6 years, and have thought about it much myself, but I couldn’t give 

him a good explanation. So I went back and tried to learn more 

about it and where it comes from, what it tells us, and what needs 

to be changed. 

First, part of the confusion I think both he and I labored under 

is that the level of inadequacy is not intended to measure the state 

of repair of housing. It is a measure of whether the house is adequate enough to fulfill what we believe is a service member’s need 

for a home. 

As examples, a member may be living in a house that is ade- quate, but is in disrepair. Indeed, it may have over $50,000 in repair needs—we hope not, but it might—but that house is still adequate. We just need to repair it. But a member can be living in a 

house that is in wonderful repair, with good carpet, roof, appliances 

et cetera, but it is inadequate because it is not big enough or 

doesn’t have enough bathrooms or has no garage, et cetera, or 

other things that we believe are standards for our service members 

today. 

So you could have a two-bedroom, one-bath house that is in beautiful condition, but it is not adequate because we have determined 

that under today’s standards, gearing mostly toward enlisted members with families, that a two-bedroom, one-bath is not adequate to 

fulfill today’s needs, but it may be in great shape. 

Consequently, the level of adequacy is used to determine if a 

home should be upgraded or replaced. As I found out, each of the 

three services do measure it differently, but OSD chose not to meddle with the culture and try and make them do the same. They do 

all use an engineering basis. 

In the end, we did adopt what is now a congressional reporting threshold of $50,000 as a yardstick. Let me explain it. The services 

use an engineering base standard to measure the condition of housing. The Army has what it calls the ISR, Installation Status Report. You go through the house and measure all sorts of conditions, 

including the neighborhood and supporting facilities. Then they 

rate it red, green or yellow. If is it red, it is inadequate. 

The Air Force has a five-point housing community profile. They 

go through the houses, assess, add points up, and if the score is 

3.75 or lower, under their standard it becomes inadequate. The 

Navy goes through its homes and does the same sort of process. I 

think the $50,000 is, for instance, like I said, you have a two-bedroom and one-bath house, and you say, okay, three bedrooms and 

two baths is standard. It needs a garage, and it doesn’t have a garage. 

So if it would cost more than $50,000 to add another bedroom, 

add another bathroom, then it is not adequate by that standard. It 

may be perfectly habitable, but it is not adequate. And then if you 

come up and you say it is less than $50,000—say you have room 

in there. It is a four-bedroom, one-bath, and for less than $50,000 

I could add a bathroom, and get rid of a bedroom, then you would 

do it under repair O&M and that would then become adequate. So 

it is a measure of am I going to renovate it or replace it. 

Now, as to whether we need to change the metric, I think probably we don’t. The services all understand it. Plus that fact, as we 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
955 

have talked about, in case of domestic housing in the continental 

U.S., we will be down to almost zero, and the market under 

privatized housing will drive whether the homes are adequate or 

not. If the houses are inadequate and there is other housing out 

in the community, the members will have a choice and they will 

make that choice for us. 

For the housing that we still do own in the U.S. and overseas, 

as you can see in this year’s budget, still using those measures, we 

have put in money to renovate or replace inadequate housing. So 

I think the measure, while I think it is sometimes difficult to explain, has worked and we have reached our goal. 

In the course of my conversation with Congressman Wamp, he 

asked where we were with regard to joint basing, and Congressman Edwards asked this as well. I am very happy to report that 

we have made tremendous progress. In January, Deputy Secretary 

England signed the Joint Basing Implementation Guidance, and 

since then we have been meeting on a weekly basis at my level, 

and weekly or greater at the working group level. 

The key to joint basing is that all four services are agreeing for 

the first time to a given level of service output for 49 different support functions across a base. The 49 functions are further broken 

down into over 200 measurable performance standards. We have 

never done this before. Individual services over the past 10 years 

have come to realize that they need to measure these things, especially if we are going to better utilize the funding that the Congress 

and the taxpayers give us. Now, we are trying to do it across the 

whole department. 

We have agreement on every one of the standards at the working 

level and at my level, and we are staffing it up to the most senior 

levels of the services at DOD now. At every joint base, the real 

property and funding for the installation facility will transfer to the 

lead service, who is called the supporting component and who will 

have the joint base command. 

At Pearl Harbor-Hickham, the joint base commander will be a 

naval officer, and all the property at Hickham will transfer to the 

Navy. That service will then be responsible for the maintenance, 

repair and replacement over time of all those facilities to the standard we have all agreed to. 

If the follow-on service or the supporting component brings a new 

mission onto that base—for instance, if the Air Force at Hickham 

decides they are bringing a new squadron and there is not a facility 

on base to house that squadron, then it is their responsibility to 

put the MILCON in their budget to build the hangar or admin or 

whatever is needed. Then, when it is complete, it then is turned 

over to the Navy and the Navy will maintain and repair it for the 

rest of its life. 

Now, the one issue that is probably the one final issue that we 

overcame this week was airfield operations. To the Army, Navy 

and Marine Corps, airfield operations have always been installation functions. The naval aviator, you know, as long as there was 

a runway there and somebody took care of the fuel—I was never 

an air wing commander, but the air wing commander, that was 

done by the base. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
956 

The Air Force is different. We acknowledge the difference. In the 

Air Force, the wing commander runs the airfield operations. So 

what we decided, in the joint base where the Air Force is in the 

lead, like at McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, the Navy and the Army will 

turn over airfield ops to the Air Force. Where the issue rose was 

where the Air Force was the supportive component, to them airfield 

operations is a mission requirement, and their wing commander 

has to do that. 

So for the three bases where the Air Force is the follow-on, the 

supportive component, and that is Guam, Pearl Harbor-Hickham, 

and Lewis-McChord, what we have agreed to is that they will retain airfield ops. They will transfer real property and budget TOA 

to the lead service, the supporting components, for all of the physical facility, all the real property. That will all transfer. But the operations of airfield ops will be under the Air Force wing commander, and he will integrate with the joint base commander. We 

have worked it out. If there is an emergency on the field, the joint 

base commander is in charge, and they work together. So we have 

worked out that linkage. 

We have made tremendous progress, and we are rolling this out. 

It is going to roll out next week to the Vice Chiefs, the senior members of the service. We have a VTC to all the base commanders in 

the next week or two. At the end of June, we are going out to Congressman Dicks’s neighborhood. We are going to have a joint base 

conference at Lewis-McChord. 

Mr. DICKS. Good. I think that is really important. There has been 

a lot of consternation about this. 

Mr. ARNY. We decided to take down the iron curtain between us. 

Mr. DICKS. That is good. I think it is terrific. 

Mr. ARNY. And they have the facilities. 

So with that, I hope it helps answer your two questions, and 

thank you for your patience. We are ready for questions. 

[Prepared statement of Wayne Arny follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
957 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2118 here 42754D.021
958 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2119 here 42754D.022
959 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2120 here 42754D.023
960 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2121 here 42754D.024
961 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2122 here 42754D.025
962 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2123 here 42754D.026
963 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2124 here 42754D.027
964 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2125 here 42754D.028
965 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2126 here 42754D.029
966 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2127 here 42754D.030
967 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2128 here 42754D.031
968 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2129 here 42754D.032
969 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2130 here 42754D.033
970 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2131 here 42754D.034
971 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2132 here 42754D.035
972 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2133 here 42754D.036
973 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2134 here 42754D.037
974 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2135 here 42754D.038
975 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2136 here 42754D.039
976 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2137 here 42754D.040
977 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2138 here 42754D.041
978 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2139 here 42754D.042
979 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2140 here 42754D.043
980 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2141 here 42754D.044
981 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2142 here 42754D.045
982 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2143 here 42754D.046
983 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2144 here 42754D.047
984 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2145 here 42754D.048
985 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2146 here 42754D.049
986 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2147 here 42754D.050
987 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2148 here 42754D.051
988 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2149 here 42754D.052
989 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2150 here 42754D.053
990 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2151 here 42754D.054
991 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2152 here 42754D.055
992 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2153 here 42754D.056
993 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Thank you both for your testimony. Let me express apologies to 

everyone for my coughing. I don’t know if it is the cherry blossoms 

or what, but something is going on. 

We have so many members here and this is important testimony 

today. What I would like to do, other than the ranking member, 

who I would like to give as much time as he wants—and I am 

going to recognize Mr. Wamp to start out with questions—what I 

am going to do is just rap the gavel once when we hit 5 minutes, 

and then if you are in the middle of an answer, if you would try 

to wrap it up within 30 seconds or so, please do that. I will rap 

twice when we need to cut it off. That way, we hopefully will do 

two or three rounds of questions. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me kind of make an announcement. We have a very well-attended hearing today. People must have found out that our witnesses were just really stellar today. We even have two cardinals 

sitting at the table. But Mrs. Granger is out, and I wanted to, as 

the ranking Republican member, say that she had successful surgery over the break. She will be out for a couple of weeks, but I 

wanted to let the full subcommittee know that we are all thinking 

of her, and in her absence here today, lift her name up. We will 

all be sensitive to that until she returns. 

I also welcome Mrs. Arny—Sydney—that is my favorite city in 

the world, an excellent name. Secretary Arny, you did give in my 

office the best explanation of joint basing that I have heard, and 

I appreciate you reiterating some of that today, because there was 

some consternation. However, you pulled it all together. There 

shouldn’t be so much consternation, particularly at Hickham-Pearl 

Harbor Base, which I have been to twice, and I understand the Air 

Force is concerned. But under this arrangement, they really 

shouldn’t have that concern because the flight ops and all will continue. 

Chairman Dicks, it is always an honor to be in your presence, 

sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. WAMP. This is my first MILCON subcommittee hearing that 

you have been able to come to because of your other responsibilities. I just wanted to make that point. I have been sucking up to 

him for a long time. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. You were right. Ms. Jonas and Mr. Arny, they are 

stellar witnesses and long-time friends. 

Mr. WAMP. And with the chairman here, now we do have the 

most well-attended subcommittee meeting of the year. The chairman has been so good to me, that I will go as far as to say, with 

tongue in cheek, that I hope in the near future that a story to come 

out of this subcommittee is that Chet and Zach helped to get BRAC 

back on track. [Laughter.] 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

And with that said, Secretary Arny, when you talked about 

BRAC, I think you could even further and say it would be extremely difficult to meet the September 15, 2011 date. The truth 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
994 

is, you just plainly are not going to meet it without this money. 

That is probably the way we should report that. And then, what 

are the problems if in this fiscal year, we don’t get some money to 

BRAC that wasn’t there, it is like a domino effect, is it not? 

Mr. ARNY. It is. I will never say we won’t make it, because we 

have tried to look back, and as a service member myself, if you tell 

me what the time of the target it, I am going to be there. So if you 

tell them to finish, they will finish, and they will get there. It may 

not be pretty getting there. That is the problem. Being part of the 

culture myself, it is hard to measure that because they will never 

say never, and they will be out there at midnight working on the 

building to make sure it is ready to open. 

Mr. WAMP. So much good came out of the 2008 bill, and the baseline already. The veterans are so much better off. There is so much 

to be grateful for, but if we can get this money back where it belongs, then the mission will be complete. I am grateful that the 

chairman thinks the same way that we do on this issue. 

AFRICOM

Either of all can answer this question. I heard at another briefing yesterday on the Hill, General Zinni—who I don’t agree with 

everything he says, but he has some interesting input—said that 

Iraq would have been much better for us had AFRICOM been set 

up prior to Iraq, which is a fascinating kind of analysis from a guy 

who has not been very supportive of Iraq. 

We had General Ward here yesterday, and the chairman and I 

yesterday with General Casey, we were just telling him how swept 

away—well, I was, anyway—with this whole new AFRICOM mission, even though I know we have to be careful as we go into any 

kind of perceived presence permanently in Africa. It is just a forward station there. But what is your perspective on AFRICOM and 

the development and the flow of funds, from a business standpoint, 

what it really means to our unified command? 

Ms. JONAS. Mr. Wamp, if I can just start, and I will let my colleague talk to the concerns relative to the potential construction, 

I think as the secretary has laid out on many occasions—and I did 

not hear General Zinni’s comments yesterday—but this is an important area of the world. We have concluded over the last several 

years that we need to have as a department a more active and 

positive engagement with the continent. 

I am not the policy expert here, but I do know that it is very important to the secretary. I know it is high on the chairman of the 

Joint Chief’s mind. Kip Ward, who is the new commander there, 

is an extremely competent Army general. I think he will do a terrific job. 

In our shop and in Wayne’s shop, what we are doing is trying 

to make sure that they have the resources that they need to be successful. I think with the Congress’s help and understanding, we 

will support this and get this underway and I think it will make 

a big difference for our positive engagement in that area of the 

world. 

Mr. WAMP. Secretary Arny, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. ARNY. Yes, sir, I do, actually. I will say that I can’t say that 

General Zinni is wrong. I was working for Senator Tower back in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
995 

the early 1980s on the SASC, when we helped create CENTCOM. 

So I understand a little bit about what we are trying to do. It 

would have been better, and that is going back and saying you can 

change history, because back then PACOM thought that they could 

handle all of CENTOM as well. Congress disagreed and you ended 

up with CENTCOM. 

My older son was the aid to the lieutenant commander, General 

Wald, when he was deputy EUCOM for 11⁄2 years or 2 years. They 

were—just listening to my son talk about it, the importance of the 

region opened my eyes as to what needed to be done. I think from 

an installation point, we are moving very slowly—I won’t say slowly. We are doing it cautiously and with due regard for the sensitivity of the people in the region, to establish a presence to be able 

to assist. We are not there to build huge bases and all the rest of 

it. We are working with our colleagues at the State Department 

and other agencies to establish a presence and go one step at a 

time to make sure that we are doing it right. 

I think ordinarily people say, well, why not base it out of 

EUCOM? Given that my son was stationed at EUCOM and the 

deputy EUCOM was probably the most active in the African region. Jim Jones is a good friend, and he would talk about it as well, 

too. He and Chuck Wald were very close on this issue and understood the importance of it before many other people did. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve until the next round. 

Thank you. 

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you about construction inflation. It is 

a serious challenge. It is not the fault of the DOD or any federal 

agency, but it is a reality. I think it is important we use real numbers, particularly in putting together the out-year numbers. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs used an inflation rate for 

construction of between 12 percent and 17 percent for their fiscal 

year 2009 budget. If I am correct, the Department of Defense used 

a 2 percent inflation factor. I am not sure if anyone in the construction industry would take that 2 percent inflation factor seriously. 

The record would show that from 2003 to 2008, while OMB was 

dictating a 15 percent cumulative inflation factor for defense construction, the Associated General Contractors’ more accurate inflation rate is double that. 

If we are not using realistic inflation factors, we are undercutting 

future military construction projects or under-estimating the budgets required to accurately fund them. Can either one of you address 

whether you think 2 percent is an accurate projection of construction inflation for this coming fiscal year? If not, do you have any 

kind of real flexibility to adjust it more realistically and use more 

realistic numbers? 

Mr. ARNY. As you and I have discussed in the past, when I 

worked on the Navy staff, we faced this 3 or 4 or 5 years ago. What 

I realized is that from the period from 5 years ago to 15 years 

ago—that 10-year period—the issue probably never came up because the market was always getting better. Prices were going 

down. So if we estimated the project would be $10, it would come 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
996 

in at $9 or $9.50. So we always had a little extra money to play 

with. 

Right about the time we started to do BRAC, around 2005, which 

meant we started to bring in more—we got hit with a couple of 

hurricanes in the southeast. We in the Navy understood that inflation was going up. When we look at MILCON, it is very important 

to us. When I did CPAC with the SASC, I sat next to the MILCON 

guy. I was pushing $3 billion ships down the hallway one after another, and no senator ever came to see me. But the MILCON guy 

sat next to him, and I would watch powerful chairmen walk in begging for a $3 million project. And I didn’t quite understand it. 

Mr. DICKS. Chet understands that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ARNY. So to put it in perspective, while it is very important 

to us, MILCON is still a very small portion of what the defense 

budget is. Again, having spent 31⁄2 years at OMB—and I had all 

of defense, and MILCON never bubbled up to my level as a PAD— 

so while it is important to us, it was not as important to them. 

It wasn’t until we started to get hit with overruns and having to 

come up to you on it seemed like a monthly basis with cost overruns, some of which were self-imposed, some of which we had to 

go back with NAVFAC and sit down and tell the engineers to go 

start being engineers again, because they were just using models. 

They weren’t going out and sinking enough holes in the ground to 

find that there were rocks and stuff there that they didn’t know 

about. That is one portion of it. 

But you are right. Construction inflation in the country is varied. 

At first, I thought it was the Facilities Pricing Guide which mandated certain inflation rates. What I have discovered is that that 

isn’t the problem. We are allowed to use parametric measures. We 

are allowed to go down and design these buildings parametrically, 

go out and see what other buildings in the area are going for. 

So absent the BRAC problem, when a building gets to you, or 

gets close to you in the budget, it should be fairly close. We can 

do a better job of making it closer, but where we really get hammered is in the time that we lock that design down until it finally 

gets passed. That is where the construction inflation hurts us. 

What we discovered in our testing is it isn’t nationwide. It is areawide. It is regional. 

We had the famous LAPZIG, the storage facility in the northwest. We discovered, much to our amazement, inflation in the Seattle area was 15 percent a year. Most people blame it on the Vancouver Olympics. So we have gone to OMB to ask them to work 

with us—and I have started to work with the OMB comptroller— 

and let us all agree on some standard. A state standard I think is 

probably where we will come up, because the states do much more 

military construction than we do, and they do keep track of it. It 

will never be perfect. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But it could be better. 

Mr. ARNY. Much better. And I would hope at some point, every 

6 months or every year, we could come to you while you have the 

budget and update it. When it comes to the Navy and OSD Headquarters, we update it then. When it goes to OMB, we update it 

there. When it goes to the Congress, we update it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
997 

Also, the other problem is, on the down, like in that period from 

5 years to 15 years ago, while it made it easier on the engineers, 

and we didn’t see any problems, we were leaving money on the 

table. We were not building things we could have built because we 

were over-pricing projects when they got to you. So we want to do it on both ends so that if the $10 project, when the construction engineer opens the bids, it is a $10 bid. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think OMB will come up with an agreement by the end of this calendar year? 

Mr. ARNY. I will try. They want to. It is a matter of timing. Do 

we have the time to do it? Because they understand now. There are 

no MILCON people over there. So again, I have worked with them. 

Some of the folks I have worked with are still there. They now understand. We are not coming over to rob the Treasury. We are coming over to make sure that each project that goes through is right. 

Because the other problem on funding on a project, what I found, 

is the engineers rather than coming to me and saying, okay, Mr. 

Arny, that $10 project, I need $12 for it. I say, what happened to 

the $10 project? I built it. Well, the guy just complained it is an 

$8 building. Well, I had to shrink it. So they will reduce scope. 

They will take things away. If we have a requirement for a building of this size, and it costs $10, and it is going to cost $12, we better come up with the $12. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. If you could report back to us at say midJuly and end of the year where we are? It would be nice to be basing these projects on realistic numbers and inflation. 

Ms. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, I will lend my full 

support to trying to get OMB to give us a more favorable factor 

here. As we have discussed before, this isn’t the only area where 

we have difficulty, particularly if we are beginning to execute a 

budget. Fuel is the most difficult one for us now. In fact, we are 

far from where we budgeted. Thus, it is not unusual that we would 

have differences when we actually execute a budget. I commit to 

making sure that I am fully behind that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

We are now going to recognize members in the order in which 

they were here when we started, based on seniority if they were 

here when we gaveled the meeting open. 

Mr. Bishop. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome our witnesses today. 

Last year, we provided $500 million in BRAC money for Fort 

Benning. Can you talk about the projects for which those funds 

were spent, and whether or not all of the funding is committed to 

the various projects under that BRAC appropriation from last year? 

Mr. ARNY. Sir, I am brand new. If it were a naval air station—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ARNY [continuing]. I might be able to answer your question. 

We will have to get back to you. I know the Army is better than 

the Navy on executing their budget, so I suspect that everything 

they put in is obligated, but I will get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
998 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2166 42754D.057
999 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. ARNY. And you do need a coastline. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Can you also get back to us with the BRAC offsets? 

What, in fact is the BRAC plan providing for the cost savings with 

regard to BRAC? In other words, have you been able to determine 

if there are cost savings as a result of the process so far in the 

BRAC? Do you have a priority list for the BRAC? 

Mr. ARNY. On savings, we can give you specifics on the savings, 

but those savings are rolled back into our general budget to offset 

other things. So we aren’t putting them against specific projects. 

Mr. BISHOP. I guess overall looking forward, just for the committee’s sake, we would like to have a sense of how BRAC is going to 

be cost-effective in the long run as we spend the taxpayers’ dollars. 

Mr. ARNY. We can get you the specifics on that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department acknowledges that BRAC 2005 implementation will generate significant savings. As reflected in the FY 2009 President’s Budget justification material submitted in February 2008, the Department estimates that implementation of 

the BRAC 2005 recommendations would generate approximately $15 billion in total 

savings through the fiscal year 2006–2011 implementation period. Additionally, the 

BRAC 2005 recommendations could generate approximately $4 billion in annual recurring savings beyond the implementation period. 

Because of the challenges associated with implementing many complex recommendations, the Department initiated a process to develop business plans that 

establish the requisite actions, timing of those actions, and the costs and savings 

associated with implementing each recommendation. Each plan contains its own priority of actions to ensure all actions are accomplished by the statutory completion 

date of September 15, 2011. The Department reviews each plan twice annually to 

ensure that it is in compliance with the BRAC law. Each of those reviews provides 

an opportunity to direct corrective action. Additionally, the OSD Office of the General Counsel is a key player in reviewing these plans to ensure that they are legally 

sufficient and to verify that the Department is meeting its legal obligations. 

Mr. BISHOP. The other thing, we had a raids from ICE, the U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at Fort Benning of illegal 

workers. I was just wondering whether or not other installations 

have experienced those kinds of raids from ICE also? 

Mr. ARNY. I have not had that pop up on my radar screen, but 

I could ask about it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You are not encouraging them, are you? 

Mr. BISHOP. No. I was just wondering. We were a little bit surprised and concerned. We didn’t want any delays, and of course I 

am sure others wouldn’t want more delays either. But we did have 

some unexpected visitors. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is really important that we get better 

credentialing on these bases for those who are doing contracting, 

because the subcontractors of the contractors on these bases are 

often hiring those who are undocumented workers to do the work 

on these bases. We have found that out in my state, and we identified undocumented workers who were working on our base. I am 

not surprised to hear that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. I was just wondering if you could perhaps 

look and see whether or not that is a frequent occurrence across 

your construction projects. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1000 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I think that there 

is record attendance today because you have a smart woman with 

a lot of money, and a man in charge of all DOD real estate, with 

all the appropriators. [Laughter.] 

It is a perfect storm of financial interests. 

DIRECTIVE 3005

I have two questions. I want to get into the BRAC issues, but 

first I want to say a passion that I have, and Mr. Wamp mentioned 

it, is a directive was issued by the department, Directive 3005, 

which essentially structures what DOD’s programs and mission requirements have established to be prepared for language and area 

studies and all of that. The question is, who has the primary responsibility for implementation of that directive? 

Ms. JONAS. Mr. Farr, I believe that is under Dr. David Chu, who 

is the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. 

Mr. FARR. So it sits at OSD? 

Ms. JONAS. Yes, I believe so. 

Mr. FARR. On the joint staff or combatant command? 

Ms. JONAS. It may be. I will have to check for the record, sir. My 

staff is telling me this. 

Mr. FARR. So it is in OSD? 

Ms. JONAS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. A recent Washington Post article highlighted 

the challenges of getting interagency cooperation for stabilization 

and reconstruction. The House just passed, a week or so ago, H.R. 

1084, which is legislation I authored to create a reserve corp for 

first responders in the State Department, USAID. I am told that 

General Petraeus actually called on that bill to try to get it moving 

in the Senate. I am very appreciative of that. 

I think that the Department of Defense really understands what 

is at stake here. I am very supportive of it. But I am also distressed because I am hearing that there are new directives being 

drafted that essentially replaces the stability operations with irregular warfare. Is that true? 

Ms. JONAS. I will have to take a look at that. I don’t know that 

for sure. I know that the general concept, as the secretary has stated, is soft power is very important and stabilization is absolutely 

critical. We have to engage, and continue to engage, with our interagency partners in engaging around the world. But I am not familiar with the specific there. My understanding would be this is an 

issue for the Under Secretary for Policy. 

Mr. FARR. What I am concerned about here is a conflict of directives, from stability ops to irregular warfare, and then replacing 

stability ops? How does this affect the management and does it 

contradict the testimony of the secretary? It is just very peculiar 

and I would like you to get back to me. 

Ms. JONAS. Yes, I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Farr. 

[The information follows:] 

The development of a new directive for Irregular warfare (IW) is not intended to 

replace existing guidance for Stability Operations. Rather, IW policies are intended 

to augment existing policies in order to enhance capabilities. Irregular warfare will 

likely be the dominant form of conflict for the foreseeable future. Both special operVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01000 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1001 

ations and general purpose forces must increase their capabilities for key IW mission sets. To that end, the IW directive will reinforce the QDR’s conclusion that IW 

is as important as traditional warfare, or warfare between the armed forces of adversary states. It will direct the DoD Components to develop capabilities for 

counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, and stability operations—which share common requirements, like cross-cultural communications and language skills, enhanced intelligence through the use of 

social science expertise, use of indirect approaches, etc.—with the same priority 

given to the development of capabilities for major combat operations. 

We’re incorporating the core capabilities and principles from DoDD 3000.05 into 

the new directive. However, we’re expanding its aperture by adding policies to coordinate capability development across a wider range of operational environments— 

permissive, contested, and denied—to help the Department maintain readiness for 

a broader range of contingencies. This approach will facilitate more efficient use of 

DoD resources for training and educating personnel, and in identifying and fielding 

required capabilities. 

We believe that revising DoD policy for capability development will have no adverse impact on interagency unity of effort. Rather, our efforts to streamline internal DoD processes and capability development will enhance our ability to support 

whole-of-government efforts with improved capabilities and enhanced joint force capacity. The policies set under various authorities, such as NSPD–44, will continue 

to provide the framework by which interagency operations will be conducted. 

Mr. FARR. The Naval Postgraduate School that I represent in 

Monterey was recently designated by OSD as the Global Center for 

Security Cooperation. DOD has recognized a requirement to assist 

the House Democracy Assistance Commission. It is a bipartisan 

House organization dedicated to developing member-to-member 

partnerships in emerging democratic legislatures, essentially legislators and parliamentarians. 

GLOBAL CENTER FOR SECURITY COOPERATION

By tasking the Security Cooperation to support the HDAC, and 

we are trying to work with DOD on this, and the Naval Postgraduate School, I would like to know including how DOD can provide funding to support HDAC thru the DOD Global Center for Security Cooperation, or as the Civil-military Affairs Center at the 

Naval Postgraduate School. 

Ms. JONAS. I would be happy to talk about it. I believe Ryan 

Henry would be involved with that in policy, so I have not had a 

conversation with him on this topic, but I would be delighted to do 

that. I know it is an important topic. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, we see some directives here and responsibilities, 

but no sign of where the money is coming from. 

Ms. JONAS. I would be happy to do that. Obviously, if it is important to the department, and it is an important priority for you, we 

will make sure that we look into that and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Thank you for your continuing support of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) 

international education programs. As you know, Mr. Ryan Henry and his staff 

worked with the House Democracy Assistance Commission (HDAC) last year to 

identify opportunities for the DoD international partner education institutions to 

support HDAC activities. 

As a result, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) is partnering 

with HDAC to strengthen democratic governance of the security sector in Indonesia 

and Mongolia. A dozen parliamentarians from those countries will convene at the 

APCSS in Hawaii on April 23; will discuss governance issues presented by the 

APCSS staff; and will travel to Washington, D.C., through May 1, to meet with 

members of Congress and their staffs to gain first-hand insights into the U.S. system. A similar event is planned for mid-June by the Near East-South Asia Center 

for Strategic Studies (NESA), hosting parliamentarians from Afghanistan. FY 2009 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1002 

funding support will be determined after a review of those two current efforts. That 

assessment will be coordinated with the HDAC. 

At the April 2nd hearing of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies subcommittee, you expressed an interest in how DoD could provide 

funding for HDAC support to the DoD Global Center for Security Cooperation such 

as that provided in the military-civil affairs programs at the Naval Postgraduate 

School (NPS). Based on your concern, the Global Center for Security Cooperation 

is helping OSD identify opportunities where NPS can integrate its cabilities into 

DoD support to HDAC. 

The Administration greatly appreciates your backing of these key efforts, and I 

look forward to working with you in the future. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Arny, congratulations on your appointment. You 

are stepping into big shoes. You know, your predecessor worked for 

us, so he was an inside family member that went over to DOD, so 

you are following in big footsteps. 

Mr. ARNY. I was going to say, when I went to work for the Senate, I had come right out of the Navy and I went over there, and 

I had to be led down to the floor the first time. So then after a couple of months, I went over and took one peek at the House floor 

and I thought as crazy as the Senate was, it was saner, and I went 

back and I didn’t come back until this Congress. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. We understand. 

Mr. Dicks, and then after Mr. Dicks will be Mr. Carter. 

JOINT BASING

Mr. DICKS. We are glad to have both of you here today. Secretary 

Arny, going back to this joint basing, is there going to be kind of 

a model? Or are you going to do each one of these a little differently? How is it going to work in terms of, the airfield operations 

for example? How did you work that out? 

Mr. ARNY. The actual runway and all that real property—land, 

concrete, the hangars—everything that is real property goes to the 

supporting component. So in the case of Lewis-McChord, just to 

pick a base—— 

Mr. DICKS. Just to pick one. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ARNY [continuing]. It just came to mind. That would all go 

under Army. The airfield operations—the operation of the people 

and the equipment there, that would be under the mission commander. 

Mr. DICKS. How did you work that out? It makes sense to me. 

I think that’s good. 

Mr. ARNY. The key splitter on that is, is it installation or is it 

mission? For instance, in the Army and Marine Corps installations 

in particular, right off the bat, ranges don’t transfer to the installation because the ranges are run in the Army and the Marine Corps 

by the mission commander, not by the installation. Remember, this 

isn’t a service thing. Is the installation commander doing it or is 

the mission commander doing it? 

Mr. DICKS. I have you. 

Mr. ARNY. Okay? And so that was the key difference. And with 

the Air Force, while I might disagree with that philosophy—I come 

from a different culture where like I said, as long as the concrete 

was there and I could find somebody to fuel me, I didn’t care 

whether they worked for me or worked for somebody else, because 

what I performed in my squadron, we would go aboard a ship. And 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1003 

guess what? They would fuel me there and they would take care 

of me and they would feed me, so I didn’t worry about it. 

So when the Air Force deploys, they deploy as the whole group. 

They don’t just deploy as a squadron. So they have a training mission within their fuelers that is integral to the operation of that 

wing, that isn’t in the Navy or the Marine Corps. That is not integral to the Marine Corps air wing or a Navy air wing. Same with 

the Army. 

So once we understood it, it took a lot of sitting down and talking. We spend our time on our own problems telling each other. So 

I think it has worked out very well. 

Mr. DICKS. So do you see this problem now going away? I mean, 

there is still a question, as you and I discussed privately, that the 

Air Force has been resisting this when they were not the lead entity. 

Mr. ARNY. I am shocked and appalled. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. Yes. 

Mr. ARNY. But again, when the Secretary made his decision in 

January to transfer two (INAUDIBLE) properties to the supporting 

component, they jumped onboard then. The engineers understood 

it, and the operators are starting to understand it. But then we 

had this one glitch—and they have been active in all of our working groups in working at it. Air Force wasn’t the only one. We had 

security people in. We had the chaplains who wanted to opt out for 

various sundry reasons I won’t go into here. 

But we have gotten them all on board. That is why in our rollout 

in the units we are going to have VTC with the base commanders 

in the next couple of weeks. At the end of June, we are going to 

have all the base commanders and the supported component commanders at one location in which they will start to put their memoranda. 

Now, each phase will now start to put together a memorandum 

of agreement between the supporting and the supported components. We are going to bang them out. There are going to be other 

bridges to cross, but these are the big ones, and once we get the 

framework in place, we will publish the JBIG. We are going to publish supplemental guidance to all the commands. And then a MOA, 

memorandum of agreement template, will go out, and then any 

variances. 

So we still have a lot of work to do, but I think the initial hurdles, we have crossed them. 

Mr. DICKS. So what is your objective date to get this accomplished? 

Mr. ARNY. Off the top of my head, we want the signed MOAs this 

fall, with an IOC 6 months later of spring of 2009 for the phase 

one bases. Right now, we have five bases in phase one and seven 

in phase two, and we are discussing that. Lewis-McChord is more 

complex. That is in phase two. 

Let me back step. Everybody starts working on their MOA next 

month, when we get it out. Everybody starts working on it together. Five of the bases have to be done by spring of next year, 

and the other seven in the spring of the following year. So the FOC 

is 6 months, so October 1 of 2009 is FOC for the first five, and October 1, 2010 is the FOC for the last. That is the plan. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1004 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Carter. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for being here today. I am trying to find some 

missing soldiers that we are looking for in my district. So I have 

been looking at some confusion that I don’t understand. Back in 

BRAC, it seemed to be the indication that we were going to reduce 

the force in Germany by two first AV brigades, and send them to 

Fort Bliss, Texas. That is what were told under the BRAC. 

The Army has now delayed this movement to 2012 at least, but 

we have already spent significant money to bring this BRAC transfer into Fort Bliss. Now, we are going to be spending Global Force 

money to prepare for the arrival of two new VCTs announced for 

Bliss. 

If the goal of BRAC is to reduce the force in Europe, has the decision been made to change that? And now we are talking about two 

new VCTs? Or does this delay and the construction that has already been there, how does that affect the MILCON budget? 

It seems like we are spending this money twice for two different 

outfits, or two different sets of brigades. I am wondering about 

some numbers at my base, so I am always looking for missing soldiers. So I want to find out what is going on. 

Mr. ARNY. So this is Naval Air Station Bliss, correct? 

[Laughter.] 

I could answer it more readily. 

What I can tell is technically the BRAC move of 2005 were only 

internal to the continental U.S. Now, what the Army did is they 

fell on that with moves from overseas. I will have to get you the 

details of the specifics on Fort Bliss, because I know Fort Bliss is 

one of the major receivers of BRAC and MILCON funding. So I will 

have to get you the specifics on those, but we are not paying for 

anything twice. We are very careful to make sure that we have the 

space we need and no more. 

[The information follows:] 

The Army has an aggressive, carefully synchronized stationing plan for Fort Bliss 

that links Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005, Global Defense Posture Realignment, and Grow the Force initiative. The Army’s plan supports these major 

stationing initiatives and is designed to meet the September 15, 2011 statutory 

BRACE implementation deadline without duplicating space requirements. 

As a result of Grow the Army stationing decisions, the Fort Bliss end state will 

include six brigade combat teams. We are not spending money twice on their supporting facilities. Three brigade facility sets are being funded through BRAC, and 

three will be funded with Military Construction, Army (MCA). Of the facility sets 

funded with MCA, two are for Grow the Army infantry brigades, with the final set 

supporting the heavy brigade returning from Germany in FY 2012. 

Again, BRAC and the global re-basing was complicated, to use 

probably the wrong word, it was made more complex by the fact 

that at the same time we were going to reduce these bases overseas, we decided to increase the Marine Corps and the Army. We 

would grow the Army and grow the Marine Corps. 

Mr. CARTER. I am for all those things. The reason I am asking 

the question is because if you just say we decided not to reduce the 

forces in Germany, then that makes sense to me. Otherwise, in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1005 

Three Corps, as we looked at shuffling around of what was going 

to go in Three Corps, my concern is Fort Hood. Fort Hood was supposed to receive, according to me, the chairman and others, it was 

reported to us 49,000 soldiers. All of a sudden, we were back down 

to 42,000 soldiers, with the story that we never told you that. I am 

very concerned about that. 

So when I look out here and see what looks like a change of position for the Army, I don’t know what that change of position 

means. That is why I asked the question. 

Mr. ARNY. We will get you that answer. 

PRIVATIZATION

Mr. CARTER. If I have time for another question, I have one more 

question I would like to know. Barracks privatization—I have a 

great interest in barracks privatization. Over 3 years ago, I asked 

a question about barracks privatization as it related to the two 

Navy projects that were experimental at that time—how successful 

they were, where they were going, and what were the changes that 

the Army was going to be able to participate in barracks privatization. 

The report that I am looking at here now says that they are now 

going to participate in barracks privatization. At that time, I was 

assured that probably the first place they would try it would be 

Fort Hood. Now, we are not in the mix. Do you know any reason 

why we are not in the mix? 

Mr. ARNY. No, sir, but I will check. I do know, and I could bore 

you to tears on BQ privatization because it has been a big success. 

There are problems for us to overcome, but I have heard that the 

Army is starting to look at it. I will get back to you on your specific 

question about Fort Hood. 

[The information follows:] 

The Army is using the privatization authorities to provide unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH) for senior enlisted personnel (pay grade E6 and above) and 

officers at the locations shown below.These members currently receive a housing allowance. 

Fort Irwin, CA. 

Fort Drum, NY. 

Fort Bragg, NC. 

Fort Steward, GA. 

Fort Bliss, TX. 

These new housing projects, which will include a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom 

apartments, are being implemented as additions to existing family housing privatization partnerships. The Army apartments are being built to market standards and 

the rents will reflect the market value of the apartment. No Government equity contributions will be required. Other installations, including Fort Hood, were considered for similar unaccompanied senior enlisted/officer housing but did not show sufficient occupancy demand to make the projects as attractive as the ones underway. 

The Army leadership is deferring consideration of UPH privatization for Soldiers 

who are required to live in barracks (pay grades E1 to E5 and without dependents) 

until they can fully assess the Navy’s experience with their pilot UPH privatization 

projects. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

I want to ask you a couple of questions about privatization, particularly the bachelor privatization. I know about 5 years ago, we 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1006 

authorized Norfolk and San Diego and Mayport. As I understand 

it, San Diego is off-base, right? 

Mr. ARNY. No. San Diego is on-base. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And Norfolk? 

Mr. ARNY. Norfolk is on-base as well. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay, so they are both on-base. 

Mr. ARNY. They are both on-base. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And they are up and running, as I understand 

it. 

Mr. ARNY. Well, it is a little more complicated. In San Diego, 

that was our lead project. Norfolk was supposed to be, but San 

Diego came in first. We took a large 15-story existing one-plus-one 

(e) and privatized that. And the privatization contractor is building 

four 18-story towers right next to it, because land is more dear in 

San Diego, so they went vertical. 

While we haven’t moved anybody into the towers yet—the new 

construction—resident satisfaction went from 70 percent to 90 percent after the private sector manager took over the existing BQ. 

Okay? So we were authorized three piles. So we picked the second 

one at Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads is all E–3 and below. San 

Diego is E–3 and below and E–4 and E–5 and above. So that 

project, we have broken ground, but we don’t have anything up and 

running yet. We have just started the takeover of some of the old 

BQs, because we are not only building new buildings for E–3s and 

below, but the contractor is taking over some of the old one. 

I had asked the Navy staff to look around. Initially, we were 

going to do Bremerton, but we discovered that there you have one 

carrier and four or five escorts. When that carrier leaves, the BQ 

is empty. So it didn’t work out. We had to use a different model. 

We ended up at Mayport and Jacksonville as the model. Those 

folks are doing that now, and that should be rolling out in the next 

year or so. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Because one of the questions I have, when they 

are on-base, as I understand it, if you have a developer, you have 

to give him an easement to the main gate. 

Mr. ARNY. In both Mayport and Jackson, I have been down there 

and walked the ground. I forget which one it is, but you don’t have 

to. You need a balance. To satisfy OMB and GAO, you need a balance between people that are close enough to the edge. The 

premise is that if the Navy went away from Mayport-JAX, that 

there would be a use for these buildings. Or if the Navy shrank 

down and had no more enlisted men at the base—why that would 

happen—but if it did, the financier look at this and says, can I get 

civilians into those barracks, because they are going to be apartments. I am going to rent them out. It is private. It is his. It is 

not ours anymore. I have it. Rent it. 

So is it close enough to the fence? When I say San Diego, it is 

on-base. It is right on-base, and there is fence-line where you could 

bring that fence around and now that building is outside the fenceline. So I believe that when I looked at both Mayport and Jackson, 

there are ways to move the fence-line. 

Now, you may move it—I think it is at Mayport—you may move 

the fence-line up towards close to where the base is, which would 

mean the family housing is actually outside the fence-line, but in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1007 

most of our places, a lot of our family housing is outside the fenceline. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think in Mayport it is pretty much the land is 

right in the middle. It is kind of in the middle of the base. It would 

be problematic, it seems to me, to give an easement all the way—— 

Mr. ARNY. You don’t have to give an easement, but what you 

may have to do is move that old fence, because as I recall from the 

back gate or the south gate up to where the bachelor housing is 

is family housing. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So that is not a problem that is insurmountable? 

Mr. ARNY. No, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. What about when you finance these things, if 

there is no basic housing allowance to some of these guys that have 

home port ashore, how do they finance those? What kind of income 

stream do you pledge to the developer? 

Mr. ARNY. They all get—all E–4s and above—could get BAH. So 

in San Diego, we had a huge mix because even though these guys 

were getting BAH, they wouldn’t go out into town because it was 

too expensive. So in order to get the E–3—remember, the Navy had 

a problem where before the homeport ashore, we had enough barracks for everybody. They may be crummy, but we had one. When 

we dumped 30,000 more E–3 and below on there, we had a problem. So we had to move them in and get the E–4s out. 

In Mayport, we don’t have that problem. In Mayport, what we 

will do is we will pay partial BAH to the shipboard sailors. It depends. Where there are two to a room, it is about 35 percent. If 

it is one to a room, it is about 70 percent. Now, they still have a 

choice. We have to give everybody a choice. The homeport sailor 

has a choice. He can either stay on the ship or move to the barracks. So it is not much of a choice for him. But then he will get 

his BAH, and that is the income stream. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And that hasn’t been a problem in terms of the 

financing of those? 

Mr. ARNY. No, sir. Our M–1 folks, the personnel people complained, but frankly in the long term, it is less expensive because 

we are getting better barracks and they are better maintained. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Do you ever hear issues about cohesion or discipline when people are letting go? 

Mr. ARNY. No, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I got you. And can you tell what the occupancy 

is for San Diego yet? They aren’t all really up and running. 

Mr. ARNY. Not really all, but it is grand, and I saw a videoclip 

of an E–5, a female second-class bay officer, she was just raving 

about it. It was the same barracks she was living in before, but 

with better management, she was just raving about it. 

NAVAL STATION NEWPORT

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Welcome. As you know, in Newport, Rhode Island with BRAC, 

we obviously absorbed an enormous change in the new BRAC process. With our GMH property, there has been a concern among our 

Newport council members that they came in and acquired the military housing, and then flipped it, with a huge profit, without putVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1008 

ting any money into the properties. I want to know whether there 

is any truth to that speculation or not, if you could find out for us. 

Mr. ARNY. Sure. We had some initial growing pains with GMH 

at Newport, but I think you will find they put a lot of money into 

that project. I know there has been new construction. What we 

found at all these locations, even if they don’t build new housing, 

they are far more efficient at putting the right amount of money 

into a house—new carpets, appliances, things like that—to make a 

house that you wouldn’t like to be in much more comfortable. But 

I will be looking into this, because I think there is more to that 

than meets the eye. 

[The information follows:] 

There is no truth to the speculation that the private partner flipped the Newport 

property for a huge profit without putting any money into the properties. 

As with all of its military family housing privatization projects, the Navy conveyed housing units (and leased the underlying land) to GMH Military Housing for 

purposes of renovating or replacing existing housing and constructing additional 

housing to meet Navy housing needs in the Northeast Region. GMH contributed 

over $10 million in equity and secured private debt for the Northeast project, which 

includes Newport. 

In Newport, the GMH will renovate or replace 375 homes during the initial development period, and will sustain and recapitalize close to 900 homes as needed over 

the next 50 years. This will ensure the provision of quality housing for Navy families assigned to Newport for years to come. 

Renovations and replacement construction at Newport have progressed ahead of 

schedule, with 80 percent of the planned renovations and 100 percents of the 

planned replacement construction at Newport completed to date. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And then also about the new company taking it 

over from GMH. 

Mr. ARNY. Balfour? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Get us some more information about them 

and what expertise they have in the area. 

[The information follows:] 

Balfour Beatty is an international engineering, construction, investment and services group established in 1909 in England. The firm was ranked one of the top 50 

international design (engineering—construction) companies in 2007 by Engineering 

News-Record and has significant public private partnership experience. Balfour 

Beatty has constructed military housing in the United Kingdom for the British 

Navy and the Royal Air Force. Balfour Beatty is a partner firm in the upgrade and 

replacement of U.S. Air Force family housing at RAF Lakenheath, the largest U.S. 

Air Force operated base in England. 

Also, obviously we have about 350 acres accessed under BRAC 

for Naval Station Newport. Obviously, we would like to work with 

the Navy on how to access this. Our chamber of commerce has been 

working to try to develop a plan whereby we develop some of it for 

marine trade, and some of it for construction, housing and so forth. 

We want to develop a comprehensive development plan. 

So we want to know how much flexibility the Navy will allow us 

in the acquisition of the property and whether it could be done in 

parcels or whether it has to be done in one lump sum of 350 acres. 

Mr. ARNY. I know that particular property has three different 

communities that come into it. I was doing a little bit of that before 

I came over, but the Navy will work with the three communities 

and you to figure out what is best. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay, that would be great. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1009 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

You know, last year we had as a committee, we funded 60 new 

childcare centers. Obviously, this was a real investment in quality 

of life. One thing that we should also be doing, which is the youth 

centers, because of the demands for after-care, after-school programs and so forth, for Navy families. Could you comment a little 

bit about with these extended deployments, whether you think our 

kids need these after-care and after-school centers, and whether 

they are helpful in the quality of life issues that you are seeing? 

Mr. ARNY. They are definitely helpful on the quality of life. I 

haven’t had a chance to concentrate on those, but I did see a paper 

just the other day that said in one particular look, that we are not 

short of the youth centers. But I will check on that, because we are 

adding lots of childcare centers. I will get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

Yes, the care of children in before and after school programs is an important quality of life issues for military families. Today, the Department of Defense provides 

dynamic youth programs at more than 350 locations worldwide. The before and 

after school programs are a work force issue with direct impact on mission readiness 

and mobilization preparedness, especially in today’s higher operations tempo. In this 

year’s State of the Union Address, the President, in an unprecedented call for support for military families, asked that Congress support military families’ need for 

more child care. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. Well, we have found that that is very important. We can expend the after-school centers, and it would be 

good to double-check to make sure we have enough of those. 

The backlog in Rhode Island is obviously enormous on BRAC because for many years no one really anticipated that we were going 

to necessarily keep all of the facilities there. It was king of a waiting game to see how much of Rhode Island was going to remain. 

So we have quite a backlog that was put off. So I just would call 

your attention to that. 

Mr. ARNY. I know that CNIC is working a base master plan on 

the home base. Admiral Conway is very high on that. We not only 

have some building to do, we also have some demolition that 

should have been done a long time ago. Newport is about the only 

place—well, we have a lot of places. A hurricane in Pensacola exposed the fact that we had lots of buildings down. We had three 

power plants down there that haven’t been used in decades, and 

thanks to a hurricane, we got them demolished. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I look forward to having you up and touring the 

base, because I am sure you will find a lot. 

Mr. ARNY. My second son is stationed there right now. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, terrific. Well, there is a good excuse, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Jonas and Secretary Arny, thanks for your service. 

CAMP LEJEUNE WAR CONTAMINATION

I want to start, Secretary Arny, by complimenting your shop and 

some of the folks in the Air Force installation shop that work under 

you, particularly Secretary Bill Anderson and the gentleman that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1010 

preceded him, Fred Hume, who I came to greatly admire and respect in his service—— 

Have you heard of the Lynn Haven fuel depot project at the Kendall Air Force Base? 

Mr. ARNY. No, I haven’t heard of it, but I will. 

Mr. BOYD. They have been working on it. You don’t really need 

to do anything, except be made aware that the team that you have 

working on it, led by Hillary Yarborough of the Air Force shop, is 

doing a great job. We want to keep that on schedule to bring it in 

for a landing by this fall. Again, this is the Lynn Haven fuel depot, 

a World War II fuel depot which is excess. We are working to dispose of it, and I want to thank you for that. 

My question relates to a different subject. Secretary Arny, are 

you aware of the Camp Lejeune war contamination issues? 

Mr. ARNY. From many years back, yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. For the last 10 months, my office has been involved working with some constituents, and now that caseload is 

up to about eight or nine families, folks who have been involved in 

that. That is a pretty serious, complex issue, as you know. 

Mr. ARNY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOYD. There are two reports that I have been advised that 

the Navy has in their possession that will not be released. One is 

the 1999 litigation report pertaining to that Camp Lejeune war 

contamination and its potential liability. I personally have asked 

for it and the Energy and Commerce Committee has asked for that 

report to be released to Congress. To this point, it has not been released. 

I really have two questions. Why would it not be released to the 

Energy and Commerce Committee? And what is in that report that 

the Navy or the Pentagon does not want to share concerning the 

Camp Lejeune war contamination issue? 

The second report is a 1985 confirmation study of Camp Lejeune, 

performed by the Navy of the assessment and control of installation pollutants program on that war contamination issue. The 

Navy has also refused to supply a recent study as well for Congress. What I would like to do is ask you, sir, if you would, to check 

into that and supply those reports to us and the congressional delegation. 

Mr. ARNY. I will check into it, and if I can, I will. I know the 

Navy has been very open in terms of trying to identify—and it is 

difficult after many years—to identify who was there and who was 

affected, because it only affected certain portions of the base. It 

didn’t affect the entire base. There were only certain wells. I know 

that they have been reaching out. It wasn’t an issue I worked directly on, but I sat with Mr. Shigard over the last 6 years, and I 

know it came up periodically. I will check on that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

The 1999 Litigation Report was prepared by Government attorneys in anticipation 

of litigation relating to the possible effects of water contamination at Camp Lejeune. 

Both at the time of the original request for the Litigation Report in June of 2007 

from the House Energy and Commerce Committee and presently, the United States 

is actively litigating tort cases relating to this matter. After careful review of the 

Litigation Report, the Department of the Navy determined the majority of the enclosures were factual in nature, and were already publicly available or otherwise releasable; those enclosures were provided without restriction to the House Energy 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1011 

and Commerce Committee by letter, dated June 25,2007. The remainder of the Litigation Report, consisting of the Findings of Fact, Opinions, and Recommendations, 

as well as four of the enclosures is attorney-work product, relates to on-going litigation, and was withheld from release. However, the Department of the Navy offered 

to make the Findings of Fact portion of the Report available to members of the 

Committee or its professional staff for review. 

It is our understanding that the 1985 Confirmation Study report that was referred to is titled, ‘‘EVALUATION OF DATA FROM FIRST ROUND OF 

VERIFICATION SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, CONFIRMATION 

NON STUDY TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE AND POSSIBLE MIGRATION OF 

SPECIFIC CHEMICALS IN-SITU’’. In late 1992, this document was made available 

to the public and placed in the Onslow County Public Library located at 58 Doris 

Avenue East, Jacksonville, NC, 28540, as part of the administrative record. In April 

2000, the administrative record was placed on the internet where it remains available today at: https://www.bakerenv.com/camplejeunelirp/defaultlframeset.htm. 

In addition to this report, there are two other reports related to the Confirmation 

Study, which are also available in the administrative record: 

(1) EVALUATION OF DATA FROM SECOND ROUND OF VERIFICATION 

STEP SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, CONFIRMATION STUDY TO 

DETERMINE EXISTENCE AND POSSIBLE MIGRATION OF SPECIFIC CHEMICALS IN SITU, ESE, 7/1/87. 

(2) FINAL SITE SUMMARY REPORT, ESE, 9/1/90. This report appears to be a 

compilation of verification and collected confirmation study information. Apparently, 

no formal interim or draft final Confirmation Study was written; only verification 

sampling and analysis was performed. 

Mr. BOYD. I had previously submitted, Mr. Chairman, a written 

request to General Conway for this, and some questions. This was 

back in January, and those have not yet been answered. So it 

would be great, Mr. Secretary, if we could bring this into a conclusion. 

Mr. ARNY. I will do what I can. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If we can do anything to help you on that, let us 

know. Any other questions? Okay. 

Mr. Wamp. 

REBALANCING THE ARMY

Mr. WAMP. Thank you. Round two. 

Secretary Jonas, shortly after General Casey became chief, he 

said that the Army was out of balance. What is Secretary Gates 

and yourself doing, and what can this subcommittee specifically do 

to rebalance the United States Army? 

Ms. JONAS. First of all, the budget that we put in front of the 

Congress does a significant amount regarding balancing the mix of 

the force, of active versus guard and reserve. As an example, in the 

guard accounts, we have over $45 billion that we have added from 

the period of 2007 to 2013 in programs. That is an area where we 

are working to get them the equipment they need to do the missions we believe they are able to do. 

Obviously, what this committee is doing is enormously important, in what you stated at the outset, to do your best to provide 

the resources that are needed to keep the BRAC moving successfully. This is important because of the basing issues we have all 

been discussing here this afternoon. 

The chairman and I were discussing the other day what the committee has done on childcare centers. We are very grateful for what 

you are doing. It is very important to support the force and the 

composition of those who are now serving trying to maintain family 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1012 

life in a way that is consistent with their assigned mission. It has 

gotten to be very complex. 

The supplemental requests also are very important. Those are 

another way the Congress and this committee can support General 

Casey’s efforts. 

GUAM

Mr. WAMP. Secretary Arny, you gave some unique insights into 

Guam. That is one of the big-ticket items on the horizon for this 

subcommittee. I was fascinated by what you shared with me. Can 

you share just a little bit of specificity even of Saipan and the other 

area around Guam that I didn’t know very much about, and I 

learned a lot just listening to you—in brief, just the importance of 

Guam and the transition of Guam and how unique that whole situation is. 

Mr. ARNY. Yes, sir. I would be glad to. As I mentioned to you, 

I had the good fortune of representing the Government of Guam for 

a period of 10 years as a consultant, and worked on privatization 

of the bus company. BRAC was actually was one of the few communities to seek the closure of an air base, because Guam had no 

international airport, and it was on the corner of the naval air station. 

Guam is a unique place. It is, in my opinion, one of the most 

strategic assets that the country has. It is U.S.-flag, within 3 hours 

by air of almost every part of the Pacific Rim. We always hear 

about the tyranny of distance in the Pacific, but you don’t experience it until you sail across it like I did one time in a carrier, and 

every 2 or 3 months I would fly out there. 

As I was telling you, I took a couple of guys out to do some work 

for me out there. We would go on a 3-hour flight from here to 

Houston, walk out of the gate, get to the next plane, do 71⁄2 hours 

to Hawaii, get out of the gate and get on to the next plane to 

Guam. One fellow looked exhausted. I have learned to sleep on airplanes. He said, ‘‘God, this is awful.’’ How much more do we have? 

Do we have a couple of hours left? I said, no, you have another 71⁄2

hours. Guam is 71⁄2 hours on the other side of Hawaii by 747. 

It has a unique history. We came in in 1898. We took it from the 

Spanish. As a matter of fact, when you come into the harbor there, 

there is a breakwater. It is called the Glass breakwater. I never 

understood why you would name a breakwater that is supposed to 

be strong, after something that is breakable. Well, it turns out it 

was Captain Glass. He was sent by Dewey up to capture Guam, 

which was a Spanish possession and had been in Spanish hands 

for 350 years. He comes rolling into the harbor, and the way the 

story is told, he lets loose with a broadside. The commander of the 

fort comes out and says thank you very much for your salute, but 

we don’t have any ammunition, so we can’t return it for you. 

[Laughter.] 

So that was the sum total of the conquering of Guam. And from 

that moment forward, it was governed by Navy captains. I was a 

Navy captain, okay? I was no more set to be the governor of a 

group of people than anybody else, especially in the Navy. But from 

1898 until World War II, we had a Navy captain governing the island. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1013 

And so when people complain about infrastructure in Guam, 

when you trace that back, when you scratch the surface, you discover that it is Navy public works. So if you get upset, it all goes 

back to Navy public works. I have to remind my colleagues in the 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, most of whom are too 

young to remember all this, that a lot of the problems that we have 

discussing things with Guam is because we never let them be a nation. We never let them be an independent political body. 

It was the only American community captured by the Japanese. 

The wife of the second governor I dealt with, Governor Carl Gutierrez, his wife Jerri, her mother—when the Japanese came in at the 

end of the war, they became much more brutal. They brought in 

troops from the Manchurian campaign. The first troops to capture 

Guam were naval troops and they were much more benign. Then 

they had labor camps, and she watched her mother rifle-butted to 

death in front of her eyes. One of the legislator’s wives was a young 

girl who was brought in with a bunch of other students to witness 

the beheading of Father Duenas, who was a Roman Catholic priest 

Chamorro, who was on the island. 

So they have a unique perspective. The other thing, too, is that 

we never really, when we took Guam from the Spaniards, we had 

a chance to buy the rest of it from the Germans, the rest of the 

Marianas chain. We didn’t do it, so the Japanese had the Marianas 

chain. The island Chamorros are related to each other, but after 

the war there were a lot of hard feelings between the Saipanese 

and the Guamanians, because the Saipanese were used as guards, 

and in some cases were brutal to their Chamorro neighbors. The 

current chief of staff, George Bomba, to the governor is a good 

friend. His parents were both legislators. They tried to introduce 

a provision in the Congress, in the legislature, to bring Saipan and 

Guam back together. He was defeated because the feelings are still 

there. 

It is a very interesting place. We have a large presence there, 

and an even larger one during Vietnam. We had 150 B–52s and 

their tankers all stationed at the hangars there. So Guam can handle a load. It is strategic. They have infrastructure problems that 

we can work together and figure out how to do. 

It is unique because it is an island, so if you think of electric 

power—around here, when we generate electric power, you have to 

cover a certain load, and then you have a rolling reserve on top of 

that, and you have to have a peak in the summer and winter, and 

you do your maintenance in the spring and fall. Okay? Because you 

have to staff off-line. But if it all fails, you can plug into West Virginia or Pennsylvania. You have places to go. On islands, you don’t 

have that, but even Hawaii has peaks and valleys. Guam is 80 percent year-round and it is small. It is 150,000 people. 

We asked them to do—and 150,000 is maybe Fairfax or something—but we asked that community to act not only as a city, but 

also as a county and a state, and they even have to have immigration issues. So we pile a lot on them, so sometimes the abilities 

aren’t as deep as you would like because the bench is shallow. It 

is only 150,000 people. 

But strategically for the Navy and for the country as a whole, it 

is absolutely the right place to be. We may not get there in the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1014 

time we are all talking about, but I think it is essential for us strategically to build that facility after working with the Chamorros. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Mr. Farr and then Mr. Crenshaw. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to get into base closure and local reuse authorities. As you 

know, I have experienced the large base closure in the United 

States, and probably every single thing you could possibly face in 

a BRAC. You and I have had differences from the Navy’s standpoint and the Army’s standpoint about the laws. I am very appreciative of the comments that you have made about wanting to work 

with the local reuse authorities. 

You mentioned tools in the tool box by which DOD and OEA 

have to help with the base reuse process, including the public benefit transfers, the economic development conveyances at cost and at 

no-cost, negotiated sales to state and local government, and conservation conveyances and public sales. 

My question is, what happens if the LRA in their redevelopment 

plan relies on one of these tools as a way to do their economic development, no-cost EDC—what is an EDC? An economic development conveyance, a free conveyance—but you—the service—wants 

to sell the property. How do you resolve that issue? 

Mr. ARNY. The problems that we have seen in EDC, especially 

the no-cost EDCs, is that the Department still operates under set 

rules that you all have laid out for us and we put out about four 

economic development conveyances. They are for economic development. The problem we saw in the early years, and I came in obviously in 2002 and saw a lot of stuff going on, and nobody got anywhere. A lot of consultants made a lot of money, and yet none of 

the land was transferred in a lot of cases. 

What was happening is that people in order to fit their programs 

through that knothole of no-cost EDCs, they were pulling it 

through the knothole. So let’s say, what do we need for the base? 

What is it we want to develop? Okay? In many cases, in early 2000, 

it was housing that they needed, not manufacturing operations. 

In Alameda, they were going to put in a huge number of stores 

and malls and commercial enterprise, until they were sued by Oakland because—I hadn’t thought about this—but guess where all the 

traffic has to go through to get there? It had to go through Oakland. Another one was South Weymouth, Massachusetts. 

Mr. FARR. So each one of these—you are not ruling out no-cost 

EDC’s? 

Mr. ARNY. Absolutely not. My only warning to everybody is, and 

now South Weymouth is an EDC. It started out as a no-cost EDC, 

and by the time it got to me in 2003 or 2004, it was clearly a hoax. 

The Mills Corporation had backed out because the locals had voted 

against the road improvements they needed. The LRA was going 

on with this facade, and some of the folks were ready to transfer. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I am only interested in an EDC if there is a public benefit, because I think real estate is very expensive, particularly on the coast and for the Navy where a lot of their properties 

are. We have members of this committee whose communities could 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1015 

really benefit from no-cost EDC’s, but there must be a public benefit out of this. 

Mr. ARNY. Absolutely. And the problem with the no-cost EDC, to 

make it no-cost, they were doing all sorts of strange manipulations 

to get it there. Whereas, with Alameda, we still have an EDC, but 

it is a cost-EDC. We have said, okay, and we struck a deal with 

them. 

Mr. FARR. I am interested in Onizuka—that one that is—— 

Mr. ARNY. I have heard about it. I don’t know—— 

Mr. FARR. It is not in my district, but because I know a little bit 

about base closure. They are really unique. There is one block right 

on a freeway. 

Mr. ARNY. It was on an Air Force base? 

Mr. FARR. Yes, it had a lot of air force instrumentation. 

Mr. ARNY. Right. Okay. 

Mr. FARR. It is right in the middle of Silicon Valley. The city had 

all kinds of issues. Anyway, I appreciate your clarification. This 

committee has initiated, with the Department of Defense, the RCI, 

which is housing privatization, with a private developer building 

housing on military land. It is government land. There is no cost 

for the land. That is why they can build this incredibly beautiful 

housing at affordable rates. The RCI on the Monterey Peninsula 

where those houses the RCI built would all sell on the market for 

over $1 million. They are renting them for $1,100 a month—brand 

new houses, beautiful houses—to the men and women in uniform. 

It is incredible. It is fantastic. 

The whole economics work because of the land. You can provide 

these people with affordable housing, and these things that Patrick 

was talking about—youth centers, treatment centers, many kinds 

of community facilities are affordable—as long as you don’t have to 

pay the expensive land costs. 

I just want to make sure that there is some accountability here. 

We put the value in it, therefore we have to get value out. But remember, it is all the same taxpayer, whether it is a local person 

in that city who is paying federal, state and local taxes, and he 

wants that land to be used. 

Mr. ARNY. Especially if we are staying there. If we are not staying—if we are excessing—then it is different. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Members, we have three votes. The first 

one is a 15-minute vote, then there is a 10-minute debate on the 

motion to recommit, and a 15-minute vote. So Mr. Crenshaw, if you 

would like to be recognized, I would go up and vote, and come on 

back down and maybe we could kind of rotate and continue on with 

some questions. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I just have a couple of questions. One is just 

about BRAC. I don’t know if you know the schedule. In one of the 

bases in my district, there is a new hangar being built for all the 

P–3s that are coming. Ground was broken. I assume that is on 

schedule. I don’t know. Is it on schedule? Is it going to ready in 

time for all the P–3s? 

Mr. ARNY. I will double-check, but I would know if it wasn’t 

going to be on schedule. The last time I heard, I think it was ontime. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1016 

[The information follows:] 

There are currently three BRAC construction contracts underway at NAS Jacksonville. Their status is as follows: 

P–3 Hangar and Parking Apron (BRACON P–302V): This project will provide over 

277,000 square feet (SF) of hangar space with 23 acres of aircraft parking apron 

and taxiways for aircraft relocating from Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, 

Maine. Project awarded September 29, 2006 with contract value of approximately 

$125 million. Work is on schedule for June 2009 completion. Structural steel is 

nearing completion and interior work is in progress. Concrete work on the aircraft 

parking apron scheduled to begin in early May 2008. 

Fleet Support Facility (BRACON P–333V): This facility will provide equipment 

maintenance support to aircraft moving down from NAS Brunswick, Maine. Project 

was awarded on June 29, 2007 with a contract value of approximately $4 million. 

Work is on schedule for. October 2008 completion despite being delayed by five 

months due to an award protest. GAO denied the protest and the contractor started 

work in October 2007. Construction and erection of the exterior have been completed as well as the new vehicle parking lot. 

Engineering Ops Center (BRACON P–305V): This building will provide 61,323 SF 

for Naval Facilities Engineering Command functions relocating from Charleston, 

South Carolina. Project was awarded on January 30, 2007 with a contract value of 

approximately $14 million. Work is slightly behind the required August 2008 completion date, but the contractor expects to complete on schedule. This project is administrative and any delays will not impact the P–3 aircraft relocating from NAS 

Brunswick. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes. I heard maybe that there is like 23 acres 

of new aprons they are going to build, and maybe there are some 

issues. I would appreciate having an update because there was also 

an office building that they were going to build. I know some things 

have been slowed down. I know the hangars are on-track. I would 

be curious just—there are two or three projects that, assuming 

they are on the original schedule. 

Mr. ARNY. Okay. 

PLAN FOR CUBA

Mr. CRENSHAW. The other question, the bigger question, is just 

in terms of making our committee aware of any needs that we 

might need to be aware of. You know, they just went through kind 

of a transition of power in Cuba. It was peaceful, with Fidel and 

his brother Raul. I think everybody hopes there will be a day when 

this stranglehold will be released and there is a free and open 

democratic society. If that happens, I know that you all at the Department of Defense have a plan in place. There are probably going 

to be a lot of people leaving Cuba and coming to the United States. 

So just maybe give us an overview of where some of the emergency housing might be and how much that is going to cost, and 

how quickly. I know that is something you have to plan for. We 

hope it is sooner than later, but we don’t know for sure how quickly 

that could happen. Is there anything we need to be doing in that 

regard? 

Ms. JONAS. Mr. Crenshaw, I have been down to the area. I was 

down at Fort Ashley at the site, where there is a concern on mass 

immigration. The Deputy Secretary has been (INAUDIBLE) 

SOUTHCOM worked very hard. We have basically invested about 

$18 million in that area—about 10,000. Edmund Steparides actually sent me a note the other day and wants to discuss it further. 

But I think he is doing the best that he can to plan. I know the 

concern has been part of our planning process, and I think we are 

in fairly good shape. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1017 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

CLEANUP OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE SITES

Going back to Mr. Farr’s question, a lot of that excess land we 

have is really polluted. It is World War II, an old tank farm, so a 

lot of it needs to be cleaned up. It is a really bad environment of 

contamination. So I don’t know if the Navy would ever get around 

to doing much in terms of cleanup. 

Mr. ARNY. That is a good point. Let me comment on that, because I know that those tank farms have been excessed for 10 or 

15 years. We took advantage of the BRAC law in the case of Newport to be able to use the BRAC process, because Newport was not 

a BRAC closure. It was BRAC realignment. 

So the way the law was structured, we could go in there, because 

things are coming into Newport now, so it gave us the opportunity 

to say, okay, are there pieces of Newport—and we knew there 

were—that are excess and able to be disposed of using the BRAC 

process? Because it is not just a straight go to GSA. You set up a 

local reuse authority. You may be dealing with three local reuse 

authorities—Portsmouth, Middletown, and Newport. 

In terms of the tank farms, I never did get an answer on the cost 

to complete on the cleanup, but you are right. That wasn’t particularly high on anybody’s list of places that need to be cleaned up. 

But Congressman Farr is right, the Navy is always obligated to 

clean that up. 

Now, what we could do, if that property—again, the local community always has control of the zoning. If you zone it for a waste 

land, we will get rid of it as a waste land. It you zone it as highrise apartments, that is what it will be disposed of as. If you want 

to do an economic development conveyance, cost or no-cost, that is 

within your rights. We will advise you. You will have plenty of consultants knocking at your door to tell you to do other things. Check 

their hourly rates. Don’t tell them I told you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. They are all free. 

Mr. ARNY. They are all free. Right. [Laughter.] 

But if that land is valuable, and I don’t know what the value is, 

but if that land is valuable, we work closely with EPA. It would 

be to our advantage to sell it. If the community decides for a public 

sale and lets that land be developed by a developer, then that land 

can be sold within the environmental cleanup, with the responsibility to do it transferring to the developer, but the oversight responsibility always remains with us. But rather than us doing it, 

the builder could do it. 

In many cases, we believe, and in places where it hasn’t worked 

out and we don’t do it. But if you are coming in, and say you have 

to dig out three feet of soil and replace it with three feet of soil, 

why pay company A to come in and dig that soil out, haul it off 

to Utah, and then put three feet of clean soil in, when the developer is going to come in and take three feet of soil out and put in 

a foundation. It doesn’t make sense. So why not save the money? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1018 

Plus, a developer generally is more highly motivated to get the 

buy-off from state and federal EPA than the feds are. We have 

been around for 250 years and we are (INAUDIBLE). So it is motivation. On the other hand, take El Toro for instance, that property 

was put up for sale, but the Navy retained the cleanup responsibilities. 

What we did is we sold the land, much of it in (INAUDIBLE) 

acres. Probably 80 percent of it was deedable—fausible as we call 

it. The rest of it we leased to the seller. It was a life-lock lease (INAUDIBLE) of conveyance, but they knew all the rules. We had established the rules so they could build on that leased land, and the 

moment it is clean, we go and have a little ceremony and hand 

them the deed. 

So there are lots of ways to do it. We never give up the responsibility for that cleanup, but now frankly under the BRAC program, 

you have more oversight, more people looking at it, and there is 

more motivation to get it cleaned up. Because frankly, those tank 

farms, as you said, as you know, have been sitting there for decades. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You also have the sewer system there that we can 

really use to tap into for our development there, which we would 

do. 

Mr. ARNY. (OFF MIKE) 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. ARNY. As long as you will take the road. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. And if you could look into that, this would be 

something when you come up at some point and visit your son, and 

we can talk about it and show you around. But the pier, I don’t 

know to what extent you have talked to the Coast Guard about 

sharing. 

Mr. ARNY. The Coast Guard is my favorite service. My father 

was in the Coast Guard. That notwithstanding, at some point the 

Navy needs to do something with that whole pier and beach area. 

There is talk of leasing it out to somebody who can use it, because 

it is of no use to the Navy. The two piers and my old carrier sitting 

out there. Those are going to go someplace, sometime. And you 

have the periscope facilities sitting on top of the pier. That is absolutely the worst place for that to be. 

So we are working hard to get MILCON projects in one way or 

the other, either to take the proceeds from the sale of the land and 

move it, or actually just move it up on land, at which point we can 

tear those piers down. The Coast Guard needs to belly up to the 

bar and find out what they can do, just to find some money to pay 

for their own way. They are getting the land for next to nothing 

now, and thanks to Senator Reed and your help in the House, we 

got them $9.9 million to fix the seawall there. They need to be 

partners and not dependents. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I do one more? The Azores—are you going to 

do anything on the Azores to help the runway and rebuild the— 

refurbish the Air Force base over in the Azores? 

Mr. ARNY. I have no idea. I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1019 

There are no Military Construction projects for Azores in the FY 2009 President’s 

Budget. The Air Force will continue to review facility requirements of all Air Force 

bases worldwide, including the Azores, and determine priorities to ensure resources 

are programmed and budgeted to accomplish their mission. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kennedy, I would also think you have about 

3 minutes left to vote. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thanks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me talk about housing and barracks. I think 

there is a great story to be told about housing. I am not sure the 

public knows it. The military families living in improved housing, 

particularly the public-private partnership housing certainly know 

it. 

One of my goals is to see that we have metrics each year, so we 

can judge each year how we are doing on barracks; how are we 

doing on housing. That is why I have in our previous meetings 

talked about wanting to get a definition, a standard definition of 

what is adequate housing. 

OVERSEAS HOUSING

Let’s begin with just the overseas housing. Secretary Jonas, I 

will start with you. In your written testimony—and let me get the 

exact quote—you talked about, ‘‘we are asking for $3.2 billion for 

family housing. Funding for this vital quality of life program will 

enable the department to privatize an additional 12,324 units and 

to eliminate inadequate housing units overseas.’’ 

When you say ‘‘to eliminate inadequate housing units overseas,’’ 

are you talking about in the fiscal year 2009 year? 

Ms. JONAS. I think it may take us all a little bit longer period 

to do that. So I don’t know, I think the date is a little bit off there. 

Mr. ARNY. The date—let me give you the specifics. We will have 

the money in place in this budget. We have nothing in 2010. So we 

will have it all, domestic and foreign adequate, by those standards 

that the services measure, by the end of 2009. It may not all be 

done by then, but the contracts will be in place. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. That is a little bit surprising to me because 

we had General Bell here just recently. He said that we are letting 

our service members down in Korea. We know we are in a process 

of transition there, but does that statement apply to Korea? 

Ms. JONAS. I have had many conversations with General Bell. 

The Secretary and I have had discussions with Chairman Levin regarding the housing in Korea. The Secretary is concerned about the 

situation, and Chairman Levin has expressed his concerns about 

the price tag of the Build to Lease Proposal in Korea. We have requested the money in the MILCON budget to try to address the 

complicated issue. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But when you say just a moment ago that by fiscal year 2009 you will have the money in hand to see that we have 

no inadequate housing for families overseas—— 

Mr. ARNY. Of those that we own. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Of those we own. 

Mr. ARNY. Okay. Now, as I understand Korea, and I am learning 

as I go, because it is not Naval Station Korea, so as I understand 

Korea, you have two problems. One is the good news—we are moving out from underneath the DMZ further south, so there is going 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1020 

to be a need in the future for more family housing down near the 

bases in the south that we are developing. And the way the Army 

was going to do that was build-to-lease. There are a lot of reasons 

why the bill was too high on that. 

So we have MILCON in this year’s budget, aside from this inadequate housing, to build—I forget—— 

Ms. JONAS. It is 216 units, and we have requested $125 million. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is 2,000 units that are needed in Korea, as 

I understand. 

Mr. ARNY. And that may be a period of time. We want to do that 

build-to-lease. What Assistant Secretary Easton is looking at is a 

semi-private-public partnership with the Korean construction firms 

on the land that currently exists for that on one of the bases that 

we are moving to. You know, as it gets detailed, we will get more 

back to you. 

The other issue I think that General Bell and others have is they 

want to bring more dependents. They want to have more accompanied tours that we currently have now, so they may be counting 

those numbers in. That has not been approved. Part of the problem 

that the Army has, and may others—the Marines especially—with 

unaccompanied tours is they are short. They are only 12 months. 

So when you bring accompanied, then there are 2-year to 3-year 

tours, but now you have the added expense of dependents and 

housing and things that you don’t need when you have unaccompanied tours. So it is a balancing act for us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So we need to quantify our statements when we 

say we are going to have the money in place this year to see that 

we have every family living overseas in adequate housing. I just 

want to get consistency from year to year to year. If we are consistent with a qualifier, if we are consistent with the definitions, 

so we can measure where we are going. That allows us to tell the 

great story of improvements, but still be realistic about the needs 

that are still out there. 

Mr. ARNY. I did think about what you and I were talking before, 

but I think part of it is we had this inventory that was inadequate, 

and we modified it, and we are getting rid of that, but there is a 

future inventory perhaps out there as we consolidate forces into 

more southern areas in Korea. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Okay. Let me ask you about fairness. And 

by the way, on Korea, let me go back just for a moment. In the 

past, we have had a lot of troops up near the DMZ in places that 

might not have been safe for children and spouses. But now that 

we are consolidating outside of the DMZ area, I hope we will look 

at a policy of trying to say that every family that wants to stay together, particularly if they have come from Iraq or a first or second 

or third tour of duty in Iraq, and then they are assigned to Korea. 

We asked General Bell, if you had enough housing and adequate 

schools, decent quality of life, what percent of the married soldiers 

would probably want to have their families come with them. He 

said about 70 percent. So by policy, basically, we are saying—Congress and the administration together are guilty of this—we are 

saying by policy, a lack of commitment to fund the housing needed 

there. We are forcing families to live apart that have already lived 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1021 

apart, but many of them because of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In the past, that has been understandable because we were dispersed in small little camps in local places in the Republic of 

Korea, but I just hope we will take a second look now that we are 

consolidating, do we want to make it a policy of the United States 

to say because we are not going to commit the resources needed to 

build the housing, you are going to have to be apart for another 

year, even when you have already been apart when your loved one 

was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? 

So if you could look at that and see where we are going. 

Mr. ARNY. As you well understand, when you change that policy, 

you are doing two things. You are bringing those troops in and you 

are building those bases up, and then you change them and you are 

doing two things at the same time. You have to look at the cost 

and the time it takes to do it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. ARNY. I think your goal is the same as everybody else’s. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. Our goal is the same. We all want every 

soldier, sailor, airman and marine and their families living in quality housing that they have a right to be proud of. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

On barracks, is there a number today—can we say to the taxpayers how many servicemen and -women are living in barracks 

that don’t meet DOD standards? 

Mr. ARNY. I can give you the—we will get that for you. I know 

in the Navy, we had I think in the Navy budget there is one barracks left for permanent party that is not adequate. In barracks, 

the measure for inadequate was getting rid of gang heads, and the 

Marine Corps, the same thing. We have one barracks, and I think 

it was on San Clemente Island, and we finally in this budget have 

it there. So I think within the Navy it is done, but within the Marine Corps— 

That is not to say there are not barracks with gang heads still 

out there, but they are being used as swing barracks, as transient 

barracks, things like that. For permanent party enlisted barracks, 

I think the Navy is there now, as long as you include San Clemente 

Island. The Marine Corps, they may have slipped a year or two because of growing the force, they had to keep some of the barracks 

around there. 

I will check with you. You know, given that the Air Force has 

never had the problem, I don’t think, they probably don’t have one. 

And the Army, I will have to check on that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

According to the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Report, Volume I, Cash Compensation, February 2008, page 91, there are approximately 65,000 

junior enlisted service members without dependents who are being housed in quarters that are considered below the DoD 1+1 new construction barracks standard 

(private bedroom, both shared with no more than one other, and a service area/ 

kitchenette shared with no more than one other). The breakdown is 20,000 for the 

Army, 35,000 for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 10,000 for the Air Force. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What I would like to do is work with you and your 

staff and our subcommittee staff to sometime in the next month or 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1022 

so give us a list of how many servicemen and -women are living 

in inadequate housing; how many single soldiers, sailors, airmen 

and marines are living in inadequate housing; and then give us the 

definition you are using for how you define it. 

And then a year from now I want to ask the exact same question, 

and I would like to see the same definitions and the numbers on 

the same assumptions, same definitions, so we can measure the 

success and we can talk about it, and when we have successes we 

ought to talk about them. The administration and the Congress 

ought to be proud of some of these successes. 

But at the same time, we have seen the definitions change from $15,000 to upgrade a house, to $50,000—that things have changed 

so much, I don’t think there is a clear standard from year to year 

to year to see where we have come and where we are going. 

Mr. ARNY. I don’t think we have given you the year-by-year on family housing, but I believe it is $50,000. I asked, and we have 

been using $50,000 since I think 2003. Again, the services have 

their own standard, but we could give you that year-to-year, and 

also into the future. I think the barracks is a (INAUDIBLE), getting rid of it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. And on the housing, I would like to try to get that data based on not only the $50,000 definition, but if it is 

in a state of disrepair, then that is inadequate housing. 

Mr. ARNY. Agreed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So those families living in inadequate housing 

that is in a state of disrepair differs from those who are living in 

housing that if we spent $50,000, whether you spend it or not, it 

would meet the standards. And then let’s try to get a standard by 

which we can judge this year to year to see exactly where we are 

going. 

I think we were told a couple of years ago that in 2007 we would 

have all the money in place to have everybody living in adequate 

housing. Definitions change, and we have had BRAC and we have 

had growing the force—all of that. I would like to measure that. 

Is it your definition that we are going to have everybody in CONUS 

living in adequate housing? Does that apply to the families associated with growing the force? 

Mr. ARNY. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about global repositioning? 

Mr. ARNY. It is all of the troops. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All of them. 

Mr. ARNY. All of them. For instance, I know the Marine Corps, 

where we are—now remember, 75 percent of the Navy—and I suspect it is the same for others—are living on the outside, are living 

off the base. We are not providing housing for them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. ARNY. But again, with the Marine Corps, it is like 99 percent 

of their housing will be privatized. The way they are handling the 

growth at Camp Lejeune—and Camp Lejeune is the primary 

growth—the way they are handling it there is with our privatization contracts have options that we can add to them. So in certain 

cases, we are putting some funds in and we are getting increased 

housing out of the privatization contractors in anticipation of that 

grow-the-force. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1023 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I want to ask you about health in a moment, but I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp for any additional 

questions he has. 

Let me just make a comment. It won’t be as poetic as Mr. Wamp 

was on BRAC, but I do appreciate his focus on the importance of 

fully funding BRAC. I want to say on the record to both of you, 

that this subcommittee is going to do its very best to see that we 

replace the money that was used to support some worthwhile initiatives, everything from significant increases in veterans’ health 

care and benefits administration, to additional daycare centers, 

which is something we felt in this subcommittee was desperately 

needed. I salute the administration in the 2009 budget year for requesting a significant increase in daycare. 

But we do understand the importance of the BRAC. I appreciate 

your comments on that. Those comments were heard and I think 

we have a good chance of coming up with a solid number on replacing them. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

HEALTH CARE

Let me then just ask you about health care. It is anecdotal, but 

as I go out now to face this, I am starting to hear more and more 

about problems with health care. Daycare centers had been the 

number one concern we had heard for several years. Going back a 

number of years, it was family housing. We have made great 

progress there. 

We are hearing a lot about health care. As I understand it, the 

Army alone has identified about $5 billion in medical MILCON 

that is needed. 

Ms. JONAS. Five billion dollars? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Five billion dollars. Do you know what is the 

source of that? I mean, is that an official Army document or is that 

conversations with officials? 

Also, I think it is a fact to say that the average age of all the 

medical facilities across the Department of Defense is about 33 

years of age. Many hospitals, as you know, are 50 years old or 

older. It is my intuition that basically we have just punted on this 

one. It is understandable. We are at a time of war. We are funding 

BRAC. We have a lot of demands on the Department of Defense 

funds. But frankly, I am very concerned about where we are in 

terms of not keeping up with the modernization needs of our medical facilities. 

I am also concerned that at bases such as Fort Riley, we are 

going to have a huge increase as a result of the BRAC and/or growing the force and/or global repositioning. You are going to have a 

huge increase in the number of soldiers there. They are almost 

doubling the number of soldiers there. In that case, you are not in 

an urban area where you have a lot of private or nonprofit hospitals you can depend on. 

Does the Pentagon have on paper a 5-year or 10-year plan for 

modernizing and recapitalizing the DoD health care facilities? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1024 

Ms. JONAS. Wayne will talk to some of the facilities piece, but let 

me say on that point, this is the first time I have ever heard the 

number—$5 billion—for the Army. I meet regularly, with General 

Cody. We talk frequently about the things on his mind, and there 

is no better advocate for the soldiers in this nation than General 

Cody. 

I will directly ask him about that, and talk to General Casey as 

well. I don’t know if it was (INAUDIBLE) over a several-year period, but as you know, we have put a lot of money into the wounded warrior complex. We appreciate your expeditious work on the 

second portion of the 2008 supplemental because it includes funds 

to enhance the world-class facility at Bethesda and to consolidate 

Walter Reed. It has been very clear that these facilities are of the 

highest priority to the Secretary. 

I will personally look into this issue. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1025 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2236 here 42754D.058
1026 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2237 here 42754D.059
1027 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2238 here 42754D.060
1028 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you this, then. While the $5 billion 

number might not be a number that you are familiar with, it is not 

a surprise to you that there are a lot of needs out there in terms 

of modernizing hospitals. In a day and age where just within, as 

you know better than I, within the last 15 years, the health care 

system has changed dramatically. In some cases, a 50-year-old 

well-kept building can be very accommodating and very efficient in 

this day and age, since we shifted to outpatient care. And a 50- 

year-old hospital or a 70-year-old hospital at Fort Benning, Georgia 

can create tremendous inefficiencies and hurt quality of care to our 

troops. Generally, the issue itself isn’t a surprise. 

Ms. JONAS. Oh, absolutely no. In fact, the need to continue to 

provide quality care to our men and women in uniform is always 

on our mind. We have had lots of conversations about it. We have 

done a lot. We have about $41.6 billion in this defense budget that 

your fellow committee will be acting on we hope, and they have always been terrific. 

Mr. EDWARDS. On defense health, not on hospital construction. 

Ms. JONAS. That is for the entire amount. I am speaking to the 

amount required for defense health and for the people associated. 

I agree we should continue to look at it. Every weekend I am on 

Fort Belvoir, as it is within my military (INAUDIBLE). For years 

I have gone past that hospital and said, boy, I am glad I am not 

a young mother having a baby out there, because it is clear the 

military population needs a better working facility. We have broken ground on the new hospital which is an important step in modernization. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you know the numbers in terms of what the 

administration has asked for in terms of DoD, outside of, say, Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, which are tied into BRAC. 

Mr. ARNY. For Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, we are doing lots in 

BRAC, and down in San Antonio. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But how about beyond those? Do we know for construction? 

Mr. ARNY. For non-BRAC, $452 million; Fort Richardson—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is worldwide for DoD healthcare? What do 

you show at Fort Riley? How much is your request? 

Mr. ARNY. At Fort Riley, $52 million, for hospital addition and 

alterations. 

Remember, too, when you talk to the—and I am learning this 

myself—when you talk to the services, medical was taken away 

from the services. Okay? Medical is under defense health. So the 

services rely on them to bring that budget together. Now, they will 

make their inputs, but it is really defense health system that has 

to provide it. 

Now, it is under stress now more than it was before. But again, 

I think BRAC is important because we are putting a lot of facilities 

at the BRAC places. I mean, obviously Bethesda—there is a lot of 

money going into Bethesda, and I think being done right now down 

at San Antonio. It is a huge consolidation down there, not only the 

medical itself, but the training for it as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I guess my concern is more that the active duty 

military bases—Fort Benning, Fort Riley, Fort Hood and others— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1029 

is there a 5-year or 10-year capitalization plan for defense health 

care? 

Ms. JONAS. I am certain Ward Casscells, who is the Assistant 

Secretary for Defense Health, could help us get you a plan. Health 

care is very much on the minds of the deputy secretary and secretary and myself and other leaders in the department. I will look 

into the existence or development if necessary, of such a plan. 

Mr. ARNY. Let me hit you with just a couple of numbers, and this 

is the BRAC side: medical center at Fort Sam Houston, $294 million; Fort Belvoir, $198 million; Bethesda, $200 million just this 

year; Fort Sam Houston, $96 million; Fort Benning Medical Center, 

$80 million; Dover Air Force Base, $52 million. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How much at Fort Benning? 

Mr. ARNY. About $80 million. 

Fort Campbell Military Care Center in Lackland, $51 million; 

Keesler, $67.7 million. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I have seen some numbers that suggest 

what the private health care system assumes in terms of how much 

they have to reinvest in their capital structures. I don’t know if it 

is 5 percent or what the number is, but I have seen some comparisons that showed DoD is far below what the private sector feels it 

needs to reinvest to keep its facilities modernized. 

I am not here to criticize. We have all been part of this process. 

I just think it is one of those issues that we focused on other areas 

understandably during a time of war. I have not see a capital plan 

for DoD health care modernization. 

Mr. ARNY. We will get you one. If there isn’t one, we will get it 

for you. 

Ms. JONAS. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. And one of the things I would like 

to know is in that planning, have we assumed the growing the 

force and the additional troops that will need health care as a result of that. 

I think those are the main issues. We have talked about a lot of 

issues. We appreciate your time today and your service to our country over the years. There may be some additional questions that 

Mr. Wamp and I might want to submit for the record. 

Mr. ARNY. But no questions from staff, right? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I don’t know. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Wamp, do you have any other additional questions? If not, 

thank you both for being with us today. We appreciate it. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

Question. The 2004 Installations Strategic Plan set a goal of funding 95 percent 

of sustainment in fiscal years 2005 through 2007, and 100 percent by FY 2008. In 

each year the Department has fallen short of the goal by an average of about 9 percent according to the Government Accountability Office. As Mr. Arny notes in his 

testimony, the FY 2009 budget request funds sustainment at 90 percent. The 2007 

Installations Strategic Plan includes only a vague goal to ‘‘fund to the current facilities sustainment requirement generated by the Facilities Sustainment Model.’’ Has 

the Department set a funding target for sustainment for future budget years? 

Answer. The Department’s minimum funding target for sustainment for future 

budget years is to fund sustainment at 90 percent. 

Question. The Contingency Construction Authority (CCA) provided under the 

FY08 National Defense Authorization Act is not allowed for us at installations 

‘‘where the United States is reasonably expected to have a long-term presence’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1030 

Since the Department now views Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan as an ‘‘enduring’’ 

base with a long-term purpose, does the Department believe that CCA is applicable 

at Bagram? 

Answer. No. Based on the authority provided in the FY 2008 National Defense 

Authorization Act, we will not be able to use CCA at Bagram because we expect 

to have a long-term presence there. However, we have requested the authority be 

modified in FY 2009 to permit waivers of the ‘‘long-term presence’’ clause for bases 

in Afghanistan. 

Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $138 million for the 

Army Medical Action Program, specifically for the construction of Warrior in Transition complexes and Soldier Family Assistance Centers. Army has identified the need 

to establish similar facilities at 35 different locations at a cost of $1.4 billion. I understand that no funds for this program have been incorporated in the regular budget, and that the Department plans to continue seeking funds for this program 

through supplemental requests, even though this is considered by Army as a permanent change to the treatment and care of wounded personnel. Will you seek to include Army Medical Action Program costs in future regular budget requests? 

Answer. The Army Medical Action Plan is under review within the Department 

and no final decisions have been made. 

Question. I understand that the Department recently changed its policy regarding 

funding sources for Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) facilities. Please 

explain how the current policy differs from the previous policy, and the impact that 

this will have on the military construction budget. 

Answer. The Department’s policy regarding funding sources for NAFI facilities is 

that appropriations shall fund construction required to establish, activate or expand 

a military installation, including Base Realignment and Closure and global re-stationing requirements; relocation of facilities for convenience of the Government; replacement of facilities denied by country-to-country agreements; and restoration of 

facilities and improvements destroyed by acts of God, fire or terrorism. Expansion 

must be the result of a mission change or influx of new units or systems and result 

in a 25 percent increase in authorized personnel strength within a two-year time 

span. Appropriations are the authorized source for construction and modernization 

for all NAFI Program Groups to correct life-safety deficiencies. 

The Department did not change the policy, but instead directed the Services to 

examine the application of the policy based on the unique nature of BRAC and global re-stationing factors. The distinct challenges of BRAC and global re-stationing 

scope and timing present a challenge to the Services as they review and prioritize 

MWR facilities, exchange stores, and commissary stores competing against missionbased facilities. By systematically applying the existing policy, the Department ensures Service members should not bear the financial burden for Service or DoD directed changes. 

Question. The Future Years Defense Plan indicates a total cost of $837 million 

for the Missile Defense Agency’s proposed ‘‘third site’’ basing in Europe. I understand that this does not include the costs associated with the personnel who would 

be required to actually operate and maintain the interceptor and radar sites (barracks, dining facilities, etc.). Has the Department estimated this cost? Why is this 

not included in the FYDP? 

Answer. The $837 million does not cover the cost to construct personnel support 

facilities, such as barracks, dining facilities, etc. for the proposed third site. The Department needs to refine the long-term plan for the third site. The Department will 

do this, and further develop the associated support facilities costs estimates, during 

the development of the FY 2010 President’s Budget request. 

Question. You state that BRAC 2005 has a total projected cost of $33.2 billion over 

the 2006–11 implementation period. The budget submission shows that $32.0 billion 

will be paid for through the BRAC 2005 account. What costs are being paid outside 

the account, and where are these costs accounted for in the Department’s FY09 

budget request? Does your total include the $416 million in the FY08 supplemental 

request for Bethesda and Fort Belvoir? 

Answer. The total projected Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) implementation cost is $33.2B. As reflected in the BRAC 2005 budget submission materials, 

$32.1B in one-time implementation costs is to be financed from within the BRAC 

Account (that assumes full restoration of the FY 2008 Congressional $938.7M decrement). 

In addition, approximately $407M is financed from outside the BRAC Account, of 

which, $400M is being financed by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and 

$7M by the Missile Defense Agency. 

Additionally, included in the total estimated BRAC implementation costs is 

$416M in the FY 2008 supplemental request and $263M in additional funds the DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1031 

partment intends to seek for separate expansion projects at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at Bethesda. 

Question. With regards to environmental cleanup costs under BRAC, you state 

that such costs ‘‘were not included in the original COBRA estimates by design,’’ and 

that if these costs had been included, ‘‘the process would have had an artificial bias 

to close only ‘clean’ bases.’’ By the same token, doesn’t the exclusion of these costs 

make the closings of ‘‘dirty’’ bases appear more cost-effective than they really are? 

Did the Department make any effort at all to gauge environmental remediation 

costs at bases under consideration for closure or realignment prior to issuing its 

BRAC 2005 recommendations? 

Answer. Using certified cost-to-complete data for known contamination sites, the 

Department did consider the impact of environmental restoration costs for each candidate closure and realignment scenario evaluated. The certified data considered by 

decision makers were the FY 2003 cost-to-complete estimates for all installation restoration sites managed and reported under the Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program (DERP). 

The Department calculates these costs on a ‘‘clean-to-current-use’’ clean-up standard. The cost of environmental restoration did not dictate any installation closure 

decision, but the Department noted these costs in documentation supporting the recommendations provided to the Commission. 

The location and number of restoration sites also may have been considered as 

a land use constraint for installations receiving missions as a result of a realignment decision. Because the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to perform 

environmental restoration regardless of whether a base is closed, realigned, or remains open, environmental restoration costs at closing bases were not included in 

the cost-of-closure calculations. 

From an overall DoD budget perspective, environmental remediation costs do not 

affect the overall cost-effectiveness of implementing recommendations because the 

costs are a zero sum transfer within the Department. Environmental restoration 

costs are budgeted in the Defense Environmental Restoration Account. Once on the 

closure list, the base’s restoration costs are budgeted in the BRAC account. Therefore, the costs to remediate the base do not change—only where they are accounted. 

Question. The BRAC Commission recommendation on Joint Basing required ‘‘relocating the installation management functions’’ for each Joint Base to be established. 

How does the Department interpret this phrase for the purpose of complying with 

the BRAC mandate? 

Answer. The Department has the legal obligation to transfer installation management functions from 26 locations onto 12 joint bases. The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued Joint Basing Implementation Guidance on January 22, 2008, which defines the installation management functions and timing for implementing the Joint 

Basing recommendation. 

Question. You stated that under the new Joint Base construct, the ‘‘supporting’’ 

service will be responsible for budgeting and executing ‘‘current mission’’ military 

construction, while the ‘‘supported’’ service will be responsible for ‘‘new mission’’ 

milcon. Is there an agreed upon definition of ‘‘current mission’’ and ‘‘new mission’’? 

What will happen if the ‘‘supporting’’ and ‘‘supported’’ services in a Joint Base disagree on whether a project is current or new mission? What is to prevent a service 

from declaring projects ‘‘new mission’’ simply in order to retain control? 

Answer. The Department is now in the process of finishing its guidance on facilities investment that addresses funding responsibilities between supporting and supported components. The question of ‘‘who pays’’ for various types of investment is 

fundamental to Joint Basing, as you have recognized, and a major focus of the supplemental guidance. We expect this to be completed imminently and will be pleased 

to address any committee questions related to it. 

Question. The ‘‘supporting’’ and ‘‘supported’’ services at a Joint Base may also 

have disagreements about the funding priorities for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) and Base Operating Services (BOS). How will such 

disputes be resolved? 

Answer. A Joint Management Oversight Structure (JMOS), comprised of representatives from each Component, will be established for each Joint Base. The 

structure will be used to ensure fairness; provide oversight of dispute resolution and 

equitable allocation of funding requirements to the responsible entities; and resolve 

other issues as required. The JMOS process includes an appeal structure to adjudicate conflicts that can not be resolved by the Joint Base Partnership Council. The 

JMOS appeal structure includes the installation management echelon immediately 

above the Joint Base installations; Component headquarters elements; Service Vice 

Chiefs of Staff; and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1032 

Question. You expressed dissatisfaction with the current recapitalization measure. 

Explain what is wrong with the current measure, and what you are seeking in developing a new measure. 

Answer. We used the current facilities recapitalization metric since 2002 to assess 

the adequacy of the investment in modernizing and restoring our inventory of facilities. The metric is based upon the premise that the investment should be sufficient 

to replace the facilities inventory at a rate equal to its expected service life, estimated at 67 years using a ‘‘weighted average’’ calculation of plant replacement value 

(PRV) about ten years ago. The metric divides the PRY of the inventory by the annual investment in recapitalization, yielding a recapitalization rate expressed in 

years. 

While the recapitalization metric has served the department well, it has several 

limitations that the department now seeks to reduce or eliminate for the FY 2010 

budget submission. These limitations include the following: 

1. The investment target, expressed as a funding rate necessary to replace the 

facilities inventory every 67 years, was calculated using plant replacement 

value and inventory from the late 1990s that is no longer current. 

2. The investment target is an overall DoD average and does not represent the 

facilities inventory for each DoD component that can vary significantly from one 

Component to the next. 

3. The investment target is based upon preliminary DoD rough estimates of 

expected service life values for various facility types that have since been refined by various published industry sources. 

4. The recapitalization metric does not differentiate between costs to renovate 

facilities versus costs to replace facilities, both of which are ‘‘recapitalization.’’ 

This difference can equate to approximately 40% of a facility’s calculated plant 

replacement value. 

The department is transforming the recapitalization metric to address each of 

these limitations in support of the FY 2010 budget submission. There are three aspects to this transformation: 

1. The format of the new metric will change from a rate expressed in ‘‘number 

of years’’ to a rate expressed as a percent of the investment target that is funded. This will parallel the facilities sustainment metric (and others) and provide 

a common funding expression between Components, even those with significant 

differences in facilities inventory and resultant differences in ‘‘average’’ inventory service lives. 

2. The investment target will change from the ‘‘67-year average’’ target to specific target values for each Component based upon current Component-specific 

inventory and published parameters for facility service lives and depreciation. 

The DoD Facilities Modernization Model performs this function. 

3. Finally, the method of identifying and accounting for recapitalization investments is being refined to differentiate between types of recapitalization methods 

(specifically, between renovation and replacement). 

Since its inception, the facilities recapitalization metric has served as an important tool to evaluate the adequacy of the Department’s aggregate investment to 

counter facility obsolescence. The improvements planned for the FY 2010 budget 

and Future Year Defense Plan are expected to significantly improve its accuracy 

and usefulness for this purpose. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1033) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008. 

ARMY BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

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

KEITH EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. ARMY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

General Casey, Secretary Eastin, welcome. It is good to have you 

back to the subcommittee. Thank you both for your distinguished 

service to the Army and to our nation. We are very grateful for 

that service. 

We are here today to discuss the fiscal year 2009 military construction and family housing request for the Department of the 

Army. The 2009 MILCON request for the Army is $4.6 billion, 

which would be an increase of nearly $700 million over the fiscal 

year 2008 level. To put that in perspective, the fiscal year 2004 

budget for Army MILCON was less than $1.5 billion. 

The primary factor driving these huge Army MILCON budgets is 

the initiative to grow the permanent end-strength of the active 

Army to 65,000 by 2010. The 2009 MILCON request includes about 

$3.5 billion for Grow-the-Army. In family housing construction, the 

request is for $679 million, an increase of $259 million over 2008. 

This increase is entirely due to the $334 million included for Growthe-Army, more than offsetting reductions resulting from the family housing privatization program. 

The Guard and Reserve MILCON budget request also represents 

a healthy increase, again due to Grow-the-Army, which will add 

about 9,200 Guardsmen and Reserves to the total force. 

Last, but not least, the Army has the greatest stake in BRAC. 

The Army’s share of BRAC represents more than 50 percent of the 

total estimated costs. About three-fourths of the Army’s estimated 

$17.3 billion share is for construction. Let me say on that, chief, 

Mr. Wamp and this subcommittee have been outspoken in our belief that we need to adequately fund BRAC. I am very optimistic 

that when we have the supplemental appropriation markup soon 

that we will have very strong backing on that, and we look forward 

to hearing your comments on the importance of that funding. 

The Army MILCON program is obviously reflective of the tremendous changes underway in the Army currently. Let me just say 

that, General Casey, while we will focus a lot on MILCON issues 

today, obviously this subcommittee has responsibility for a lot of installation construction that deals with quality of life. It is a special 

niche of this subcommittee. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1034 

I can think of no time where we owed more to our soldiers and 

their families than now, given the op tempo, the demands on them, 

the emotional strains of the constant deployments to Iraq and/or 

Afghanistan. This committee stands ready and committed to work 

on a bipartisan basis to support that quality of life in the Army. 

Thank you, from your position as chief, for making quality of life 

the particular focus that you and Secretary Geren have been working on. 

At this point, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp if he has any 

comments that he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me comment that I am grateful for your commitment 

to BRAC. I think this is the first public commentary that you have 

made on the supplemental and the fact that the majority is making 

every effort to include the necessary BRAC funding in the supplemental. 

Secretary Eastin, welcome. 

General Casey, it is an honor to be in your presence. Having 

been born in the United States Army at Fort Benning, to sit before 

the Chief, or to have the Chief sit with us, of the greatest Army 

in the history of the world is indeed a privilege. Thank you for your 

service and every man and woman that you represent, especially 

as we are growing the Army and making the necessary changes to 

meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges around the world. We are 

grateful for the United States Army and especially grateful for you, 

General Casey. Your name is renowned around the world now, and 

we are grateful that you are here in this little small room with us 

in our nation’s Capitol today. Thank you, sir. 

General CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. General, I am going to forego the long and distinguished and deserved resume because we know that you wouldn’t 

be in your present position without a long and distinguished record 

of service to our country. But I do want to thank you for your 38 

years. Is that correct, 38 years? 

General CASEY. Yes, 38 years in June. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Your service to the country. 

General CASEY. What was I thinking? [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I imagine you never guessed you would be sitting 

someday as Chief of Staff, but we are honored that you are, as Mr. 

Wamp said, and we are thrilled to have you. It was also a privilege 

to get to know you when you were down at Fort Bragg. 

Secretary Eastin, thank you also for your service to our country. 

We are glad you are here as well. 

At this point, without objection, chief, your entire testimony will 

be submitted for the record, and we will recognize you for any 

opening comments you would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, JR. 

General CASEY. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here 

with you, and to talk about the military construction budget, which 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1035 

is so much a part of everything we are doing right now as we try 

to put ourselves back in balance. 

Congressman Wamp, as someone, who has a sister and a son 

born in that same hospital, I have some attachment to Fort 

Benning myself. 

What I would like to do is provide a little context, if I could, for 

our discussions on the budget—a couple of things. First of all, we 

have been at war for over 6 years, and that has stretched and 

stressed the all-volunteer force. We wouldn’t be where we are 

today, we wouldn’t have been as resilient as we have been without 

the support of Congress. So right up front, we thank you for that. 

Second point, as we look to the future, we see a future of what 

I call persistent conflict. I define that as a period of protracted confrontation among state, non-state, individual actors who are increasingly willing to use violence to accomplish their political and 

ideological objectives. That is what we are up against. So as we 

have this discussion, I think we need to keep in mind that we are 

in for another decade or so of similar activity, maybe not on the 

scope or the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan, but periods of protracted confrontation. 

I think this proclivity for persistent conflicts is going to be exacerbated by some global trends that people generally agree on, but 

it could cause things to go in the wrong direction. Globalization has 

a positive effect for sure, prosperity around the global. The negative effect is it is unevenly distributed. If you look at the have and 

have-not conditions it can create, terrorists can take advantage of 

that for recruitment. 

Technology is another double-edged sword. The same technology 

that is being used to bring knowledge to anyone with a laptop and 

a hookup is being used to export terror around the world. 

Population growth, the demographics are going in the wrong direction. The populations of some of these developing countries are 

expected to double by 2020. Estimates are that by 2030, 60 percent 

of the population of the world is going to live in cities. That bears 

a lot on the bases that can fight. 

The two things that worry me the most are weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. There are about 1,200 known terrorist 

groups that are out there now, and they are seeking weapons of 

mass destruction. There is no doubt that if they get them, they will 

use them against the developed countries. 

Hello congressman, how are you? 

And then second, safe havens. Ungoverned spaces in parts of 

countries that either can’t or won’t police their own territory can 

be used as bases for terrorists to plan and conduct their missions. 

We believe that for that environment, we need a campaign-quality expeditionary force that is capable of supporting combat commanders across the spectrum. Pete Schoomaker laid that plan 

down based on the intellectual foundations that Eric Shinseki put 

in place and we are executing that now. With your continued support, we will execute that. 

I would just like to say a couple of words about the state of the 

Army today. I think some of you have heard me say that it is out 

of balance. I will tell you, I wrestled hard to find the right words 

to describe it because it is by no means a hollow or broken force. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1036 

In fact, it is the most resilient, competent, professional force that 

I have seen in my 38 years. But we all know we are not where we 

need to be. The current demand for our forces is not sustainable. 

We can’t do the things that we know we need to do elsewhere as 

fast as we would like to. We can’t sustain the all-volunteer force 

at the pace that we are going on right now. 

We have a plan to put ourselves back in balance, and it is centered around four imperatives. Interestingly, military construction 

plays a key role in each of those imperatives. The imperatives are 

sustain, repair, reset and transform. 

The first is sustain. We must sustain our soldiers, families and 

civilians. They are the heart and soul of the Army. They are the 

reason why we are the best force in the world. The environment 

where the soldiers train, where the civilians work and the families 

live is key to attracting and retaining the quality men and women 

that make up this great force. 

At the core of our strategy to sustain our soldiers, families and 

civilians, congressman, are two programs: first, the soldier family 

action plan and the second is the Army medical action plan. The 

first is designed to support what we call the Army family covenant. 

It is a restatement of our commitment to soldiers and families. It 

centers on five key variables, and all these variables were gleaned 

from family members during my initial months on the job as Sheila 

and I went around and talked to them. 

First, they said standardize and fund the programs that you 

have. We don’t need new programs. Just standardize and fund the 

installations. Second, they want improved access to quality medical 

care. Third, they want better housing. Fourth, they want better facilities and activities for their children. And lastly, they want better employment opportunities and education opportunities for their 

family members and themselves. 

As you can see, some of the facilities that this budget funds are 

key to our implementation of that strategy. 

The second one is the Army medical action plan. That is a program basically to develop integrated comprehensive care for soldiers. We have made great strides on that. It is primarily paid for 

out of supplementals because of the immediacy of the need, and I 

thank you for your support on that. 

Second imperative is prepare. Now, we have to continue to prepare our soldiers for success in the current conflict. They are going 

in harm’s way every day. We can’t flinch on that commitment. We 

are trying to give them an asymmetric advantage over any enemy 

that they are in contact with. 

To set the conditions for their continued success, we are establishing realistic training facilities at installation. We have to ensure that they are trained and deployable for any mission that the 

nation requires. There are about $850 million in the military construction budget this year for new range and training facilities on 

our installations. 

Third is reset. Reset is about returning soldiers and equipment 

to states where they are ready for additional missions. Congress 

has been very supportive of this, and as a result we have made significant strides in steadying the force. This MILCON budget really 

impacts on the quality of installations. It is the ability of the instalVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1037 

lations to take these units coming back, reorganize them, fix the 

equipment, give them facilities and quality opportunities for the 

soldiers and families to get to know each other, get them to unwind, that is a key element of the MILCON budget here. 

Lastly, transform—and I bring this Field Manual 3.0—our new 

doctrinal manual. We published it a month or so ago. It talks about 

how the Army intends to fight in the 21st century. It raises stability operations to the level of offense and defense, and that is a 

big step forward for us. There is a lot of good stuff in here, but that 

is the foundation for our transformation. 

As you mentioned, most directly related to this hearing, there is 

an awful lot going on with our basing. For us, transformation is a 

holistic effort. It affects everything that we do, and basing is a key 

element of this. The scope of the MILCON and BRAC effort over 

the next several years is hugely significant. We will re-station onethird of the Army by the end of 2011. That will impact 380,000 soldiers and family members and affect 304 installations. 

So as Tony LaRusso says when he is watching baseball, it may 

not look like much is going on, but there is a lot happening out 

there. [Laughter.] 

So that is our plan: sustain, prepare, reset and transform. The $11.4 billion total between MILCON and BRAC plays a critical role 

in allowing us to put the Army back in balance to sustain the current fight and to confront the future. 

I would like just to say a couple more things here about, one, 

continuing resolutions have had a gradual, but negative impact 

over time in the last couple of years. We figure that we have lost 

about 4 to 6 months of processing time under MILCON because of 

the continuing resolutions. I believe there is a provision in this 

budget that has come up here that will give us additional flexibility. We have such a tightly wound schedule with bringing folks 

back from overseas, moving installations with the BRAC, that any 

delay has a cumulative effect. And then the second thing is the $560 million of the BRAC that 

was not funded. If we don’t get that, we won’t be able to meet the 

timelines that have been laid out in the BRAC. 

Mr. DICKS. Is that in the supplemental? 

General CASEY. No. It was in the 2008 Presidents Budget. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are working on it. I think there is a very good chance we are going to strongly fund the BRAC. We used $939 million out of BRAC to fund initiatives in military construction for the 

Army and the other services, and then we used some of that to 

fund health care initiatives for veterans, but with the general intention of taking a look at the supplemental to replace those. 

General CASEY. So with that, I just wanted to give you a little 

context of where we are going and how important getting the timely funding that is in this year’s 2009 budget is to accomplishing our 

objectives. So thank you all very much. 

[Prepared statement of General George W. Casey, Jr. follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1038 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2270 here 42754D.061
1039 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2271 here 42754D.062
1040 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2272 here 42754D.063
1041 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2273 here 42754D.064
1042 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2274 here 42754D.065
1043 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2275 here 42754D.066
1044 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2276 here 42754D.067
1045 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2277 here 42754D.068
1046 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2278 here 42754D.069
1047 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2279 here 42754D.070
1048 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief, thank you. Again, I just reiterate on BRAC, 

I think this subcommittee has been out front for a long time, and 

I appreciate Mr. Wamp’s work on this. It has been a bipartisan effort to push that funding. 

I want to get in a round two and round three on some specific 

MILCON questions. But I want to basically understand the context 

in which we are working. While we do a lot of construction funding 

because the training facilities from division headquarters to gate 

headquarters and other factors like that, we do focus, as I mentioned earlier, on quality of life, as you know. 

STRESS

Tell me, you say the Army is not broken or hollow, just out of 

balance. Clearly, you talked about the stress, and we are all aware 

generally of the stress that has been put on our soldiers and their 

spouses and children as a result of this incredible op tempo they 

are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the chief, what factors do 

you look at to determine just how stressed the Army soldier and 

his or her family is? Is it divorce rates? Is it child abuse? Is it suicide rates? Is it a combination? Would you give me the criteria that 

you use and then tell me what are those. And if you need to follow 

up with more data later in writing, that is okay. 

General CASEY. Sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Tell me what they are telling you. 

General CASEY. First, I will tell you there is no one thing. We 

track probably 35 to 50 different indicators from all across the 

force. 

Mr. EDWARDS. On stress? 

General CASEY. On stress on the soldiers and families. We measure it monthly. But I will tell you, that has to be combined with 

direct contact with soldiers and families. My wife and I do an awful 

lot of getting out and talking to them, and listening to the leaders 

that are out there with the soldiers and families every day. A lot 

of times I hear, well, you know, the anecdotal things I get from soldiers and families aren’t matched by the data. For example, our retention rates are through the roof. It is going exactly the opposite 

direction than you would have thought it is. 

What are the key indicators of a force that is stressed? Interestingly, divorce rates are fairly stable. We had a spike in 2004, but 

they have been relatively stable ever since. The only element of the 

force that is kind of above the norm right now are female officers 

and female soldiers. Their divorce rates are slightly higher than 

the norm. 

Desertions are up. AWOLs are up. Again, it is an upward trend. 

It is not at the point where we are overly concerned about it, but 

it is an indicator. Enrollment in alcohol counseling is up. Now, that 

is an indicator of stress, but it is also a positive thing in that the 

soldiers are getting the help that they need. Drugs are relatively 

stable to down, especially in-theater. There is not a drug problem 

that we see in-theater. 

As I said, there is a whole range of issues. Recruiting is another 

thing that we look at, and we think we are going to be able to recruit about 80,000 for the next several years in the active force, 

and it is a very difficult recruiting environment. In 2007, 297,000 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1049 

men and women enlisted or reenlisted in the Army, Guard and Reserve. Now, that is a heck of a lot of patriots. They are doing that 

in a time that they know that they are going to go to combat. That 

says an awful lot about the young men and women of the Army. 

So it is something that we watch very carefully and very closely, 

and we supplement it with discussions and anecdotes with people. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I have heard anecdotally from majors and captains that in their subjective judgment, we are losing some of the 

best and brightest of our young officers, particularly at the major 

and captain level. I know that requires subjective judgment, but 

based on combat—and I would assume combat experience would be 

critical to the kind of officer you want to retain—are there any 

numbers there that suggest that we are either doing well or we are 

hurting? 

General CASEY. The numbers suggest that we are pretty steady. 

It is interesting. I had the Center for Military History take a look 

at the captains losses, which compared 1966 to 1970 during Vietnam, with 2001 to 2007. What you see is, it starts off about the 

same. It is around 12 percent is the norm. In 1967 when we started 

involuntary second tours in Vietnam, it goes like that—the Vietnam line goes like that or stays fairly steady. So we have not seen 

a great protubation in the losses of our young leaders. 

Now, that said, we have just sent a team under a brigadier general to talk to all these brigades coming back from 15-month deployments. Three things, and none of them surprising: 15-month 

deployments are too long, especially when it is the second or third 

deployment. The effects of these deployments are cumulative. 

Second, 12 months home after a 15-month deployment is too 

short. And the third thing they say is you have to show us some 

daylight. You have to show us that we are going to get a little more 

time at home, or we are not going to be doing this ad infinitum. 

And so we are working very hard on that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, chief. 

Mr. Wamp. 

RESTORING BALANCE

Mr. WAMP. Secretary Eastin, when General Casey said rebalance 

the Army, the first question is, is the Defense Department completely committed to General Casey’s plan to rebalance the Army? 

And then for you, General Casey, how will we know when it is 

in balance? Is there anything new in this year’s budget request 

that is needed to get the Army back in balance, either in the future 

or this year? 

Mr. EASTIN. From an installations perspective, OSD has been 

very supportive of us in what we need, as has the committee, and 

we thank you for that. Without you, we just couldn’t do this. I look 

at it with another facet, that we are an all-volunteer force and we 

are in the market competing for these soldiers every day, whether 

it be enlisting them in the first place or retaining them, because 

industry offers opportunities for them that are similar to ours. If 

they can go out and get a house and a job, and live better with 

their families, have a better quality of life than we have, it is not 

going to be long before that is felt in our ability to retain people 

or to get them in the first place. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1050 

So it all goes to our installations. This is where their home is. 

It is where they live, where they raise their families, where the 

church and school is, where they deploy from and train. This is 

really their life, so what we put together here helps us compete in 

the marketplace, not only supporting our soldiers, but getting them 

to stay in. 

General CASEY. I would say I have had great support from Defense, particularly the Secretary of Defense. There is clear recognition. We see the state of the force about the same, and so I have 

had great support from them. 

What does it look like when we are back in balance? First of all, 

we are back on a sustainable deployment-to-dwell ratio. Right now, 

we actually are spending more time in-theater than we are spending at home—15 months in-theater, 12 months at home. That is 

not sustainable. We want to get over the next couple of years to 

a point where we are about double the time at home from the time 

in the field. 

Now, that is not sustainable over the long haul. We would like 

to get to a one-out, three-back, and that we can sustain indefinitely. As I said, we are building an expeditionary force. To sustain 

an expeditionary profile, you need to get to about a one-to-three 

ratio. So at least a one-to-two—that is part of the balance. 

Second, we want to complete our modular reorganization. I think 

you know that over the past several years we have been converting 

the entire Army into modular organizations that are tailorable and 

that can deploy rapidly. I have seen the power of these organizations on the streets of Iraq. I am telling you, they are the right way 

to go for the 21st century. 

We are about 70 percent of the way through that already, and 

that has huge basing considerations, as you mentioned some of 

that, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement. The old brigade 

headquarters used to have about 70 people in it. The new ones 

have double that, so you need a bigger headquarters just to put the 

guys in. 

We are on track to complete that by 2011. That is when we are 

looking to get ourselves back in balance. We have also been rebalancing capabilities inside the Army, taking Cold War skills like artillery and air defense, and converting them into skills more relevant in the 21st century. There are about 120,000 folks that are 

changing roles. We will get that done by 2011. 

And lastly, completing our BRAC moves by September 15, 2011. 

When we get all that done and the dust settles, we will kind of look 

and see where everybody wound up, but that will be done. So that 

is an Army that is back in balance and ready for whatever comes 

next. 

Mr. WAMP. Is anything not in this budget you need? 

General CASEY. Between this budget request, the balance of the 

2008 and the 2009 it is coming. 

TRAINING FACILITIES

Mr. WAMP. One other question on this round, Mr. Chairman, and 

that is on this issue of the persistent conflict and asymmetrical 

warfare which you speak to very eloquently in your testimony. 

Most of this is Mr. Murtha’s committee, Mr. Dicks’s committee, but 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1051 

from a facilities standpoint, what are the future needs for training 

your troops for these threats and persistent conflicts and asymmetrical warfare? 

General CASEY. This doctrine talks about how to conduct fullspectrum warfare in a 21st century environment. We have had several sessions in the last 2 months about how we reconfigure our 

training facilities to train for full-spectrum operations. We have a 

pretty good program for irregular warfare now, and we need to 

adapt that so that we can do major conventional operations fullspectrum. That will involve some significant costs, I believe, but we 

are still in the process of developing it. 

The other thing we have to do is get smarter at how we use our 

home station training facilities, because you don’t want to take 

these guys who have just come back from 15 months and then 

shoot them out to Fort Irwin for a month or two. You want to do 

as much as you can at home station. So we are part of the way 

through that. That will come right out of this. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, General Casey and Secretary Eastin, for 

your public service. It is really a delight to have you come before 

the Congress and be part of this incredible team that makes up 

American democracy. 

I couldn’t help but think in your remarks that this committee 

has a lot to do with recruitment and retention. 

General CASEY. It sure does. 

Mr. FARR. We are dealing with the quality of life. I would argue 

that what you have done in the RCI project on housing cannot be 

matched in the private sector. I don’t know of any private sector 

job that can offer housing to their employees like the Army can. 

That housing on the Monterey peninsula is worth $1 million a 

house, and it is the only housing on the Monterey peninsula that 

has neighborhood centers, child care centers. There is no other private development that has incredible modern neighborhoods and 

city center growth. 

I think that the Department of Defense is way ahead of the private sector on that. I would argue that your access for young people 

to health facilities, to medical care, often is way above the private 

sector’s. The salary may not be the same, but the benefits are better. I think that we ought to try to promote those more for families, 

that you ought not leave or think about leaving and thinking that 

the grass is greener. I know my daughter is trying to buy a house, 

and there is no way that she could; but, if she were in the military, 

she could get some really nice quarters. 

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

I wanted to ask, because there are some budget implications, in 

Grow-the-Army, is there an impact on the MILCON projects in the 

FYDP? It seems like it hasn’t been addressed within the FYDP. 

General CASEY. Again, between the BRAC, global re-basing and 

the money we have received for the growth, we believe we are 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1052 

going to be fairly well settled by 2011. The money is in fact there. 

I am sure there are odds and ends that aren’t there, but we are 

in pretty good shape. 

Mr. FARR. Here is what is happening on the ground. The explosion in student population at the Defense Language Institute and 

at the Naval Postgraduate School, and the fact is that there are 

more families, so you have increased military dependent health 

care needs. We are working with all the communities and the VA 

to address that issue. 

But the first thing we are finding is that the increased construction costs are now requiring that the project be built down—just 

shrink them—to stay within budget. Is that the way we are going 

to handle this higher cost of construction and higher cost of steel 

and cement and so on, and just shrink buildings that are now not 

meeting the purpose for which they are intended, and not meeting 

their design criteria? We are growing the people, but shrinking the 

buildings because of construction costs? 

Mr. EASTIN. In order to continue, we would like to stay within 

our budget for construction costs. Inflation, as you know, is a factor. We see it moderating a bit right now. 

Mr. FARR. We adjust for fuel prices. Shouldn’t we adjust for those 

costs, too—for construction costs? We are always coming in here 

and giving supplemental money for all the fuel costs for the Air 

Force and for the Defense Department. Perhaps we ought to think 

about that, rather than just building down. 

Mr. EASTIN. Congressman, I don’t think this is a problem 

throughout the Army. It may be specific to DLI. But throughout 

the Army, we have found pockets of problems like that, but nothing 

overall that we can’t engineer around without doing any drastic reductions. 

Mr. FARR. I would be interested in hearing how we might address that out in California. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Army did not provide Congressman Farr 

with a response.] 

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC AT FORMER FORT ORD

Secretary Eastin, you talked about sustaining the Army and the 

commitment to soldiers and their families. I am working with the 

DLI and the Naval Postgraduate School, and the whole military 

community out there, and the VA, to build a community-based outpatient clinic, a CBOC. The Army Presidio and the VA at Palo Alto 

have signed a memorandum of understanding this last July to construct the facility. It is my understanding the Army Medical Command Madigan intends to provide medical staff for the new clinic. 

I just wanted to confirm on the record that that is correct. 

General CASEY. I don’t know. We would have to get back with 

you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

STAFFING NEW MEDICAL CLINIC IN MONTEREY

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Palo Alto Health Care System and the Department of 

the Army, Western Regional Medical Command (WRMC) at Fort Lewis, Washington, have discussed collaborative initiatives to enhance the delivery of healthcare 

services for VA and DoD beneficiaries who reside in Monterey, California. To that 

end, both organizations expressed interest in exploring innovative approaches to deVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1053 

livering healthcare for the 77,300 eligible beneficiaries who live in the Monterey/ 

Santa Cruz area. The WRMC Command fully supports a rapid study and analysis 

of the Presidio of Monterey market which may lead to the planning and design of 

a Joint Use Clinic. WRMC would support the joint staffing of a proposed DoD-VA 

Outpatient Clinic in the Presidio of Monterey area. 

Can I just pick up on something you said at the beginning and 

relate it back to what the chairman said? We get questions all the 

time about why are people leaving. Maybe about 12 percent of the 

captains might leave. The real question for all of us is why are they 

staying. One, they are staying because of some of the health benefits. They are staying because of some of the facilities. But primarily they are staying because they believe in the values and 

ideals that the country stands for, and they believe we are at war 

and they are making a difference, and they are defending this 

country. So the facilities and the amenities, it is an important part 

of it. 

Mr. DICKS. Would you yield just on that for a brief second? How 

do you know that? Do you go out and really talk to them? 

General CASEY. Talk to them. Right. 

Mr. DICKS. And find out why they are staying in? I think that 

would be very interesting. 

General CASEY. I do. I talk to them all the time. Now, we are 

doing a survey here to kind of get a little more granularity to it. 

Mr. DICKS. I think that would be a good idea. 

Sorry, Sam. 

Mr. FARR. No, that is a good point. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Casey, can you kind of talk about the Grow-the-Army 

initiative, which requires a corresponding increase in barracks, operations facilities, training ranges, family housing, child care, dining halls and the other facilities like hospitals. I was interested in 

your comments about health care. I, too, am very concerned that 

our warriors and their families have the best possible medical care 

available. 

I was wondering whether or not you have or if you will add to 

your supplemental request for the medical health of the military, 

which I have a particular interest in at Fort Benning, which is 

being plussed-up by BRAC, and also you have returning soldiers 

coming there, as well as with the Grow-the-Army, because it is a 

training base, as well as the other training that is already there 

and that will be expanding. 

Of course, the hospital there is the oldest hospital in the inventory, and the construction of a new hospital was moved from there 

to Aberdeen Proving Ground several years ago. So they are in bad 

straits. Can we expect a request from the Army to accelerate that 

at Fort Benning, as well as the other military medical facilities 

that are in great need of upgrading? 

General CASEY. We are still working the 2009 construction budget, so I wouldn’t want to comment on that right now. However, you 

raise a good point. There is $157 million or so allocated in BRAC 

for the addition to the hospital, an addition to a 50-year-old hosVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1054 

pital, and there is something to be said for getting about twice that 

much money and building a new hospital. 

Mr. BISHOP. Exactly. 

General CASEY. So that is something that we are thinking about. 

Before you came, we were talking about—Mr. Wamp and myself— 

he was born at Fort Benning Hospital. I have a sister and a son 

born at Fort Benning Hospital. 

Mr. BISHOP. My wife was born at Fort Benning, too. 

General CASEY. So there is some affinity. [Laughter.] 

The other thing you mentioned, and it kind of gets to the point 

that I said about there is a lot going on out there, because it is not 

just barracks. It is not just child development centers. It is not just 

headquarters. We are re-basing one-third of the Army and it is all 

those things that you mentioned coming together in a holistic way. 

We have been working this very closely. The places I have been, 

I am very impressed with the way that communities are tying into 

the installations and working things like road networks and 

schools and things like that. But you are exactly right, it is a holistic effort here to do what we are going to do. 

Mr. BISHOP. You brought a good segue in that to schools. 

General CASEY. I am just trying to work with you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. That was a good segue because we have a number 

of facilities across the country that will have a great need for 

schools during BRAC implementation, and of course the Fort 

Benning area is one, but there are others across the spectrum. We 

have to deliver because the BRAC account is not really large 

enough to accommodate that, and the impact aid which comes out 

of Education is not big enough to accommodate it. We have a tall 

order and we are expecting those families to start arriving in the 

very near future. 

The communities want to be ready, and we don’t want our men 

and women to be concerned about the quality of education that 

their families will be able to get. So is there anything you can tell 

us that will encourage us about the commitment and the impetus 

to try to put that additional money in and make it available? 

Maybe it is the economic adjustment fund? 

Mr. DICKS. We have impact aid that we put in the Defense bill, 

Sanford. We put $35 million in last year. This year, we are requesting $50 million for impact aid. This is not Department of Education. This is in the Defense bill. So that is the place where you 

want to add that if we can do it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. The $50 million is probably, if you look at all 

the—— 

Mr. DICKS. A drop in the bucket. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Yes, just a drop in the bucket. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is not all construction, I don’t think, is it? 

Mr. BISHOP. It is not all construction, no. That is everything. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I was involved when we put that in and I don’t 

think that is construction. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is not. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I could be wrong. 

Mr. FARR. We don’t have any DoD construction dollars. We have 

been asking for them for years. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1055 

Mr. BISHOP. That is what I know. That is why I am prodding the 

chief of staff here if he would help us to try to raise the urgency 

of more funds to deal with these impacted communities. They are 

going to have a real big need, much larger than the impact aid account and much larger than the heretofore BRAC account. And we 

probably are going to have to try to work some kind of cooperation 

with all of the committees of jurisdiction to see if we can’t try to 

address this pressing need. 

General CASEY. What we have been doing—— 

I am sorry. 

Mr. FARR. I asked the gentleman to yield. 

What they need is a special bond or revenue bond that they can 

go out and borrow, because they have to do a lot of construction. 

They have to gear up in a hurry, and these are the public school 

systems. It is not in their state planning budget because this decision to redeploy was a federal decision. So it is an emergency issue 

that the school district needs, and there is no way. The impact aid 

goes just for the ongoing operations and replacement of property 

taxes. 

Mr. EASTIN. There are a couple of programs available out there 

in terms of basically government tax-free bonds that the private 

sector can put together to build the schools and lease them to 

school districts over a 20- or 30-year period. That would not help 

the ultimate payment of it, but it sure spreads it out. 

What we have looked at, and Congressman, we were in this 

meeting with various Benning area schools officials a couple of 

months ago, and they had needs for about $160 million. It is not 

all Defense, not all Army children. The real surprise for me is the 

disparate way that impact aid is calculated. If we go up to Carson, 

for example, it is $2,400 per student. If you go over to Phoenix 

City, it is $77 per student. Now, there is something missing here. 

What we need to do in having some responsibility for our families and the children, is to get with your local people who must 

apply for this, and perhaps get together and figure out how to write 

these applications so that they are all treated fairly. Somewhere in 

Colorado Springs, they figured this out. We need to get down there 

and help you get that impact aid from the Department of Education. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Members, in order of members who showed up 

after we began the hearing, it will be Mr. Dicks, Mr. Crenshaw, 

Mr. Berry and then Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Dicks. 

FULL SPECTRUM OPERATIONS

Mr. DICKS. I was reading about this debate within the Army 

about full spectrum operations. You have this colonel up at West 

Point who is saying the only thing the Army can do now is 

counterinsurgency. We are not training people to fight a conventional war. Have you entered this debate, general? Are you on one 

side or the other? 

General CASEY. I talked about this, and this talks about full 

spectrum operations, about the need to be able to do anything. 

Mr. DICKS. Right. But we are not training people right now to 

do that, are we? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1056 

General CASEY. In the short term, no, we are not. But what I 

have said here, as units are home for at least 18 months, they will 

begin doing training in major conventional operations. 

Mr. DICKS. When do you think that will be? As you look at the 

buildup of the forces, when do you think we will start to train people in the full spectrum of warfare? 

General CASEY. Just so you know, out at Fort Lewis, I Corps has 

just come back from Korea after they went out and practiced an exercise counterattack. So there are elements in the Army, particularly Korea and the Pacific, that are still doing full spectrum operations training. 

Mr. DICKS. Good. 

General CASEY. I think you are going to see as we get down the 

15 brigades that have been promised in Iraq, what you will see is 

that the time at home will gradually increase. At the end of this 

year and first part of next year, you are going to see more and 

more units having time to re-tweak their conventional skills, and 

over time it will get to the point that by 2011 we will have almost 

as many brigades trained full spectrum as you do training to do irregular warfare. So it will be a gradual improvement. 

Now, am I concerned about that? Well, yes. But I will tell you, 

I grew up in an Army that never had to fight, so we didn’t know 

how to fight. These young men and women out there now, they 

know combat. So the skills to man a howitzer, they will come back 

pretty quickly. That is crew drill. They know how to target. We 

didn’t. We had to use long exercises to figure out how you target. 

There are a lot of skills that are readily transferable. But that said, 

we will get this combat-seasoned force back in shape for full spectrum operations relatively quickly. 

Mr. DICKS. You mentioned the re-set. I was really impressed out 

at Fort Lewis. I was just out there, and saw them doing the repair 

work and fixing the Strykers. They have set up their own operation 

right there to do that, and I didn’t realize that. I thought they were 

going to some depot somewhere, but they are doing it right at Fort 

Lewis. I think that is a very valid concept if they can do it. 

One idea that came up when we were out there is that maybe 

you need to have a center, maybe do this regionally, where you 

could have a facility to do the re-setting of the Stryker vehicles. So 

that was one idea that came up. 

Another thing I just wanted to mention to you that we did out 

there in terms of quality of life, and this was one of the dreaded 

earmarks I did a couple of years ago. We created a computer training program for the youth at Fort Lewis, not just the young soldiers, but actually for the children. I went out there with General 

Soriano and also with General Dubik, who wrote me a wonderful 

letter saying this was one of the best things he had ever seen. This 

program trains young kids on how to use computers. I think we 

should do it everywhere if we can afford to. 

I visited Fort Lewis, and the parents said to me this is the best 

thing we have ever seen; our kids have improved in school dramatically because they now have computer training. This was a very 

small program to get started. It was like $1 million, and you have 

sustained it at Fort Lewis, at least, but I don’t think it is being 

done anywhere else that I know of in the country. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1057 

General CASEY. I don’t think there is an Army program, but I 

think it is probably being done at other bases based on individual 

initiatives like yours, but it is a great program. 

Mr. DICKS. When you get out there, I will show it to you. 

General CASEY. I will. I walked in on my 8-year-old grandson 

and he was making corrections on his paper on the computer. 

Mr. DICKS. We didn’t have that. We used to have to take it back 

to the class. 

General CASEY. I know. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GUARD AND RESERVE

Thank you, general. It is great to see you again. You mentioned 

in those four—sustain, prepare, transform and then the reset 

part—I wanted to ask you about that because obviously that is 

very important particularly as it relates to the National Guard because I think the National Guard is being utilized a lot more than 

anybody ever really imagined. They have to have equipment. And 

then you take a place like Florida where if it hadn’t been for the 

National Guard during, I guess it was 2004 we had some pretty severe hurricanes, and the Army National Guard was on the scene 

doing a great job. 

So you worry about the equipment. In things that I have read, 

there was a time when maybe the equipment was 40 percent of 

what they really needed. I know we funded some of the equipment 

and it is back up, but even today I am told that in Florida it is 

probably 60 percent of what they probably need, and I know the 

different reasons. 

But I guess my first question is, how do you decide when you sit 

down and say here is the money, or this is how much money we 

need, how do you decide where the Reserve component fits into 

your overall prioritization? 

General CASEY. Well, to go back to your point that we are using 

the Guard and the Reserve in a much different way than we had 

planned to use them in the past. In the past, we thought of them 

as a strategic reserve that they would be called up and have 3 to 

6 months to get ready to go, and they would all go. And so they 

didn’t need much equipment. We would be able to fill them up in 

that interim period. 

That is not what is happening right now, as you know. They are 

a much more operational force. We, in an active Army of 547,000 

which is where we will be in 2010 when we have finished our 

growth, an Army that size will need to continue to rely on the 

Guard and Reserve for the future. 

So to do that, they have to be equipped and trained almost to the 

same level as the active force. Now, we have been looking very 

closely at the equipment of the Guard and Reserve. As you say, 

Florida is about 60 percent. What we see is the Guard as a whole 

is about just under 80 percent of the equipment, but there is stuff 

deployed with their units. There is stuff deployed on other missions. So the governors have about 60 percent of the equipment. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1058 

So we established a category of equipment called dual-use equipment. I think there are 10 to 13 items that we tracked—trucks and 

things that can be used for a wartime mission but could also be 

used in the event of a natural disaster. We have put $17 billion 

over the next 2 years into buying equipment that the Guard needs. 

So that equipment will come in here to the Guard and Reserve over 

the next 2 years. 

And you know that once you get the money, it takes you 2 years 

to get equipment in the hands of the unit. So that happened several years ago and we should see the deliverance here over the next 

several years. I think we are moving in the right direction on this, 

and we are committed to giving the Guard soldiers the equipment 

they need to succeed. 

The other thing that I think you know, when they go to combat, 

they are going with the best stuff. We made a decision back when 

I was the vice chief to make sure that they had the same stuff and 

the new equipment first. I went out to Washington to see the 81st 

Brigade, and we were in the big warehouse the night they were 

getting it, and they were all kind of looking around going, if the 

active is giving us the good stuff, this must be really bad. [Laughter.] 

So we are fully committed. 

Mr. DICKS. You really said it. It is not just that you are saying 

here is a little something, for the Reserve. It is part of the Army’s 

priorities. And it sounds like you are even talking to the states and 

the governors. 

General CASEY. Very much so. 

Mr. DICKS. Because different states have different needs, and you 

are taking all that into consideration. That is encouraging to hear 

that, that they are not kind of just getting what is left over. 

General CASEY. No, we just can’t get there fast enough. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me ask on that same, I read somewhere that 

we are going to give 8,000 up-armored HUMVEEs to the Iraqis. I 

sit on Foreign Ops of this committee as well, and we are always 

talking about whether we can loan them stuff, give them stuff, 

whatever. What goes into a decision like that? Are they too expensive to bring them back? Are they worn out? What goes into that? 

General CASEY. I was on the periphery of this as it came through 

the department, but all those things play into it. We have equipment that is over there—to get it refurbished and bring it home, 

all has a cost to it. But probably the overriding consideration is the 

better equipment they have, the sooner they will be able to take 

over and do the jobs themselves. So as we worked our way through 

this, that seemed like the best thing to do. I think it was a good 

call. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And one last question, in terms of all the resets, 

right now we are bringing some of the troops home and we have 

pre-positioning that is going on, but I read somewhere we are kind 

of cutting back, and I don’t know if we would call that a reset or 

a re-stock, but we have always kind of relied on the pre-positioning 

equipment to be somewhere and then people can come back to the 

U.S. and—— 

But if we are going to slow down the re-stocking of those pre-positioning units or equipment, does that delay in any way our effort 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1059 

to some of the forward-deployed people, bringing them home? Are 

we still on track? 

General CASEY. No, it doesn’t impact on our ability to bring those 

folks home. 

Mr. DICKS. But is that going on a little bit? Is that being slowed 

down? Is that an issue of money? 

General CASEY. It is not being slowed down. It is all an issue of 

money. You only have so much to use, and in effect you spread it 

out. We have plans to replenish the pre-positioned stocks around 

the world, and I believe the timelines that we are on are appropriate. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Carter. 

IMPACT AID

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I thank you for being here. I had a bunch of questions, 

but the question on impact aid is one I would like to go back to. 

The issue of construction dollars on impact aid since I have been 

in the Congress, and I have been trying to get construction dollars 

for impact aid, and I have been told no, no, and hell no. 

So I want to know how you feel about that. In light of the fact 

that the Army is so (INAUDIBLE) today. I will use an example, 

and you know how upset I am about the fact that I thought we 

were supposed to have 49,000 troops at Fort Hood and we are only 

going to have 42,000, but we will actually build schools for 49,000. 

General CASEY. Congressman, we are planning to have 49,000 by 

2013. 

Mr. CARTER. No, 49,000 civilians and troops. I don’t want to get 

into that debate. I am not getting there. The point is that if you 

are a school district and you are trying to stay ahead of the game, 

which I will say that Killeen and Copisco School Districts have 

done, they are ahead of the game, had the schools in place when 

the troops got there. You have to go to your people and you have 

to get a bond issue passed, and you have to build that school, and 

you have to build it in record time most of the time. 

Now, they need some help on that. That puts such a burden upon 

their taxpayers it grows and grows and grows. They know the benefits for the community so they don’t complain, but if the Army 

then cuts back and you have schools that don’t have a use, the saddest thing for a school district is to be a declining school district. 

Talk to Spring Branch in Houston, to where the children population have moved out of your district and now you have your 

major capital investments with nobody in them. You have to dispose of them and they are worthless. 

The Army should not be in a position of putting these communities around there in that particular for a seesaw. I am not saying 

you should (INAUDIBLE) the whole plan, but there ought to be a 

creative package, and I will look into this suggestion that you have. 

I know that we have done housing creative packages both in the 

military and in low-income housing because I worked at this for 

half my life. We could come up with a package that would secure 

this, and I would like for us at least to start thinking about it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1060 

That is all I want to say about that, but he is right. Impact aid 

is necessary for construction and we don’t have it, and we need it. 

[The information follows:] 

IMPACT AID

Impact Aid funds are an important source of revenue for school districts that educate federally connected children. Managed by the Department of Education, Impact 

Aid is used by local education agencies to compensate for the loss of local property 

tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt Federal property or to offset increased expenditures due to enrollment of federally connected children. 

The Army in coordination with the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment and Department of Education conducted a series of installation visits to 

provide Impact Aid stakeholders with on-the-ground knowledge of issues surrounding mission growth, improve communications among all partners, and identify 

gaps/lags in capacities. In December 2007, there was a growth summit held in St. 

Louis, Missouri, where participants shared local growth experiences, including techniques or services that would help affected communities respond better to anticipated growth. 

The Army does not build schools for its school-aged dependents; however, it 

shares lessons learned from communities helping themselves to find creative funding opportunities for school construction. The Army is providing projections of 

school-aged dependents to surrounding communities for planning required facilities. 

The Army will continue to work with local schools and partner organizations to find 

creative solutions for the often-unique school transition and education issues that 

mobile military dependent children face. 

MORTGAGES

Now, has anybody looked into what is going on with the mortgages? Has the Army been considering this mortgage crisis that we 

seem to have in this country right now? Because I am concerned 

about our soldiers. It is bad enough. There may be some of our soldiers that purchased some of these houses that we got for them 

with these ARMs. 

I don’t know what kind of financing they used, but it is bad 

enough to be a guy with an ARM mortgage living in the United 

States right now, but to be over in the middle of a war and having 

mama face the possibility of foreclosure has got to be a real crisis 

on the family. Is the Army doing anything on the issue of the mortgages as it relates to the housing that we have so effectively created for our soldiers and we are so proud of, because we don’t want 

these guys foreclosed on. 

General CASEY. I started hearing stories about this a couple of 

months ago. I have asked our personnel director to see what abilities we have, or what we might do to help them out. I have not 

heard back yet. 

Mr. CARTER. It would be great if we would start trying to put our 

heads together and coming up with a program specifically driven 

for the Army, because they have certain flexibility they could deal 

with, but then sometimes the (INAUDIBLE) and one of them is 

being deployed. 

General CASEY. The other thing I have to do is try to get arms 

around the scope of the problem. We have anecdotal reports, but 

I can’t really say—— 

Mr. CARTER. And I know there are some who say the relief act 

is out there and that is some relief temporarily, but it ultimately 

catches up with you. So I am raising that flag and I am glad that 

you are on top of it because that is important. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1061 

The Army is not proposing any legislation for mortgage relief; however, Senator 

Kerry introduced S. 2764, as an amendment to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 

to enhance protections for servicemembers relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures, and for other purposes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

HEALTH CARE

We will start round two. 

Chief and Secretary Eastin, I would like to talk about health 

care, and just to follow up on Mr. Carter’s comments, I will just 

say for the record that I was surprised, as was Mr. Carter, as was 

the local community, as were a lot of people, to find out that the 

end-strength for Fort Hood, which we all thought we had been told 

was going to be 49,000, is actually only going to be 42,000. What 

happened is they took 6,000 or 7,000 civilian employees that I 

think are already there and threw that into the mix. That was 

never made clear to the public, to the congressman that represents 

Fort Hood, Mr. Carter, the congressman who represented it for 14 

years in the House—— 

Mr. CARTER. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. I just got handed a note that said that we are now 

projecting maybe 45,000 or 46,000. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So the numbers could be changed. 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is not inconsequential to military construction, 

because if you do have a major installation that in BRAC was listed as the number one installation for potential expansion, it is not 

fully utilized, and that means we are spending more elsewhere. But 

we will follow up on the details on that. 

Mr. EASTIN. Incidentally, we looked into this, where this came 

from, and our number is still 49,600. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For soldiers? 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, soldiers. So we need to get our heads together 

and figure out where the heck this came from. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We talked to General Cody. 

Mr. CARTER. I talked to General Cody on the phone less than a 

week ago, 2 weeks ago. 

Mr. EASTIN. We will look into this thing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If we are not careful, Congressman Dicks will take 

any extras out at Fort Lewis, so we have to get that resolved. 

Mr. DICKS. If they need a home, we will take care of them. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you, and I will stick to the 5-minute 

rule here in the second around, on defense health care in terms of 

long-term planning, it seems to me that neither the previous administration or this one has put together a long-term plan for recapitalizing the hospitals, particularly given growing the force, 

BRAC, and global repositioning. 

You have installations such as Fort Benning that has an ancient 

hospital. You have Fort Riley and others where you are going to 

have nearly double the number of soldiers there, and yet it is in 

a relatively rural area so the local health care providers don’t have 

the capacity to absorb that increased demand. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1062 

Is there a long-term capital investment plan for recapitalizing 

and modernizing the Army health care system? I think we may be 

talking about literally billions of dollars, not an earmark we can 

take care of, but literally $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion or more. Is there a plan on paper anywhere for the future of 

recapitalization and modernization of the Army hospital system? 

Mr. EASTIN. The construction budget that Defense Health Affairs 

runs, which is not the Army, though they have some interest in it, 

is give or take about $350 million a year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will never catch up at that rate. 

Mr. EASTIN. Well, tell me how long it takes to get to the $4 billion or $5 billion doing it $350 million at a time. It needs I think 

a re-looking right now, but I don’t know what it is. There is a heck 

of a lot of recapitalization to be done out there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It reminds me a lot of the situation a decade or 

so ago when this Subcommittee on Military Construction looked at 

the military housing situation and saw we would never dig out of 

the hole. We were getting deeper and deeper, and that is where 

this subcommittee was very involved in the RCI program. 

Mr. EASTIN. The good thing about is that while the facilities are 

old, they are all in good shape and first-rate health care is delivered. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Each year, we hear from the top noncommissioned officers and for 2 or 3 years running, child care was 

the number one quality-of-life concern unmet need. This year, it 

seems like health care maybe beat out child care. So anecdotally 

and also listening to these great leaders, the health care issue is 

becoming more difficult, and we would like to work with you and 

the DOD health folks. 

General CASEY. One-third of our hospitals are over 50 years old. 

One-third are between 25 years old and 50 years old, and the rest 

are relatively new. So you are right, and we know what we need. 

I think I am like Secretary Eastin, to say that there is a recapitalization plan is probably too strong. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What are you going to do at Fort Riley? And I will 

stop with that. With such a relatively rural area and nearly doubling the number of soldiers there, how are you going to take care 

of the health care needs at Riley? 

General CASEY. I don’t know of specific plans. 

Mr. EASTIN. I don’t either, other than I know that Defense 

Health Affairs is working with our surgeon general on these very 

issues. I don’t know the numbers specifically, but I could follow up 

with you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

HEALTH CARE NEEDS AT FORT RILEY

We recognize that the Fort Riley military community will grow beyond its current 

medical support capability. The Army is working closely with all stakeholders to develop both infrastructure and staffing solutions that will ensure Soldiers and family 

members at Fort Riley receive timely, high-quality care that meets or exceeds the 

Military Health System standard. Facility planning projects have been developed 

and are being submitted as part of the medical military construction program development. These projects include new construction as well as Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization projects that will keep the current structure operating safely 

and as efficiently as possible until a new facility is completed. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1063 

The biggest challenge we face is finding and retaining health care providers who 

either work at Irwin Army Community Hospital or join the managed care support 

network as a network provider in that area of Kansas. Additionally, as a result of 

both the continued frequency of deployments of military providers and the enhanced 

emphasis on staffing Wounded Warrior care organizations, military health care providers are becoming less available to assign to our military treatment facilities. 

A range of options will be used to complement and enhance Fort Riley’s need for 

additional health care providers. We are working very closely with the TRICARE 

Management Activity and the local medical community to address Fort Riley’s medical staffing issues. As of April 9, 2008, we have contracts in place to locally hire 

nine additional providers and 27 providers across the Great Plains Regional Medical 

Command to address the health needs of Soldiers and their Families. We are reviewing manning and staffing policies to determine if more military providers can 

be assigned permanently to Fort Riley. We are consulting with the Managed Care 

Support Contractors to improve the availability of care in the network. We are 

meeting with local community leaders to explore potential partnerships with civilian 

provider groups and hospitals to make more care available locally. We will temporarily assign providers to Fort Riley until a permanent solution is found. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would the chairman yield? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Gladly. I know the gentleman has been very involved in defense health issues. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. You acknowledge there is a need, but what we 

want you to do is to ask us and tell us. You just kind of keep pushing it off into the future and you are very indefinite about it. If you 

have a need and you need several billion dollars, say, hey, we need 

this, and then it becomes incumbent on us to try to help you get 

your need satisfied. But if you just sort of mumble and push it off, 

and say, well, it is something that we are going to look at and we 

will talk about later, well, we are talking about next year and the 

end of this year. 

We are talking about these (INAUDIBLE) under BRAC. And we 

are talking about the return in the next couple of years of a lot of 

these soldiers that are deployed. Of course, their families have the 

needs in the communities where these bases are located. We don’t 

get to do this but once a year, and we need you to help us. 

Mr. EASTIN. I don’t want to be mumbling and pushing it off, but 

it is under defense health care, who are the people who ask for this 

sort of thing. We can tell you we need these things, and it is fairly 

obvious that we do. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you can tell them that you need it, too. So we 

need to talk to defense health care, is what you are saying. 

Mr. EASTIN. But I am good at mumbling and putting it off. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief, any comments? 

General CASEY. The issue is how fast we recapitalize the facilities because the facilities are well maintained. They are accredited 

by the joint commission. They are good facilities, but they are old 

facilities. So that is the fight that we have inside the building 

about when do we need a new facility and when do we need to refurbish an old one. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, sir, they have a good plan at Fort Benning, for 

example, but when they have to shut down the operation of a hospital for 2 days for them to repair leaky pipes and all of the water 

has to be shut off, and they have to have an emergency plan to deal 

with the 2 days that they are repairing those pipes because they 

are 50 years old, we have a problem. While they perform well in 

terms of providing the care under those circumstances, we need 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1064 

something done soon to try to address that because it just doesn’t 

make sense when we have all these people that are going to be 

coming there, to have to shut down the hospital for 24 hours or 36 

hours to repair the water pipes. 

[The information follows:] 

MARTIN ARMY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT, FORT BENNING, GA 

Recapitalization of Martin Army Community Hospital is a priority for the Army 

Medical Department and has been included in the Department of Defense Medical 

Military Construction (MILCON) Future Years Defense Plan for the past five years. 

One of the oldest hospitals in the Army medical inventory, it is representative of 

facilities constructed in the 1950s that now require modernization and replacement. 

The projected population increase at Fort Benning, as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)-directed relocation of the Armor School, puts a tremendous burden on that facility’s capability and its infrastructure. 

The Army’s FY09 BRAC program includes the construction of expanded capabilities for the hospital, and plans are being developed to meet that need. 

Although complete replacement at a new site is the ideal solution, funding in the 

DoD Medical MILCON program is limited and competes with other important priorities. This present two-phased approach is first to add to the existing medical complex structure with the President’s requested FY09 BRAC funds, followed later with 

replacement and demolition of the original Martin Army Community Hospital using 

Defense Medical MILCON funding. This phased plan results in total facility replacement by 2015 or later. The construction cost for complete replacement at a new site 

is estimated at $505 million. If additional DoD Medical MILCON resources were 

made available in FY09 (including $32 million of Planning and Design funds), the 

currently programmed $157 million of BRAC funding could be redirected against the 

cost of total replacement, and a full replacement project could be under contract by 

June 2009. The soonest a new hospital could be operational, assuming all funds 

were provided in FY 2009, is 2012. 

Relocating Martin Army Community Hospital to a new site is the best solution. 

Not only will it provide a premier facility for a critical population of Army trainees, 

cadre, and Family members, it will also create the opportunity to provide services 

to deserving veterans. Space on the campus or within the facility could be offered 

to the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a Community Based Outpatient 

Clinic for their beneficiaries, leveraging the many capabilities that a new Martin 

Army Community Hospital will offer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We need a long-term plan, and we would like to 

work with you and the defense health folks to see if we can put 

one in place and then work hard to get it and find the funding, because clearly there is a need there, and we need to do that. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

RECRUITMENT GOALS

Mr. WAMP. General Casey, I put little stock in media accounts, 

especially on matters of war and peace, but USA Today wrote a 

piece on Monday about these conduct waivers in order to meet recruitment goals, and whether or not we are lowering standards. I 

want you just to speak to that issue. Are there any tools or incentives that Congress can use to help you meet recruitment goals and 

maintain your standards? 

General CASEY. The funding that is included in the 

supplementals in the base program is sufficient for us to meet our 

recruiting needs, and we are meeting them. In this fiscal year, we 

are over our objectives for the year and we fully expect to meet all 

objectives for the Army and the Guard and the Reserves. So that 

is going on well. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1065 

The question of quality always comes up. We are meeting all of 

our quality standards, with the exception of high school diploma 

graduates. The standard that we want to be at is 90 percent, and 

we are probably in the low 80s right now and we will continue to 

work on that. 

You mentioned the waivers. The waivers are something that we 

look very, very carefully at. For a soldier to get a waiver, he is 

looked at and his file is looked at by about 10 different people. So 

it is scrutinized. What we have found is that once a soldier goes 

through that process—and we have studies that back this up—he 

is more likely than a soldier without a waiver to get a valorous 

award, to get promoted, and they stay longer. 

Now, they do have a slightly higher discipline rate, but they are 

good soldiers, so it is a good process and we are satisfied with the 

quality of young men and women that are coming into the Army. 

Mr. WAMP. Good. That wasn’t in the story that I read. 

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Now, I will throw you a curve ball, which is just an interest I 

have. We have been concerned at this subcommittee—the chairman 

and myself and others—about the increase in funding out of this 

subcommittee, particularly as it goes to the VA and the accountability that follows. Actually, there are some news stories out about 

the lack of accountability, and frankly, misuse of credit cards and 

accounting, and the inspector general writes up the VA. So the VA 

is going to have to answer to that, and we need to do all we can 

to hold them more accountable. 

The Pentagon, especially at a time of war, receives a whole lot 

of money without much accountability because we trust the men 

and women in uniform, and rightly so, but General Casey—37 

years, a brilliant career—what can you tell this subcommittee that 

you think needs to be done prospectively to try to get more bang 

for our buck, to be more efficient, to be more accountable at the 

Pentagon to reduce waste? 

Most of the books I read, I want to read, but I read that book 

3 years ago about inside the Green Zone, and it was an ugly expose 

of the way we procured and spent money early in Iraq. I know we 

have learned a lot of lessons, but actually anybody here would be 

reticent to fund big increases for the military going into that theater if they had read that book and thought half of it was true. 

What can you say to that after 37 years of seeing this up close and 

personal? 

General CASEY. Well, first of all, we all work very hard to be 

good stewards of the resources that we get from Congress and the 

American people. What I have seen and experienced is that as a 

country, as a nation, this war on terror has caused us to have to 

adapt the regulations and the policies and the procedures that really drove us through the decades of the Cold War. The stuff is just 

different. 

As I in my former position, looking at trying to apply peacetime 

contracts regulations in a war zone, it was difficult, if not time-consuming. So we have adapted and grown over time, and we had 

some contact with correcting challenges that we discovered in the 

Army and Kuwait. We have stood up a contracting command and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1066 

put a two-star general in charge, and we organized that. But it is 

a long-term fix because we have to train sergeants and warrant officers and leaders to manage these huge contracts. 

The other piece of it is I have watched large institutions when 

they are faced with incremental change tend to try to do the same 

thing, increasing the mission with the same number of people and 

resources. That doesn’t always work. It usually backs up until it 

breaks. So we are trying to be proactive and identify where we are 

seeing increasing missions and getting the resources out there before there is a problem. 

But with what we are doing, and as I said, we are stressed, it 

is a constant fight. But we all go in with the commitment that we 

need to be good stewards. 

Mr. WAMP. General, I thought about you a minute ago when the 

secretary was talking about the hospitals that had been around for 

a long time, but were still in really good shape. So I thought of you 

when he said that. [Laughter.] 

General CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

STABILITY, SECURITY, TRANSITION AND RECONSTRUCTION

General Casey, last week we had General Ward in here talking 

about the whole structure of setting up AFRICOM. I reminded him 

of General Abizaid who was here sitting in the chair many years 

back, indicating that from his command post and from his background and cross-cultural training and learning Arabic, that America really couldn’t establish peace until America could cross the cultural divide. 

I was impressed by the fact that OSD issued a directive back in 

2005 called the Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition 

and Reconstruction. In that directive, they make stabilization and 

reconstruction operations a core competency equal to that of combat operations. In the QDR, it talks about the military’s increased 

emphasis on collaborative and collective capability to plan and conduct stabilization, security and transition and reconstruction operations. 

The Army’s posture statement says the Army is promoting stability and supporting reconstruction. How are you implementing 

this directive? 

General CASEY. I think this is a prime example of how we have 

taken that directive to heart. I mentioned this earlier in my testimony, but the core sentence in this whole document lays out the 

operational concept. It says Army forces combine offense, defense 

and stability operations simultaneously as part of an interdependent joint force to seize and retain and exploit initiatives and 

achieve decisive results. 

Mr. FARR. How do you implement it? How do you change your 

training programs? What are you utilizing to do that? 

General CASEY. I mentioned that earlier. This is a start point. I 

have just had two recent conferences about how we adapt our 

training centers to do that. This is already being taught in our 

schools at the captain level, at the major level, and at the lieutenant colonel level, because it is an education process. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1067 

Now, it is interesting. Someone mentioned the debate that is 

going on. I hear a lot about there is a debate going on within the 

Army about the old generals who want to go on fighting the Cold 

War and the young bucks that are coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have to tell you, I don’t see it. Nobody talks to me about 

that. You know, people understand, and most of the generals that 

have been there, we get it. It is in here in writing and we are moving out to implement it. 

This doctrine here will cause us to change our organizations, our 

materiel, our training, our leader development—everything we do. 

Mr. FARR. What was interesting about the AFRICOM briefing is 

that General Ward talked about that the new approach to security 

issues, including non-DOD officials in the senior chain of command—I think this is really on target. I lived overseas and learned 

to live as a minority in another land, learning their language and 

culture. It was an eye-opener because it really allows you to have 

a different lens from what you think the solution to the problem 

is. 

NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT

I represent Fort Hunter Liggett, which is a big Army Reserve 

training base. The Guard uses it a lot, too. One of the questions 

I keep getting from them is about the equipment readiness for the 

Guard and Reserve. You talked about rehabbing the equipment, 

but the concern there is that we are leaving an awful lot of our 

equipment in-theater, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I watched base closures and you left a lot of material behind in base closures that 

didn’t make any cost-effective sense to move it to another place, 

and that was to the benefit of the local community. I am sure that 

some of this equipment needs to be left for Iraq and Afghanistan 

forces. 

But what do you do to replenish that equipment in the shortfall? 

And how can that shortfall effect respond to the Guard’s need, particularly whether they have enough equipment to respond to domestic emergencies. 

General CASEY. A couple of things on that, Congressman. You 

may have some specific unit in mind, but by and large the perception that the Guard, particularly, left a lot of their equipment in 

Iraq and that is why they are short—— 

Mr. FARR. No, the Army is, not the Guard. 

General CASEY. That the Army is short? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. Well, don’t they get a lot of used equipment from 

the Army, right? 

General CASEY. We have really changed that. As the mission of 

the Guard has gone from being a strategic reserve called on when 

the boom goes up for the big one, and they got a lot of hand-medowns. But now we are using them as an operational force. They 

are deploying right now about once every 31⁄2 years. That is more 

than they can stand, too. 

But we shifted our equipment strategy back in probably 2003, to 

ensure—— 

Mr. FARR. Why are they so short, then, at the local level? Why 

is the equipment not there? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1068 

General CASEY. Because it takes 2 years from the time we get 

the money from Congress until equipment is in the unit, and there 

is $17 billion worth of equipment in 2008 and 2009 that is going 

into these Guard and Reserve units. Right now, the Guard has 80 

percent of their equipment, but between stuff that is deployed with 

their units and deployed on other missions, only about 60 percent 

of that equipment is available to the governors if there is a problem. 

I wish I could get it there faster, but the money is there, the 

equipment is bought—— 

Mr. FARR. So you think this is a gap that is going to be—? 

General CASEY. I do. I think it is going get substantially addressed here in the next 2 years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Farr. A lot of us get those questions. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Pass. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Carter. 

REDUCED TOUR LENGTHS

Mr. CARTER. We expect, I think tomorrow, an announcement on 

this going back to a 12-month deployment. I was wondering if you 

had any information about that plan and how it would affect the 

units that are already in-theater? Do you have any idea what that 

is going to do? 

General CASEY. I am not exactly sure what the plans are to announce the change. However, we would say that once there is a return (INAUDIBLE) in July, that then we (INAUDIBLE). We will 

see how the policy is announced, but after that (INAUDIBLE) we 

should be able to go to 12 months, but I don’t want to pre-judge 

anything. 

Mr. CARTER. It just has been on the radio and television up here 

in Washington that tomorrow President Bush is going to announce 

that they are going back to 12-month deployments. Now, maybe 

that is not true. Maybe that is speculation, but that is what they 

said. I was just trying to figure out, we have people in transit going 

over right now. We have people already in the fight over there 

right now, and of course they want to know. Or is everybody still 

on 15 months? Are the new guys deployed and going in at 12 

months, and the other guys staying at 15 months? I just thought 

you might know. 

General CASEY. I would suggest to you that if that is announced, 

it would probably be anyone deploying after a certain date. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PRIVATIZATION

Mr. CARTER. Okay. Conversations with ACSIM, Mr. Eastin, his 

approach led us to believe that Fort Hood would be a location for 

a BRAC privatization project—in fact, right here in this room. 

However, we see now that Fort Hood was ultimately not selected 

for this program. What is the basis for that decision and how much 

of it came from the BRAC-related recommendations? Or can you 

expound upon why they were ultimately not selected? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1069 

Mr. EASTIN. We put this privatization into three groups, and I 

believe Fort Hood is in the second group. 

Mr. CARTER. I just saw the names last time we had a hearing. 

Mr. EASTIN. It doesn’t have anything to do with BRAC. This is 

just a program we are putting together. So you will be up there 

soon. 

ARMY FOOTPRINT IN EUROPE

Mr. CARTER. One more question, if I have time, Mr. Chairman. 

What are the long-term plans for the Army footprint in Europe? 

With the expected draw-down from Germany being reversed, are 

there any MILCON needs that we need to address quickly in light 

of the decision to extend our presence in Europe? 

General CASEY. I think you know that those two brigades have 

been delayed, but it is a delay, it is not a halt, and we expect them 

to return sometime in 2012 or 2013. 

Mr. CARTER. The reason I asked is, when I went over with Chairman Walsh a couple of years ago, we went and looked at needs in 

Europe, and there were needs, but because we were going to have 

draw-down in Europe, they weren’t addressed. I just wondered if 

there is anything this committee needs to know about in Europe 

since those brigades are going to be there, now it looks like a couple more years. 

General CASEY. I don’t have any specific issues from the 

USAREUR commander there about what he needs, but I can tell 

you as a division commander there myself, I had a hard time getting money to fix my facilities because they were always going to 

close. I don’t have anything specific—— 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. Thank you, Judge Carter. 

Mr. Berry. 

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. EDWARDS. Chief, let me ask, this committee took the initiative last year to add a significant amount of money for day care 

centers because repeatedly, as I addressed earlier, that has been a 

top priority mentioned by the noncommissioned officer leaders and 

others as well. 

Again, I know you and Secretary Geren have carved out quality—as one of the areas that you want to really make a lasting 

push over this last year. I see what the administration has asked 

for a significant increase in the number of day care centers in this 

budget, and I assume that came from your offices. If we build more 

day care centers, does the Army have the means and the manpower and the funding to open up those and to operate them? Do 

you have enough personnel? If we build more day care centers, can 

you run them? 

General CASEY. It is location. We have to take a look at it. By 

and large, I think the answer probably would be yes, but depending 

on where you are and having qualified folks to run the facilities 

can be a challenge. 

But I would just thank you for what you have done. We have had 

a noticeable, noticeable by families, improvement in the number of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1070 

child care facilities that are out there. I have to say we are in pretty good shape. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Especially in times of such high deployment rates, 

there are a lot of single moms or dads back home here in the 

United States and they need that extra care. 

General CASEY. And part of this family covenant and the money 

and additional resources we put against it, we have been able to 

waive the registration fees. It doesn’t sound like much, but it 

makes a big difference for a young parent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is day care funded? Do the troops get subsidized? 

General CASEY. We don’t subsidize the troops. We subsidize the 

facility. The charges are based on the amount of money the family 

has. We cap the lowest level at about just under $200 at the lowest 

level. That is the most they can pay a month. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What would a sergeant pay? Do you have any 

idea? 

General CASEY. I think they are the next level, and it probably 

gets around $300 a month. I better check that. 

[The information follows:] 

CHILD CARE FEES FOR AN E–5 

The Army is committed to making child care affordable for Soldiers and their 

Families. Each year the Department of Defense provides guidance on child care 

based on total family income, not rank. Fifty percent of married E–5s, with a working spouse, pay an average of $354 for one child per month. A single E–5 with one 

child typically pays $295 per month, while a married E–5 with two children and 

a working spouse may pay as much as $830 per month, depending on the Soldier’s 

time in grade and their combined income. Local command options to further address 

affordability include multiple child discounts up to 20 percent, and case-by-case fee 

reductions for financial hardships. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Let me also ask, do you know, or could you 

tell us your best estimate of when all the global force BCTs will 

have been stood up? 

General CASEY. In fiscal year 2011. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In fiscal year 2011. 

General CASEY. That is when we are planning to be done. And 

that is a big component of getting us back in balance, because that 

will give us a total of 48 brigades for a total increase of 74,000 soldiers and that is a pretty potent force. 

KOREA

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And one last comment to you, chief and 

Secretary Eastin, let us know if we can work with you vis-a-vis 

Korea. We had General Bell in recently and we had a long discussion about the problems of housing in Korea. It is not a new story. 

We were aware of that before General Bell came. But it has just 

bothered me for several years about the policy. We made the decision about not investing more resources in the Republic of Korea, 

and only 10 percent of our married soldiers are accompanied there. 

I do understand in the years when we were at small and remote 

outposts, and within the range of artillery in the DMZ area, it 

might not have made sense bringing families. But as we are consolidating farther away from the DMZ, especially given some of 

these soldiers who may have just come back from a second deployment in Iraq, and they get sent to Korea, it just seems to me that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1071 

more than 10 percent of them ought to have the right to have their 

families accompany them. 

We asked General Bell, what would be your best estimate? If we 

had all the facilities—education and housing there—what percent 

would want to bring their families to Korea? He estimated 70 percent. So if that is approximately correct, by policy, by lack of investment in housing and quality of life in the Republic of Korea, 

we are basically forcing 60 percent of the married soldiers going to 

Korea to live apart from their families. That just doesn’t seem right 

to me. 

I know this isn’t easily solved, but it has been something that 

has been around for a long time, and any thoughts you have about 

what we can do now, today, or in the months ahead, we would sure 

like to work with you on it. 

Mr. EASTIN. We have $125 million in MILCON to build basically 

216 units. That is give or take, 9 percent or 10 percent of what we 

need there. We are working on a program now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. When you say 9 percent or 10 percent of what we 

need, does that assume what percent would be accompanied? 

Mr. EASTIN. General Bell had asked us for 2,400 units to solve 

his immediate needs. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What percent of accompanied families would that 

have assumed? Any idea? 

Mr. EASTIN. I think that is somewhere in the 60 percent range 

as planned, because at one time he talked about 2,800 and then 

4,000—the numbers move. Some of our families live off-post right 

now by choice. They are not accompanied tours, but they are living 

in Korea. 

But our goal at Humphreys is right now to build about 2,400 additional units. What we are trying to do is encourage the private 

sector to do that for us, and we would then support them with 

overseas housing allowance. We have I think a fairly decent response. We had a forum over there 6 weeks or so ago. It was attended by 550 people, all of whom, I might add, stayed after my 

speech, so it couldn’t have been that bad. [Laughter.] 

But there is a tremendous amount of interest and a tremendous 

amount of interest of the financial community, which is how this 

transaction is going to be made. You can’t build $1 billion worth 

of construction if you don’t have the $1 billion. With that kind of 

money out there, we have gotten an exceptionally large amount of 

interest in this. We intend to go out with a request for proposals 

probably in mid-May. We will know at that time where we stand, 

but it would be my goal to get this thing awarded, sometime either 

late in this fiscal year or early next fiscal year. But it will be a different way of doing things over there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your efforts, and let’s continue 

working together on this. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I have one suggestion and observation and then one 

question. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1072 

SECURITY, STABILITY, TRANSITION AND RECONSTRUCTION

I really appreciate your response to that last line of questions 

about this stabilization and reconstruction training. The Naval 

Postgraduate School has created the first course in the United 

States. The Navy is following the Army’s lead in creating foreign 

area officers, and is doing that training at the Naval Postgraduate 

School now, because of the DLI, the Defense Language Institute 

which the Army operates. 

What is evolving in the military community there is this whole 

new curriculum and training. I just urge you sometime to take a 

look at all this. It is really coming together. It all starts somewhere. The curriculum, it has been testing it for several years now. 

NPS also has a Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction studies, 

and a lot of peace operations gaming takes place. 

The Navy has sent several officers to get master’s degrees in that 

area. One of the complaints has been—and you might want to look 

into this—is that there is no MOS. When they come out with these 

new skills, where do you take them to? The jobs for those skills 

haven’t yet been defined. I think there needs to be some work on 

that. In order to get people really desirous to get the training, they 

are going to want to know, hey, what is the way to get there and 

where am I going. 

There is a lot of desire. In fact, I found talking to soldiers coming 

back from Iraq, this is one thing they really got engaged in. They 

have been studying the cultures and living among them, and they 

are really fascinated in learning more about how to do civil affairs, 

and to try to prevent conflicts. And I have a bill that just passed 

the House and is pending in the Senate. General Petraeus even 

urged support for it. It is called the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilan Management Act of 2008, for setting up what you do 

in Special Ops to set up in the State Department and the USAID 

a reservist/civilian corps of people who are specialists in languages 

and area studies and civil society skills who can go in and do the 

ounce of prevention in failed states, rather than have to rely on 

calling up the Defense Department when, maybe, diplomacy would 

have worked. 

So I just encourage you to look into that. 

CACTF

My question is more specific, and I don’t know if you have the 

answer, but maybe you can get it for me. My staff noted that in 

the MILCON budget, there is a new training facility that is listed 

in both the National Guard’s budget and also in the Army Reserve. 

The Army Reserve has Fort Hunter Liggett, and next door—well 

30 miles away—is Camp Roberts. The question is, is this going to 

be built at Camp Roberts or is it going to be built at Fort Hunter 

Liggett? 

General CASEY. You got me on that one. 

Mr. FARR. Well, it is in both budgets. 

[The information follows:] 

ARMY RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY

The Army Reserve project is no longer valid. The Army Reserve Combined Arms 

Collective Training Facility (CACTF) project at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, was 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1073 

programmed for fiscal year 2012. However, the Army removed that project due to 

a duplicate CACTF project at Camp Roberts, California, programmed by the Army 

National Guard for fiscal year 2011. Camp Roberts is considered a better training 

location for this project than Fort Hunter Liggett. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I was proud to know it was going to be in California. [Laughter.] 

General CASEY. We will get you the answer on that. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your testimony today. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, General Casey, Secretary Eastin, thank you 

for being here today, for your testimony, and for your life-long service to the Army and our country. 

Question. No. 17 You indicated in your testimony that more training will be done 

at home stations in the future. How will this impact the use of Army training centers such as those at Fort Irwin and Fort Polk? 

Answer. The Combat Training Centers (CTCs) are the core of the Army’s collective training strategy and have dedicated resources beyond those available at home 

station training sites. The Army’s objective is to provide units the ability to train 

rigorously at home station and prepare for their high fidelity training events at the 

CTC. 

The CTCs have the capability to meet the high level of use for essential training 

requirements of deploying units. However, as the Army grows to 76 Brigade Combat 

Teams (BCTs), the CTC structure, in its current state, will not be able to support 

all training events envisioned in Objective Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 

training strategies. Accordingly, the Army plans to add CTC capacity in the FYI 10– 

15 programmed objective memorandum and will work to resource additional requirements. 

Army leadership has approved several initiatives designed to ensure the CTCs can 

support ARFORGEN and the transformed, modular Army. These initiatives include 

establishing overseas- and stateside-based Exportable Training Capability (ETC). 

The ETC moves to a designated training site, in accordance with the ARFORGEN 

Training Synchronization Schedule, and provides training support in accordance 

with the CTC methodology to increase readiness. 

With 76 BCTs, the Army’s annual CTC requirement will be 40–41 rotations. The 

current CTC capability of 33–36 annual rotations depends on establishing ETC capability in the Continental United States (CONUS) and at the Joint Multinational 

Readiness Center, Germany, by FY10; the Army is currently assessing whether to 

establish a second CONUS ETC in FY12 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

ARMY MEDICAL ACTION PLAN (AMAP) AND THE SOLDIER FAMILY ASSISTANCE PLAN

(SFAP) 

Question No. 1. The Army has estimated a total MILCON requirement of approximately $1.4 billion to implement the Army Medical Action Plan/Soldier Family Assistance Plan. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $138 million for 

AMAP/SFAP, but I understand that none of the remaining funds have been programmed into the FYDP. Will Army program these funds into future regular budget 

requests, or do you intend to rely on supplemental appropriations beyond FY08? 

Answer. The Army has initiated both the Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and 

the Soldier Family Assistance Plan (SFAP) specifically in response to the current 

conflict and operational tempo. The programs are designed to alleviate stress for our 

Soldiers, Wounded Warriors, and their Families. As many of these requirements are 

related to the Global War on Terror, the Army has requested supplemental funding 

in the past to support these programs. The Army submitted the remainder of the 

AMAP construction requirements to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for FY09 

supplemental funding. While it is the Army’s intent to put as much as possible in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1074 

the base funding, decisions regarding base vs. supplemental funding requests for 

AMAP and SFAP are pending for FY10 and beyond. 

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 2 

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 3. 

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 4. 

GROW-THE-ARMY STATIONING PLAN/INTEGRATED GLOBAL POSTURE AND BASING

STRATEGY

Question No. 5. Why does the Army need to transfer the positions from the converted IBCT at Fort Stewart to stand up the second HBCT in Germany? Why can’t 

Army stand up the second HBCT using existing positions in Germany? 

Answer. Some of the Soldiers currently assigned to the converting Heavy Brigade 

Combat Team (HBCT) at Fort Stewart will be assigned to the Germany-based 

HBCT, based on military occupational specialty. While there are obvious differences 

in personnel requirements between a HBCT and an Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

(IBCT), there are also many common requirements i.e., infantrymen, wheeled vehicle mechanics, supply, and administrative personnel. Those personnel common to 

both organizations (who are ineligible to execute a permanent change of station 

(PCS)) will remain with the BCT as it converts. Those HBCT Soldiers not required 

in the IBCT (i.e., armored crewman) who are also ineligible to PCS will migrate to 

one of the two HBCTs remaining at Fort Stewart. Those Soldiers eligible for PCS 

will be assigned to Fort Stewart based on the needs of the Army. The Germanybased HBCT will retain its existing personnel and will continue to receive replacement personnel under the individual replacement system. 

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 6 

Question No. 7. What is the estimated date for a record of decision on the environmental impact statements that are required for the final restationing of the two 

temporary HBCTs in Germany at Fort Bliss/White Sands? 

Answer. The Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement to support final restationing of a Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) to Fort Bliss is 

tentatively scheduled for November 2009, and the Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for restationing of a HBCT to White Sands is tentatively scheduled for May 2009. 

Question No. 8. One of the six BCTs to be formed under the GTA Stationing Plan 

derives from cancelling the inactivation of the 43rd BCT at Fort Carson. Prior to 

GTA, when did the Army expect to inactivate this BCT? What is the impact of this 

decision on the MILCON program at Fort Carson? Were 43rd BCT facilities initially 

designated to receive another unit after inactivation? 

Answer. In December 2006, the Office of the Secretary of Defense directed the 

Army to reduce one active component Brigade Combat Team (BCT) and grow to a 

total of 42 active component BCTs in the program vice 43 as planned. Originally, 

the 43rd BCT was scheduled to activate in FY07. Due to the increasing demand and 

persistent shortfalls for BCTs in FY07, the Army delayed the decision to identify 

the brigade and location affected by the reduction; hence no facilities were earmarked for transfer to another organization. In January 2007, the President approved the growth of six additional BCTs in the active component as part of the 

Grow the Army plan. The 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division was designated as the 

43rd BCT and earmarked as the first of the six additional BCTs under that plan. 

This decision had no adverse impact on Fort Carson facilities. 

Question No. 9. When does Army expect to make a decision regarding the last 

3,500 of the 12,500 soldiers to be relocated from Korea? 

Answer. President Bush and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak agreed to 

a pause in the drawdown of U.S. troops from Korea during their April 2008, meeting 

at Camp David. Approximately 28,000 U.S. troops will remain in Korea for the foreseeable future. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1075 

BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION

Question No. 10. How many ‘‘groups’’ of installations are under consideration for 

barracks privatization, which installations are in each group, and what is the stage 

or status of planning and execution for each group? 

Answer. Barracks are constructed, modernized, operated, and maintained under 

traditional appropriated-fund programs. However, the Army does have five unaccompanied personnel housing privatization projects, which were designed after the 

Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Family housing privatization program. 

These projects provide apartments for single senior Soldiers at locations where adequate or affordable off-post accommodations are not available and consist of unaccompanied senior enlisted quarters and unaccompanied officer quarters at five sites 

for staff sergeants and above. The five sites are Fort Irwin, California; Fort Drum, 

New York; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Fort Bliss, 

Texas. Each of the five projects was made a part of the respective installation’s RCI 

Family housing project, and did not require any additional government contribution. 

The Fort Irwin privatization project agreement closed (i.e., went to financial settlement) in March 2004, and 125 accommodations were transferred to the RCI 

project. These accommodations will be replaced by 200 one-bedroom apartments. 

The Fort Drum project agreement closed in July 2007, and will build 192 one- and 

two-bedroom apartments. The Fort Bragg project agreement closed in December 

2007, and will build 312 one- and two-bedroom apartments. The Fort Stewart 

project agreement closed in January 2008, and will build 334 one- and two-bedroom 

apartments. The Fort Bliss project agreement will close in 2008, and include 358 

one- and two-bedroom apartments. 

MODULARITY

Question No. 11. What is the estimated outstanding MILCON cost for the Army’s 

transformation to modular units of action, excluding those costs already included in 

the BRAC/IGPBS and GT A programs? How many additional brigade complexes 

need to be constructed at what locations, and in what year of the FYDP are these 

complexes programmed? 

Answer. Currently, the Army has requested and programmed $8 billion for Military Construction in Fiscal Years 2009–2013, to support Army transformation. This 

includes funding for Military Construction, Army; Military Construction, Army Reserve; Military Construction, National Guard; and Army Family Housing. 

There are eight additional brigade complexes that are programmed in the Future 

Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Years and locations of construction are: 

Fiscal year 2010—Fort Stewart, Georgia; 

Fiscal year 2011—Fort Richardson, Alaska; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; and 

Fort Drum, New York; 

Fiscal year 2012—Schofield Barracks, Hawaii and Fort Bliss, Texas; 

Fiscal year 2013—Fort Wainwright, Alaska and Fort Lewis, Washington. 

IMPACT OF GROW THE ARMY ON FAMILY HOUSING

Question No. 12. How many additional dependents are expected due to Grow the 

Army? Please provide a breakout by each GTA location. 

Answer. The accompanying table represents the dependent increases expected at 

Grow the Army (GTA) locations. 

State Installation GTA 

strength change * 

GTA End State 

dependent 

increases 

Alaska ............................... Fort Richardson ........................................................... 613 932 

Alaska ............................... Fort Wainwright ........................................................... 229 348 

Colorado ............................ Fort Carson .................................................................. 4,877 7,413 

Georgia .............................. Fort Benning ................................................................ 45 68 

Georgia .............................. Fort Gordon .................................................................. 192 292 

Georgia .............................. Fort Stewart/Hunter AAF .............................................. 3,899 5,926 

Hawaii ............................... Schofield Barracks/Wheeler AAF ................................. 1,058 1,608 

Kansas .............................. Fort Leavenworth ......................................................... 274 416 

Kansas .............................. Fort Riley ..................................................................... 1,315 1,999 

Kentucky ............................ Fort Campbell .............................................................. 748 1,137 

Kentucky ............................ Fort Knox ..................................................................... 546 830 

Louisiana .......................... Fort Polk ...................................................................... 1,283 1,950 

New Mexico ....................... White Sands Missile Range ........................................ 191 290 

New York ........................... Fort Drum .................................................................... 900 1,368 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1076 

State Installation GTA 

strength change * 

GTA End State 

dependent 

increases 

North Carolina .................. Fort Bragg ................................................................... 1,405 2,136 

Texas ................................. Fort Bliss ..................................................................... 9,227 14,025 

Texas ................................. Fort Hood ..................................................................... 3,273 4,975

Texas ................................. Fort Sam Houston ....................................................... 60 91 

Virginia ............................. Fort Lee ....................................................................... 179 272 

Washington ....................... Fort Lewis .................................................................... 1,878 2,855 

* Dependent increases are based on the GTA population increases published in the GTA Stationing Plan, 19 December 2007. Dependent 

population was calculated using the DoD ratio of 1.52 (includes spouses and children). 

Question No. 13. How many additional family housing units will be needed for 

GTA, including both government-owned quarters and units built through RCI? 

Please provide a breakout by each GTA location. 

Answer. The Army works continuously with its Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) partners and the local community to ensure that adequate housing is 

available for Soldiers and Families. All of the Army’s deficit housing requirements 

in the United States are at installations that have privatized Family housing. 

The Army relies on the ‘‘community first’’ principle with approximately two-thirds 

of Army Families living off-post. Installations with gaining populations work with 

local communities to ensure development plans factor in Army growth. On-post 

housing is relied upon to meet mission requirements, shortfalls in available community housing stocks, or to maintain a viable military community. 

In support of Grow the Army, Congress approved $266 million in fiscal year (FY) 

2008 Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC) to pay for government equity contributions for additional housing at Fort Bliss, Texas (214 units); Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina (446 units); Fort Carson, Colorado (570 units); and Fort Lewis, Washington 

(520 units). 

The Army has requested $333.8 million in FY09 AFHC to pay government equity 

contributions for additional housing at Fort Bliss, Texas (763 units); Fort Carson, 

Colorado (530 units); and Fort Stewart, Georgia (932 units). 

The Army plans to program additional funds in FY10 if updated housing market 

analyses identify community housing shortfalls at other gaining installations. 

TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND INTERIM CAPACITY

Question No. 14. Army has indicated its intent to use additional temporary facilities for GTA. Current data shows that Army has an inventory of over 10.2 million 

square feet of temporary facilities. Of this inventory, 73 percent is currently programmed for replacement with permanent construction. Of the remaining 27 percent, how much does Army need to replace with permanent construction, and when 

will Army fund and complete such construction? 

Answer. The Army uses relocatable buildings as a last resort. When no other solutions are available, relocatable buildings provide urgently needed temporary facilities to meet peak surge missions or pending completion of regularly programmed 

Military Construction (MILCON) projects. 

The Army is programming MILCON projects to construct permanent facilities to 

replace the approximately 10 million square feet of existing relocatable building inventory. Seventy-three percent of existing relocatables currently have permanent facility projects prioritized in the 2009–2013 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

We will program projects for the remaining relocatables that require permanent facilities during the FY 2010–2015 MILCON program development. 

Question No. 15. Army has also indicated that a ‘‘facility gap’’, representing the 

difference in combined interim square footage capacity and the permanent facilities 

requirement, through at least FY14. When does Army expect to have the entire permanent facility requirement funded and in place? 

Answer. Currently, the Army is assessing the permanent construction program requirements for fiscal year 2014 and beyond and will strive to replace its combined 

interim square footage capacity with permanent facilities as soon as possible. A portion of the interim capacity will not receive permanent replacement projects because 

they serve temporary mission requirements. 

RANGE AND TRAINING LAND STRATEGY

Question No. 16. Has Army updated its 2004 estimate of the shortfall in range 

and training land to account for GTA? If so, what is the current estimated shortfall? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1077 

Answer. Yes, the Army considered training land shortfalls at all Grow-the-Army 

(GTA) candidate locations. Training land was actually one of the four optimized capabilities that the Army used to determine the GTA Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

(IBCT) stationing locations. The Army Range and Training Land Strategy is currently being updated to reflect all GTA growth. The Army anticipates that an updated Range and Training Land Strategy will be released in September 2008. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Wamp.] 

GROW-THE-ARMY (GTA) 

Question No. 1. The Grow the Army allows for an increase of 74,200 in Army endstrength across Active, Guard, and Reserve components. The Army will grow Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT), Support Brigades, Combat Support, and Combat 

Service Support Units. 

I understand that the permanent end-strength increase of 65,000 for the Army 

may be met by 2010. What kind of impact is this having on current training facilities, support, and housing? What is the Army doing to address those issues? 

Answer. The Army held a growth summit in December 2007 to discuss experiences, techniques and services to help affected installations and communities better 

respond to anticipated growth. Army quality of life requirements have been programmed into the Military Construction (MILCON) program in the President’s 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2009–2013. MILCON projects are underway, to include: installation and community based child development centers to achieve 80% of anticipated childcare demand; Army-wide construction and renovation of support facilities; and privatization efforts for 89,295 homes by FY10. 

Question No. 2. With the additional troops, how many new Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, and related brigade complexes and support facilities have been added 

to the force? How many new IBCTs will you have when you meet your end-strength 

numbers? When do you project to have all MILCON and Housing Construction completed to support these new Brigade Combat Teams? 

Answer. The Army will have two new Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to 

meets its end strength numbers at the end of FY10. The four additional Infantry 

BCTs will be operational by the end of FY11. The Army FY09 Military Construction 

Budget request was built to synchronize delivery of permanent construction for four 

BCTs on a timeline that meets the effective date for activation of all six Grow the 

Army BCTs. As part of its plan, the Army is using temporary facilities at Fort Bliss, 

Texas through FY14 to accommodate troops returning from Europe. 

SUSTAINMENT

Question No. 3. You say that first and foremost, Soldiers, Families, and Civilians 

have to be sustained, as they are the heart and soul of the Army. I couldn’t agree 

with you more. At the core of this, are two programs that have been developed: one 

is the Army Soldier and Family Action Plan, and the second is the Army Medical 

Plan. 

Please talk to the Committee about each of these initiatives. How were they developed? What kind of feedback are you getting on these? 

Answer. The Soldier and Family Action Plan (SFAP) is the cornerstone of one of 

seven Army initiatives designed to examine, analyze, and develop processes to better support the All-Volunteer Force. 

The SFAP identifies and monitors progress in five focus areas: (1) standardizing 

and funding existing Family programs and services; (2) increasing accessibility and 

quality of health care; (3) improving Soldier and Family housing; (4) ensuring excellence in schools, youth services, and child care; and (5) expanding education and employment opportunities for Family members. 

The Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) is the Army’s initiative to establish an 

integrated and comprehensive continuum of care and services for Warriors and their 

Families. The purpose is to provide world-class care to Warriors and their Families 

that match the quality of the service they provide to the Nation. There are nearly 

2,700 individuals assigned or attached as cadre to the 35 Warrior Transition Units 

(WTUs) that have been established at installations Army-wide and are caring for 

10,000 Warriors in Transition (WTs). The cadre are trained specifically for this mission, and every WT is supported by a triad of care consisting of a Primary Care 

Manager who is a physician, a Nurse Case Manager, and a Squad Leader. Dedicated Ombudsmen are also available who provide Soldiers and Families an extra resource and problem-solver. Since September 2007, they have handled over 3,200 

cases. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1078 

The Army also established a 24-hour hotline (the Wounded Soldier and Family 

Hotline) to provide an additional mechanism for WTs and Families to obtain assistance. Since its inception in March 2007, the hotline has received and responded to 

more than 11,000 calls. Soldier Family Assistance Centers (SFACs) have been established at installations with WTUs to serve as a single entry point for many services, 

including: 

1. Military personnel processing assistance 

2. Child care and school transition services 

3. Education services 

4. Transition and employment assistance 

5. Legal assistance 

6. Financial counseling 

7. Stress management and Exceptional Family Member support 

8. Substance abuse information and referral for Family Members 

9. Installation access and vehicle registration 

10. Management of donations made on behalf of Service Members 

11. Coordination of federal, state, and local services 

12. Pastoral care 

13. Coordination for translator services 

14. Renewal and issuance of identification cards 

15. Lodging assistance 

Since its inception in April 2007, the AMAP has shown a steady improvement in 

Soldier and Family satisfaction. A command climate survey conducted January 10, 

2008, indicated an overall satisfaction level among WTs of 83 percent. We anticipate 

this satisfaction level will continue to increase with continuing efforts to transform 

Soldier and Family care and support. 

Question No. 4. You say that these initiatives will integrate programs spanning 

a range of Army budget accounts. Which accounts are you referring to, and how are 

the programs being integrated? 

Answer. The Army Soldier and Family Action Plan receives funding from Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA); Operation and Maintenance, Army National 

Guard (OMNG); and Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) to support 

Child and Youth Services, Family Programs, Community Support, Housing, Education, and Health Care. 

Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) are the centerpiece of the Army Medical Action 

Plan (AMAP). Sustainment, restoration, and modernization of existing structures to 

support these units are funded through OMA. Additional base operations support 

incident to the advent of WTUs is also covered by OMA. Our Military Construction 

accounts provide for new construction of WTU facilities, while military pay accounts 

and accruals from the Defense Health Program fund the cadre positions in these 

units. 

The Soldier and Family Action Plan (SFAP) and the Army Medical Action Plan 

(AMAP) initiatives are integrated by means of bi-weekly Integrated Process Team 

meetings with program representatives. This effort coordinates implementation of 

the various programs and services, and assesses progress towards meeting Soldier 

and Family member needs. The overarching goal is to provide comprehensive care 

through an integrated and seamless approach. 

PREPARE

Question No. 5. The testimony says that Soldiers must have tools they need to 

be successful, and they ‘‘must have an asymmetric advantage over any enemy they 

face’’. Some of the training facilities that are highlighted in the testimony for construction funds are: military operations urban terrain site, tracked vehicle driver’s 

course, automated anti-armor range, stationary tank range, modified record firing 

ranges, and digital multipurpose training ranges at a total cost of $242 million. 

Your testimony points out two things that I want to explore. You say that national security experts agree that there will be persistent conflict over the next several decades, and that some of our adversaries will avoid our proven advantages by 

adopting asymmetric techniques and indirect approaches. 

How do you train for asymmetric warfare? How do these training facilities differ 

from the traditional training facility? 

Answer. To enable the most effective training for our Soldiers, the Army continually assesses range capabilities, range designs, and training tasks. The Army designs its training facilities and enablers to reflect changing threat conditions. The 

Army uses these tools in innovative ways to address the tactics, techniques and procedures of asymmetric warfare. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1079 

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command integrates lessons learned from 

Army global operations along with doctrinal innovations from proponent schools to 

keep our ranges world-class, cutting edge training facilities. While there is no homestation range that is specifically designed as an asymmetric facility, all Army ranges 

are designed and built for the future and full spectrum of operations that the Army 

will conduct. In particular, Army Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) 

sites are constantly adapted to provide training that is directly relevant in addressing asymmetric threats. Virtual trainers, such as the Virtual Convoy Tactical Trainer and the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer have been both fielded and/or adapted 

to reflect the conditions of asymmetric warfare. The Engagement Skills Trainer was 

adapted to train rules of engagement, which is particularly critical to today’s operations. Constructive simulations have also been adapted to reflect the fluid conditions of asymmetric combat by moving away from opposing conventional forces and 

introducing populations and unconventional threats. Additionally, unique simulations, such as the Medical simulation training centers, have been fielded with realistic training mannequins and instructors to address the effects of injuries from Improvised Explosive Devices and other battlefield injuries. 

BRAC 2005 

Question No. 6. Chairman Edwards and I have voiced our concern about the FY 

’08 funding situation for the latest BRAC round, and how we are going to do whatever we can to get as much of the funding to the Department as we can as we move 

the supplemental spending bill. 

Having said that, how did the Army go about prioritizing BRAC funding for FY 

’08, to date? 

Answer. The army prioritized its FY08 BRAC funding by the projects’ relative 

critical impact on the Army’s compliance with BRAC law. The project list was divided into five bands: operational, institutional, Reserve Component (RC), training, 

and quality of life. The top three bands were all considered time-critical to BRAC 

compliance, but the available funding only allowed us to include 80 percent of the 

RC projects. None of the training or qualify of life projects were funded from the 

available FY 08 BRAC funding. 

Question No. 7. Give the Committee some sense of projects that were not funded. 

If those funds are not restored, how does it impact planning and execution against 

the 2011 deadline? 

Answer. BRAC is an integral component of our stationing plan, and our complex 

Military Construction program is interdependent with BRAC. Delays or cuts to either of these interrelated programs put our ability to grow and restore balance at 

risk. We are at a crucial juncture in the BRAC program. Fiscal year 2010 is our 

last BRAC construction year in order to meet the BRAC deadline of September 

2011, as required by law. To successfully execute BRAC, we carefully synchronized 

1,300 actions. And without full and timely funding, 31 of 90 fiscal year 2008 BRAC 

directed projects will not be completed, including 10 Armed Forces Reserve Centers, 

9 training and readiness projects, and 12 quality of life projects. 

Question No. 8. Finally, is there a date that even if these funds do get restored 

that meeting the deadline becomes an insurmountable challenge for the Army? 

Answer. If the $560 million cut to the Army’s FY08 BRAC funding is not restored 

this year, the Army will not meet all of its requirements in accordance with BRAC 

Law. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Congressman Wamp.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1081) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008. 

EUROPEAN COMMAND 

WITNESS 

GENERAL BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

General Craddock, welcome. Welcome to our subcommittee. 

Thank you for your many years of distinguished service to the 

Army and to the country. It is a privilege to have you here today. 

There is a possibility there could be a series of votes, so in case 

there is a series of votes Mr. Wamp and I thought we would go 

ahead and start the committee. 

The subject of today’s hearing is the fiscal year 2009 military 

construction and family housing request for the European Command. EUCOM’s total fiscal year 2009 request is $783 million, an 

increase of $265 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of 

$519 million. 

This request supports the transformation of EUCOM in furtherance of the Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy adopted 

in 2004. The strategy, as initially presented, called for the reduction of U.S. troop presence from 114,000 to less than 66,000 by 

2012, including the relocation of two Army brigades from Germany 

back to the United States. 

Last year Secretary of Defense Bob Gates decided to at least 

temporarily keep two heavy brigade combat teams in Germany, apparently in response to concerns expressed by General Craddock 

and possibly others. The reasoning behind this decision and its impact on the global restationing plan will be among the numerous 

topics that we would like to discuss today. 

But before I turn it over to you, General Craddock, I would like 

to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome General Craddock and say what a privilege 

it is to sit across the table from you today. Your job is one of the 

most critical we have in the world. 

I think Chairman Edwards has had this experience, but if you 

stand, as I have, above Omaha Beach in Normandy, you feel the 

commitment and sacrifices that our country has made to freedom 

in Europe. It has caused me to monitor a lot of what is said today 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1082 

in the world out of the European countries about the United States 

of America, so that we can hope that they remember constantly the 

sacrifices that we have made on their behalf. 

And then our long-term presence there following the Marshall 

Plan and your very command there has genuinely made permanent 

contributions to that region, and, therefore, the changes that we 

are to consider resourcing are so very critical to their long-term interest and, indeed, freedom in the world. 

The great challenge that I am very interested in is the transition 

that is under way, clearly, and then, of course, this new AFRICOM 

command and how that will work, albeit difficult to take that portion of that command and establish a new command without a permanent presence in Africa and all of the conflicts that are associated with that. 

We had a tremendous briefing with General Ward regarding his 

responsibilities. 

So, welcome here today. I look forward to your testimony and, 

also, look forward to a very productive working relationship with 

you in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

By way of introduction, and this will be brief, but since it is his 

first appearance before the committee, again, it is a privilege to introduce General John Craddock, who is not only Commander of the 

European Command but is the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. 

He has been the EUCOM Commander since December of 2006. 

Previously served as the SOUTHCOM Commander from 2004 to 

2006. Nearly 37 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Army. 

Again, we thank you and salute you for that. 

I won’t go through all of his previous assignments, but he commanded the 1st Infantry Division, commander of U.S. forces during 

initial operations in Kosovo, Joint Staff—doesn’t get any better 

than this—assistant chief of staff of 3 Corps. 

General CRADDOCK. Indeed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And also battalion commander with 24th Infantry 

Division, and is a graduate of West Virginia University. 

General Craddock, without objection, your full statement will be 

submitted for the record. We would like to recognize you now for 

any opening statements you would care to make before we get into 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL BANTZ J. CRADDOCK

General CRADDOCK. Great. Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member 

Wamp, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before 

the committee today as the Commander of the United States European Command. 

I have had the honor since December of 2006 to command the 

European Command, the great men and women who serve there. 

I am here to report that they remain absolutely committed to their 

mission. The nation is extremely well-served by these remarkably 

talented, dedicated and enthusiastic Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, and definitely the families and the civilians that support them. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1083 

If you would permit me, I would like to provide an overview of 

our activities, highlighting the vital role of the EUCOM service 

members in this vast theater. 

I know you know this, but every day EUCOM forces are deployed 

in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and also in Afghanistan in 

support of the International Security and Assistance Force under 

NATO, the ISAF. Service members that are assigned to EUCOM 

are included in our global force pool and, as such, stand available 

for any missions so required. 

Our support for the global war on terror, our overarching priority, demonstrates the value of a robust European infrastructure. 

Continuing to invest in our strategically located bases ensures we 

maintain critical mobility routes for U.S. forces and the ability to 

expand as required in the future. Our forward-based and rotational 

forces are powerful and visible instruments of our national influence and international commitment. 

Central to EUCOM’s efforts is the completion of our Strategic 

Theater Transformation plan. Our transformation plan is synchronized with the Department of Defense, the Joint Staff, individual services, and NATO to ensure that global efforts of other 

combatant commands, NATO, and the results of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process are all mutually supportive. 

The fiscal year 2009 president’s budget, as you said, Mr. Chair- man, requests a total of $783 million in MILCON funds for 

EUCOM. This investment will enable us to continue to eliminate 

substandard housing, includes projects that divest nonenduring 

bases, consolidates our forces into more efficient organizations, and 

provides defenses against ballistic missile threats from southwest 

Asia. 

Quality of life within the European theater continues to be a 

prime focus and continues to improve by all comparisons, both absolute and relative. However, our service members and their families are having to continue with the reality of deployments in support of the war on terrorism. 

And while we have made herculean efforts to ensure the best 

quality of life possible for our service members and families, we are 

ever mindful that we cannot rest on our laurels. We must aggressively look for the downsides and quickly reverse them and the effects that they may create. 

Family housing investments for construction, renovation and replacement projects will ensure EUCOM meets the Defense planning guidance requirement to eliminate all inadequate housing by 

fiscal year 2009. EUCOM has also approved its housing inventory 

through the Build-to-Lease programs and will continue to explore 

Build-to-Lease housing opportunities throughout Europe to our advantage. 

One of the biggest areas that needs attention is the condition of 

our dependent schools that educate 36,500 students in 90 schools 

across Europe. Many of our schools are at least 50 years old. Fortyfive percent of the Department of Defense schools and 43 percent 

of the Department of Defense students are in the EUCOM theater. 

The health of the Department of Defense Education Activity, 

DODEA, budget is essential to the well-being of our students, who 

need both quality infrastructure and quality teachers to realize 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1084 

their full potential. We look forward to working with the DODEA 

and Congress to address our European educational infrastructure 

needs. 

In additional to MILCON, the NATO Security Investment Program continues to play an important role in broadening NATO’s 

military capabilities, both in Europe and Afghanistan. This year’s 

budget request of $240 million represents the U.S. share of the program and will support current operations in Afghanistan and 

Kosovo. Your ongoing support for this program is greatly appreciated, as we continue to build these critical partnerships and increase the alliance’s capacity for future engagement. 

In summary, the dedicated men and women of the United States 

European Command remain steadfast in their commitments to our 

nation and our mission. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. I look forward to the 

committee’s questions. 

[Prepared statement of General Bantz J. Craddock follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1085 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2373 here 42754D.071
1086 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2374 here 42754D.072
1087 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2375 here 42754D.073
1088 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2376 here 42754D.074
1089 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2377 here 42754D.075
1090 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2378 here 42754D.076
1091 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2379 here 42754D.077
1092 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2380 here 42754D.078
1093 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2381 here 42754D.079
1094 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2382 here 42754D.080
1095 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2383 here 42754D.081
1096 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2384 here 42754D.082
1097 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2385 here 42754D.083
1098 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2386 here 42754D.084
1099 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2387 here 42754D.085
1100 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2388 here 42754D.086
1101 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2389 here 42754D.087
1102 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2390 here 42754D.088
1103 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2391 here 42754D.089
1104 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2392 here 42754D.090
1105 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2393 here 42754D.091
1106 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2394 here 42754D.092
1107 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2395 here 42754D.093
1108 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2396 here 42754D.094
1109 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2397 here 42754D.095
1110 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2398 here 42754D.096
1111 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2399 here 42754D.097
1112 

FORCE POSTURE IN GERMANY

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, General. And, again, it is good to have 

you here. 

Let me just begin on the issue of the decision to delay, at least 

until 2012 or 2013, the movement of two heavy brigade combat 

teams back to the United States. I know Secretary Gates basically 

put on temporary hold a decision made in the 2004 Global Defense 

Posture. 

In 2004, in that posture statement, it said, ‘‘Peace in Europe has 

no longer threatened the large-scale conventional force position to 

move into the continent. There is no longer a strategic need for 

heavy maneuver forces as a central element of U.S. defense posture.’’ 

General Craddock, would you think that premise has changed, or 

are there other circumstances that have changed, or both, that 

have caused us to put on hold the movement of those soldiers back 

to CONUS? And, if so, if conditions have changed, is there a possibility that those two brigade combat teams might end up permanently in Germany and not be brought home? 

General CRADDOCK. Thank you, Chairman. I think there are two 

factors at work here. 

The first is the growth of the Army and where the Army plans 

to put that growth. There were plans made for the four brigades 

in Europe now, and there were plans made to leave two as the objective end-state, with the two heavy brigades going back to the 

States. 

I think the reason for delay was due to the fact that the growth 

was not planned for, the enlargement of the Army. The BRAC adjustments set an unbalanced condition. And the Army looked at it 

and decided, as I was informed by the Army secretary, that rather 

than bring those brigades back on time, on schedule—and the 

Army would have to build considerable temporary facilities for a 

period of time, and then build permanent facilities—it would be 

better for the families, first, and more cost-effective to leave them 

for an additional 3 years in Europe. 

So, that is a Title X decision the Army made. 

Now, the second issue, at this point, was when I took over in December of 2006, and as I went around and met the chiefs of defense, my counterparts, many of whom I have known from previous 

assignments, I kept hearing over and over again, ‘‘Why aren’t you 

guys out here in exercises where there are exchanges of companies 

and platoons? Where are you? We don’t see you anymore.’’ And the 

answer is, our forces were in the global force pool, rotating to Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

So I looked at the—I remembered some exercises we have done, 

and had the staff get me that. And over the last 5 years, it has 

been precipitously down. Fair enough. We are at war, and we understand that. 

But I then looked at the guidance I had got from the chairman, 

which says that to offset our strategic risk, we are going to build 

more organizational capability, we are going to work with our Allies and pump up their abilities. And I looked at our forces availVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1113 

able, and I said, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I can do that with 

what I have right now.’’ 

So I went back to my staff and said, ‘‘Do a study. Tell me what 

you think we need to do, what we are told to do.’’ We looked at our 

task assignment and our missions. They came back a few months 

later, said, ‘‘You need about five brigades.’’ And I said, ‘‘I will take 

the risk and do it with four.’’ And I sent a request to the secretary, 

saying, ‘‘I think, for the future, this is about right.’’ 

I am still working with the department, because the Title X decision to leave the two brigades 2 extra years offset the near-term 

shortfall. It appears that the final decision has been kicked down 

the road for a while until a later date. So I don’t have an official 

response, other than, ‘‘You have got two more brigades, to give you 

the four you want, for 3 more years.’’ 

Now, we, EUCOM, we will go back, we will continue to update, 

assess, and see if our recommendations previously holds or 

changes. If conditions change, the war on terror ends, we prevail; 

if the NATO transformation takes a faster track, if you will, there 

may well be significantly different needs, either lower or higher. 

And this is dynamic. 

But I think the fundamental issue is when the decisions were 

made to go to this objective force—and I was there in the Department at the Office of Secretary of Defense—the assumptions were 

about a different world. And we were not at war, with 15 to 20 brigades for a long period of time. And we weren’t depending on partner nations to carry a lot of that load. And now, they, quite frankly, 

NATO allies, NATO partners and other nations look to the United 

States always for how to do it and how to help them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would follow up a little bit, to say then—because the 2012/2013 

date caused me to wonder what is any different? Is this just a postponement of the realities of this type of transformation? 

And I think what you are saying is that it gives us time to see 

what the world looks like after more progress is made in Iraq and 

Afghanistan before we make these changes permanent that were 

derived prior to the time the conflict and engagement and the 

surge and the investments that we are having were made. 

General CRADDOCK. I think that is fair. I would agree with that. 

FLUCTUATION OF THE DOLLAR

Mr. WAMP. The Battle Monuments Commission told us that a big 

problem in Europe is the value of the dollar. And you have shared 

a little of this with the chairman and I, but I would like for the 

record for you to explain exactly what kind of a burden that puts 

on your budget. 

General CRADDOCK. Well, everything costs a little more based 

upon—we budget against a number, and generally speaking—and, 

again, these services normally do this, so I will give you a general 

perspective. 

There is a hedge factor there, an expectation, a prediction that 

the dollar’s value will rise or fall. So if the dollar is falling and the 

expectations will continue, then the programmer estimates are norVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1114 

mally done against a value that is lesser than the date on which 

we put it all together. 

Then that leads you to how fast is the dollar falling? What it 

means is that, when it comes time for the project to start, then 

there either has to be new estimates—and where projects did not 

occur or projects came in under budget, that money is moved across 

to take the offset of where the cost growth occurs due to the devaluation. 

So that factors into everything we do. That factors in construction. It factors in O&M. Because the cost of anything you buy on 

the economy, as opposed to shipping in, in Europe is going to go 

up. And it has been significant here in the last year for sure. 

And also, as I mentioned earlier, it transcends to the cost of living for our service members and their families. So these prices all 

go up. 

Now, I checked with one of my experts about, if we don’t get this 

budget estimate right, and the cost of construction in Europe is 

higher than we planned, what do we do about it? And the answer 

is, there is a set-aside fund that whatever comes in under-budget 

or gets rolled over into this set-aside can be used then to offset 

these cost growths. 

And it is regional in nature, but we can also go back to the larger 

pool, I think, inside of the component budgets, whether it is Army 

or Navy or whatever. So there is a little bit of a capability there. 

Now, the problem becomes when, across the board, if all of these 

costs do not come in under, then that premise is going to cause a 

situation where we won’t be able to start or we come back for reprogramming. 

Mr. WAMP. So from a MILCON perspective, you would advocate 

some way for this committee to fund an overflow fund, if you want 

to call it that, so that if nothing came in under-budget to save the 

resources to pay for the wild fluctuation of the dollar in today’s 

world because of the unstable economy globally. There has to be 

some kind of a fund from the Congress, in terms of resources, to 

compensate for a year where you might be without any relief on 

this problem. 

The second piece—and then I will yield back for other members—is this quality-of-life issue. Frankly, this new majority got off 

to a great start here last year with enhancing child-care facilities 

and housing and quality-of-life issues. 

And a quality-of-life issue that would work its way back to the 

conversation in the general public from anyone stationed in Europe 

today would be, because of the devaluing of the dollar, the quality 

of life for our troops in the field and their families is not near as 

high as it used to be or as it should be in order for us to retain 

and recruit that next-generation fighter, which we have to have. 

Correct? 

General CRADDOCK. Yes, Congressman. With the first part, I 

would agree, there needs to be some flexibility to fund precipitous 

drops in the dollar value in the MILCON account. 

Secondly, the impact on service members and families, indeed. 

Now, there is a cost-of-living allowance that is provided from the 

department. It is very difficult to understand how it works. The 

mechanism is proprietary in nature. I have had, repeatedly, repVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1115 

resentatives from the department to try to explain it to us. You 

have to be a PhD. in economics. And over and over again, we have 

tried to understand it. Even those of us that think we understand 

it discover, every time a new situation comes up, we didn’t get the 

full answer. 

And I will guarantee you that the service members, the young 

enlisted, don’t think they are getting adequate compensation for 

the drop in the dollar. 

And the impacts will be: One, we are in the global force pool. So 

soldiers, sailors, airmen, particularly soldiers, 15–month deployments, are gone with their families left in Europe. And they are 

away, and the dollar is dropping. And if it gets to be more and 

more difficult for a mom when she is back there, or a dad if it is 

a female soldier, they are likely to opt out and go back to the 

United States. And then we have got a more difficult situation. 

The other thing is relative to where they were before. In days 

past, they would throw the kids in the car, and they would go to 

visit a castle, they would go to the Rhine River, they would go to 

the amusement park in Mannheim, whatever the case may be. 

They don’t do that today, is what I am being told, because they just 

can’t afford the cost for mom, dad and two kids’ lunch, $200. Can’t 

do it. 

Mr. WAMP. I will yield until round two, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Good questions. 

Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. General, I want to thank-you for the wonderful 

evening at your residence in Europe and your great briefings and 

all the efforts you made on our recent CODEL. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Regarding missile defense, can you explain a little more about 

the status of the third site and what the Czech Republic and Poland are going to do in terms of their contribution to this? 

General CRADDOCK. Well, I know that there are ongoing negotiations. I think they are just about ready to sign with the Czech Republic, in terms of what is going to happen. 

Quite frankly, Congressman, I read in the paper today that the 

Czechs expect 250 U.S. personnel to be there on the site, which is 

the first I have heard of that. 

So I don’t know the cost-share with regard to the Czech participation, other than the European Command commitment once the 

agreement is made, the bilateral agreement, then we will see that, 

and we will have to put together the implementing instructions between the Czech Republic and the European Command, representing the U.S. government, in terms of the specifics based upon 

the general agreement that will be reached. 

So the Czech Republic is for the radar facility. Again, the modalities of that, to be determined. Because the Missile Defense Agency 

and OSD policy right now—even though I have a rep there, my rep 

is a note-taker with very little input, other than monitor and come 

back so we can start to see the extent of what we will have to do. 

I do not know what the Czech Republic’s level of participation or 

investment will be. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1116 

With Poland, it is the same thing. And I think it is less farther 

along with Poland, at this point. 

Mr. DICKS. But there will be an ongoing commitment, isn’t that 

correct? 

We have it here that the increase over last year’s budget—$241.2 

million requested by Missile Defense Agency—is to establish the 

third site for the ballistic missile defense for the radar site in the 

Czech Republic, interceptors in Poland. The FYOP includes a total of $837 million in MILCON for these 

two sites, although the cost does not actually include any facilities 

that would be required for personnel to actually operate the site. 

General CRADDOCK. Right. 

Mr. DICKS. So there are some issues here. 

General CRADDOCK. Well, until the agreements are reached, 

where the government will decide who is going to do what, we 

won’t know how many facilities we have to build for the future. 

Mr. DICKS. And we don’t know what the commitments are, that 

we have committed ourselves to. 

And these other two heavy divisions, they were going back to 

Fort Bliss and Fort Riley, and that is deferred for how long? 

General CRADDOCK. Three years, 2012/2013. 

Mr. DICKS. And is there a decision to then do it, then bring them 

back? 

General CRADDOCK. The decision is made, they will go back. 

They are just delayed. But they will return to the United States 

between 2012 and 2013. 

Mr. DICKS. And that is basically because of the growth in the 

Army; we didn’t know where we were going to put everybody. And 

also, I would assume, there are some substantive reasons why 

keeping them for the next 3 years there is a good idea. 

General CRADDOCK. There were two issues. One was the BRAC, 

growth of the Army, Title X. That is an Army issue, where are you 

going to put everybody. They decided, rather than build temporary 

facilities and then permanents, leave them in Europe and build 

just permanents, save $750 million as well. That is the Title X. 

Now, my mission is, do I have what I need to do my job? And 

my judgment is no, that I need four brigades. I have four now, 

until 2012 and 2013. But we are going to have to continue to assess 

and see, when we get up to 2012 and 2013, do we still need four, 

or has the world changed enough that we can do it with the two 

that we are programmed for. 

Mr. DICKS. Oh, these aren’t divisions; they are brigades. 

General CRADDOCK. Brigades, right. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay, so that is a lot less. 

General CRADDOCK. Exactly. 

Mr. DICKS. Could they rotate other brigades? 

General CRADDOCK. They could do it on a rotational. 

Mr. DICKS. To bring them into Europe. 

General CRADDOCK. I am not specifying which ones. I just think 

right now we need—— 

Mr. DICKS. We have done that before. 

General CRADDOCK. Yes, sure. 

Mr. DICKS. Yes. 

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1117 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry. 

Okay. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, General. 

Let me ask you a follow up on Mr. Dicks’s questions about mis- sile defense. I think there is $240 million for the defense sites in 

Poland and the Czech Republic. And last year, there was some discussion, I think, in the Armed Services Committee about some of 

those funds, that since everything hadn’t been signed, that maybe 

you didn’t need all those funds. And I think about $60 million was 

taken out. 

And I guess maybe 3 months ago, I was in Poland and the Czech 

Republic, and they didn’t seem that concerned. I mean, they kind 

of had the insurances in it for money. You know, if they adopted 

everything, the money would be there. 

But I just wonder, from our side, you know, what kind of delay 

might incur if we don’t have all the money when we need it? I 

mean, all this specialized missile—things change. I mean, is that 

something that maybe we ought to think about, in terms of—you 

know, we are not providing all the funds, but we are providing the 

funds to begin. I mean, it takes a while to get the funds, it takes 

a while to implement the things. 

Can you comment on that, you know, in terms of what that 

might create from our side, in terms of delaying any kind of structures and missiles that we might need? It seems like it might be 

better to make sure we have all the money there, appropriated, so 

that we can spend it as soon as we need it. 

General CRADDOCK. Thank you. 

This is really complex. There are a lot of moving parts on this 

one, and there are a lot of agencies involved. 

From the European Command perspective, our requirement will 

be to initiate the implementing agreements, to contract, to probably 

pull in the shovels, turn the dirt, and start the work. When we do 

that, generally it has to be pegged against the development and the 

acceleration of the threat, the missiles in Iran. How are they coming along, whether they are nuclear or conventionally armed, and 

do they develop or do they buy from North Korea, or whatever that 

may be. 

So I think MDA and the intel community has a timeline, and we 

are now programming against that timeline. If that accelerates and 

we don’t, obviously the risk goes up. So that is part of it. 

The second part, then, is, is the technical gear, the mission 

gear—radar, all the pieces and parts—available, so that when the 

brick-and-mortar is done, it can be bolted on, plugged in, wired up 

and turned on? 

And then, secondly, in Poland, are the interceptors through testing—because they are a two-stage, not three-stage, a little different 

configuration—and all that ready to go and synchronized then 

when, again, the brick-and-mortar is done and everything is ready 

to drop in? So that is the complexity here. 

So, you know, I am in a little bit of a difficult position. We are 

going to be the guys on the receiving end after the negotiations. 

The longer it takes for negotiations to draw out what our nation 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1118 

and those nations agree to, and then they sign that, and then we 

have to work to do the implementing, and then put the physical 

plant in there, the physical layout, so that you can bolt in the mission load. We are like the man in the middle here. 

So that is the uncertainty that I have. And I think—two things. 

The longer it takes for us, if there is no delay in what the intel 

community says the threat development is, risk would go up; or the 

faster that we could do this, then one could argue that you are way 

ahead of the threat, so, therefore, you are countering something 

that is not there. Striking the balance between the two is the hard 

part here, and that is the art, not the science. 

So, you know, we are going to have to take our tasking, which 

is the bilateral agreement signed; you guys, EUCOM, go do the implementing agreements, start to dig up the dirt and put in the 

buildings; and then, I think, at that point, we will see probably 

finer and finer resolution, in terms of the threat and when the radars and the darts, the big darts, are in the ground. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So we ought to be careful, in terms of making 

sure that you have got what you need to get in and implement the 

act. 

General CRADDOCK. Yes, sir. 

EGYPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Another broader question, too. I know Israel is 

under your command, and I know that you could spend a long time 

talking about that whole situation. But one of the things that came 

up last year in the appropriations process was—I know Egypt is 

not in your command, but there were some Egypt and how much 

it is doing to prevent some of the smuggling that goes into Gaza. 

So there were some restrictions put on the appropriations for 

Egypt. 

I just wonder, do you see enough, in terms of what is coming 

through the tunnels and what Egypt is doing or not doing? You see 

the results, I guess, of that in Israel. Can you tell whether things 

are getting better, changing less? Where else do weapons come 

from? Things like that? 

General CRADDOCK. Congressman, I don’t see enough to make 

that judgment on any basis that I would be comfortable in doing 

that. I see anecdotal information and obviously the results based 

upon the attacks in the settlements. But, no, I couldn’t tell you if 

there has been a change in terms of cause/effect with what was 

done with the restrictions. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand you have already 

asked about the two BCTs from Europe, and that was the question 

I really wanted to ask you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Then follow up, if you want. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I am still worried about exactly what is going 

to happen on the delay on the two BCTs that were supposed to 

come out. And as we look at global force, I understand what the 

general conversation has been. I apologize for being late. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1119 

But it is a real concern for us, because we are trying to figure 

out some things at Fort Hood as to why we are not going to have 

49,000 soldiers, as promised, at Fort Hood. And it is part of a mix. 

So I am still curious about that question. 

General CRADDOCK. Congressman, largely an Army issue. All I 

know is that in conversations with the Army chief and the Army 

commander in Europe, those two brigades are designated for a return. And that is a Title X issue. 

Now, where they go, how that factors into the movement of brigades or battalion flags around the continental United States based 

upon if Army grow the forces, I just don’t have any visibility on 

that. 

The two issues here, from my perspective, were: One, there was 

a Title X issue of where the Army was going to put everybody. 

BRAC reduces things. Grow the Army with six more brigade combat teams. So how do you do that? The Army said, we will leave 

them here a little longer, so we save some money and don’t jerk 

the families around. That solved my problem. 

I think, come 2012 and 2013, that they are going to go, and either by then there is a decision that we still need four or two is 

going to be enough, and there will be other ways to scratch the 

itch, such as rotation of brigades and things like that. That is to 

be determined, at this point. 

Mr. CARTER. Another question you were answering but I couldn’t 

hear the answer, on this missile defense system that you were talking about over there. There doesn’t seem to be any money in this 

particular appropriations bill for barracks and dining facilities and 

that type of things that would service them. 

And you were talking in a direction that I couldn’t hear the answers. Because we are waiting on the countries we are negotiating 

with, to see what they will and won’t provide; is that the answer? 

General CRADDOCK. As I understand it, that is correct. The 2009 

was looking for brick and mortar to build the facility for the radar 

and the interceptors. Then in the 2010, 2011, 2012 budgets, we 

would come in; then we would know the agreements on how many 

U.S. forces, how many U.S. contractors, how many Czechs or Poles 

would be there, so we could size the facilities to accommodate how 

many of our forces would we need to be there. 

Mr. CARTER. That is what I thought you said. I couldn’t quite 

hear you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FORCE POSTURE IN GERMANY

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

Let me follow up. I want to be sure I am clear. It seems to me 

you are making a common-sense position that, as of today, the decision has been made that in 2013 we will have those two brigade 

combat teams brought from Europe back to CONUS. 

But what you are also saying is that the next administration 

might be left with a decision to say circumstances changed. Perhaps a decision might be made in a future administration to leave 

more troops there than the two brigades scheduled to stay after 

that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1120 

And I don’t want to read too much into your testimony, but you 

talked about an ever-changing security landscape. You talk about 

the Balkans remaining somewhat volatile, Kosovo due to its controversial nature. You talk about the ability of the United States, 

understandably, to shape factors. You spoke in your oral testimony 

a few moments ago about some of our European allies saying that 

we don’t see American forces out training with us, and we need a 

partnership there. 

Basically, am I clear in understanding what you are saying is 

that, technically, as of this moment, the decision has been made, 

but circumstances change and a future Secretary of Defense or 

commander in chief might decide to leave more forces than were 

suggested in the 2004 global repositioning? 

General CRADDOCK. Yes and no, Chairman. It may not be a matter of leaving those forces. It could be that the decisions are made 

to take those heavy forces back to locations that support heavy 

forces. 

And I have not specified whether I want heavy or light. I just 

need four brigade combat teams. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General CRADDOCK. We have got one Stryker already, so that is 

fine. 

And it could be, in the future, if the situation as we see it, the 

assessment we make strategically still says we need four brigades—and we continue to re-evaluate and re-assess—that I would 

continue to ask the Secretary, and he may continue to say no. But 

I think I am compelled over time to prevent the case that, ‘‘Here 

is what you and the Chairman have told me to do. Here is the ability we have to do it. I can’t do everything you said. I need this 

much more.’’ He may say no. Fair enough, and we accept risk. He 

may say, ‘‘We are going to bring those guys home, and we will look 

at it in 2015.’’ Fair enough. But it is a matter of risk. 

So I am not looking at specific ‘‘keep those guys.’’ I am just looking at two separate issues: What do I need to do the job? Now, he 

may say, ‘‘We are going to send you two brigades on a rotational 

basis all the time. Every 6 months, you will get it.’’ Okay. We will 

look at that and say, ‘‘Fair enough,’’ or ‘‘Here is what we look like.’’ 

Mr. EDWARDS. The reason I wanted to follow up on that is that 

it has direct implications for this subcommittee, Military Construction, obviously. If the future decision were to be made, regardless 

of which brigade combat teams might stay, if the decision were to 

be more than two brigades, then that needs to be made in such a 

timely fashion that we will help fill barracks back CONUS that are 

going to remain empty. 

General CRADDOCK. I fully appreciate that, and you are absolutely right. 

My staff has been directed, at this point: Stand down. We will 

look at this beginning of 2009. We will go through it, do another 

assessment, see if the same assessment holds. It may well be that, 

with a reduction in Iraq, and we have more of our forces at home, 

then we have different perspective. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1121 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

One other question on this round for me, and this is a question 

I am going to ask every commander that comes before our committee, including General Casey and others who have been here 

prior to your testimony today. And I want to get a metric so we 

can compare year to year to year. If you can’t answer this orally 

now, if you could following up in writing. 

But the question would specifically be, how many service men 

and women and their families under your command are living in 

housing that does not meet basic DoD standards? 

Do you have a ballpark guess what that number might be? And 

if not, then you could follow up. 

General CRADDOCK. I think we can get that, but I think it is 

somewhere around 28, 29 percent. 

[The information follows:] 

Currently, we have 7,000 Families and 9,500 Single Service Members residing in 

inadequate housing and barracks. Of this total, approximately 7,200 Families and 

Service Members are aligned with units that will be relocated as part of our Strategic Theater Transformation. We have focused our investment in housing and barracks at enduring installations, and this investment continues to reap benefits as 

those units are constructed reducing the inadequate inventory. 

Your continued support in ensuring funding for the request to eliminate inadequate housing and barracks is essential to continue to reduce these numbers. In 

FY09 the request for $291M in Family Housing construction and renovation projects 

will eliminate inadequate housing at enduring installations within theater. As we 

assess the needs in theater for the stand-up of the Africa Command and pursue the 

Strategic Theater Transformation objectives, we will continue to focus on ensuring 

the investment in housing and barracks is completed at the right locations. 

Okay, 91 percent meets standards; 9 percent is less than the 

DOD standards. 

Now, that is barracks and family housing or just barracks? Both, 

okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is barracks and family housing. If you 

wouldn’t mind following up in writing to us and letting us 

know—— 

General CRADDOCK. For the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Where those troops are. We just want 

to monitor that each year. And we made a lot of progress in quality 

of housing—— 

General CRADDOCK. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. In the last decade. It has been a 

great achievement; Pentagon, Congress working together. But I 

want to be able to compare numbers year to year to year. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

AFRICOM

As I briefly mentioned, General Craddock, in my opening statement, I am very interested, as is Mr. Farr, who is not here today, 

in the establishment of AFRICOM. 

And General Ward’s testimony here really sparked a whole lot of 

creative thinking about, how we reach out to the world in a cooperative way without taking up a permanent presence or scaring the 

countries that we are trying to help. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1122 

And so, just from your view, how do you see that going, and how 

does the transition work and your relationship with General Ward 

as we head into AFRICOM? 

And then kind of a follow up on that, because I was interested 

in how he explained Djibouti, the part that we can talk about, and 

it being I think like a forward-operating base. 

Explain, too, the progress on the forward-operating sites in Bulgaria and Romania in Eastern Europe and how that is going. 

General CRADDOCK. In AFRICOM, I think we are making 

progress, but it is probably a little slower than we had anticipated, 

from a couple perspectives. 

One is receptivity in country. The strategic messages that were 

sent, and we didn’t get them received, in my judgment, by the right 

people and in the right fashion. We crafted them up to satisfy ourselves, but we didn’t craft them up to satisfy the people who were 

listening. And so we have had to re-engage. 

And that is what, right now, the AFRICOM leaders—Kip Ward; 

Mary Yates, one of the deputies; and Bob Moeller, the other deputy—are doing, in terms of engaging directly at the right level, 

ministerial level, not sub-ministerial, which unfortunately is I 

think what occurred. 

So now I think we are seeing a little reversal of this early trend 

of skepticism and thinking that we were going to come in and overload them with a lot of military people. That is not the case. 

I am sure with General Ward being here, you know, we have discussed this. This is not about flooding Africa with military forces, 

to train military forces. This is about using the organizational energy, organizational brilliance maybe, of DoD to be able to pull together lots of functionality that exists and resides in our government. There are many talented people in Agriculture, Commerce, 

Health and Human Services, to deal with the problems of Africa. 

It is to assist the chiefs of mission to enable them to provide capacity and wherewithal. You know, we can do lift across vast distances in a very austere, immature country with no infrastructure. 

We can provide lots of things with others doing the task but we enable it through our capabilities to organize and deliver and move 

things around. 

So that is the intent here. This is what I think is well-understood 

inside of our government. We are seeing more and more of the departments and agencies signing up with their people to participate. 

And that is a good thing. I know Kip probably told you, half of this 

organization is going to be civilian. 

Now, having said that, now we have to, I think, start the process 

of deeds, not words, on the continent, where we have to go in and, 

working with chiefs of mission in regions and countries, using the 

Horn of Africa construct where we are out doing projects all the 

time: building a school, building a community center, turning it 

over, inoculating children, vaccinating them, deworming them for 

the first time in their life. Those are the types of things that make 

a difference. So that is where I think the first effort goes. 

Over time, I am convinced that there will be a greater and greater receptivity, and we will figure out then where we should put a 

headquarters there or a presence; where we should augment regions. Because I am not sure we have to be in every country, but 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1123 

if we could do it regionally—because a lot of these countries have 

the same regional problems. West Africa is different from North Africa, and things like that. 

And then we have got to ultimately work with those who don’t 

want us there and are influential in that judgment—in the south, 

South Africa; north, I think Egypt; and there are a few others— 

to convince them that, look, we are not a threat, we want to work 

with you. This is not about who is in charge; it is about how best 

to deliver help to those who need it. 

So I think there is some good opportunity there. And it is going 

to take a little while, and it is going to—we are going to have to 

push hard for, again, the people to get there. My Command, we 

have identified 421 people we are transferring. There will be more 

than that, but that is the number right now. We will see this summer, I think, a big input of people, because summer moves will 

take—once the kids get out of school. 

And then I think the 1st of October it is to stand up on its own. 

It probably won’t do all of the functions on its own. We will retain 

some of those. Potentially CENTCOM in the Horn will retain a 

few. But we will transfer that as soon as possible. And the 

AFRICOM folks are working out now the transfer of what may be 

delayed a bit. 

But we are coming along. And the key here is a measured approach to the right people to explain we are not a threat and we 

are there to augment where they need help, to give them a hand, 

and hopefully train and teach so that they can do it on their own 

sooner rather than later. 

If I could go to Romania and Bulgaria and the progress there, I 

believe that the MILCON for 2008 finishes out those two programs 

for building infrastructure for Joint Task Force East. We have already done a pilot rotation there out of U.S. Army-Europe, with 

some help from the Navy and the Air Force forces. 

We do not have identified from the Department rotating brigades 

yet, because the force commitment to the global force pool will not 

support a rotation of brigades from the States right now. They are 

all either going to Afghanistan or to Iraq. 

So we are rotating forces available out of EUCOM to, one, prove 

the principle; two, to work with the Bulgarians and the Romanians; 

and three, to entice others to come in and train with us also. 

So it is more of a pilot now than an actuality, but I think that 

we are proving the principle. And the first rotation this past summer, in 2007, was very powerful. 

Mr. WAMP. Just one follow up, Mr. Chairman. 

I was interested—Mr. Crenshaw just mentioned that Egypt is in 

a unique position. And I remember, last year, our full committee 

conversations when Mr. Wicker was Chairman Edwards’s ranking 

member. There was a lot of commentary about Egypt and how important Egypt is to us. 

Yet I would be interested in your perspective with the October 

1 stand-up of AFRICOM and Egypt still being under CENTCOM 

yet it being in the African continent. Does that help or hurt Egypt? 

It seems like there would be some advantages to it becoming almost its own entity. While it is under CENTCOM, it is separate 

and very, very strategic and important. But, then again, I would 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1124 

be concerned that there may be some overlap there, in terms of territories. 

What do you say? 

General CRADDOCK. I think your last statement is spot-on; there 

is some overlap there, with regard to Egypt. Egypt is a schizophrenic country, quite frankly. And that is not bad. 

Now, Egypt is one of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue countries. 

They come to our meetings, defense ministerials, and every time 

they do they are the most active of the North African Mediterranean Dialogue countries wanting to participate. 

I was asked, ‘‘Come down to Egypt. Tell us what you need in Afghanistan. We might be able to give you some trainers.’’ 

Now, set that aside. They also want to be a part of the African 

continent, so they are interested in, ‘‘How do we fit in Africa? We 

don’t want to be excluded from that.’’ And then there is the ArabIsraeli issues with CENTCOM that pull them that way, into Gaza 

and elsewhere. 

So they, indeed, have some partitions there that they are going 

to have to, I think, work to solve it, and we are going to probably 

have to engage and help them do that. 

But there is, without question, overlap that is causing us to try 

to figure out what is the most powerful approach to reduce friction 

points? How can we reduce the friction points? 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

On AFRICOM, to stand that up, what kind of impact does that 

have on your mission or in the dynamics? And then, for instance, 

of the—does it change the force structure at all? Are there any 

military construction needs that that brings up? 

General CRADDOCK. The impact of the stand-up of AFRICOM is 

the transfer of missions, activities, programs, exercises and personnel. And that is in process. We have got a big AFRICOM transition team doing a wonderful job of identifying all that. I reviewed 

it. I was impressed with the level of detail. We are working 

through that document. And it is a very rigid, disciplined approach. 

So that is a work in progress, and that is ongoing. 

The delaying factor in that is the arrival of personnel to fill the 

AFRICOM billets. We can’t transfer a mission or an activity without someone being there. And they are behind schedule. So that is 

why we are a little bit behind schedule in the transfer. But we understand the cause/effect. They will come in this summer; we will 

get them ready to go by fall. 

As far as then the next step, there are not going to be additional 

troop formations, organizations, flags on the continent. We looked 

at it and said, maybe the best approach is regional—regional integration teams, where it may be 25 or 30 guys go into a mission, 

embassy, in a country, in a region, and then instead of having this 

Office of Defense Cooperation, where we have around the world— 

the Department of Defense has five or 10 guys in every country, 

and they do security assistance and Foreign Military Financing 

and International Military Education Training—we have these 25, 

30 guys do it for the entire region. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1125 

So that is the next step, is to organize and put in some regional 

integration teams. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does it affect, kind of, what you are doing? Or 

is it just—your dynamics in your mission, it will just—you will be 

doing it. That will be a kind of separate thing, but there wouldn’t 

be an impact on what you are doing. 

General CRADDOCK. The biggest impact for us will be heretofore 

our special operations commands, SOCEUR, has been doing the 

work in Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara, Northern Africa, against the Al Qaida affiliates, AQIM. That will transfer to 

SOCAFRICOM, Special Operations Command-AFRICOM, when 

they stand up. 

That will be a significant transfer, because that is a big effort for 

training, building partner-nation capacity, and having our special 

forces there countering the Al Qaida located there. That is the big 

change. 

EDUCATION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned in your opening statement about education. And 

we had talked about this. And I know this committee is awfully interested in quality-of-life issues. And I know Mr. Wamp and I have 

talked about the dollar devaluation and the impact that has had 

on our soldiers. 

Can you talk a little more, because I found it kind of astounding, 

I can’t remember the numbers, but I think almost half the educational needs are there in his command, and yet they get about 

a third of the money they really need. Can you, kind of, talk about 

what impact that has, in terms of the families and the kids? 

Because I think, in terms of quality of life, sometimes we miss 

that in overseas. We think about housing and health care and all 

that stuff, and child care. But when you are overseas and you are 

not getting the right kind of education, you are really setting people back. 

General CRADDOCK. Thank you. Indeed, I can. And it is important, and it is one of my special emphasis areas. 

We have about 45 percent of the schools and school children that 

are administered under the Department of Defense Educational Activity. Now, that includes the Pacific, Europe and continental 

United States, because there are now some vestigial schools here 

that are run by Department of Defense. 

We get 15 percent of the O&M budget and the military—not 

military—construction budget. So we are under-resourced there by 

about a factor of a third, and we should be getting much more than 

that. 

The DODEA is under-resourced in terms of what they need to 

operate their system. So it is a double hit, if you will. They don’t 

have what they need, and then we get, I think, I know, a smaller 

share than we should based on what they are doing. 

Now, the question that ought to be asked—and I have asked it, 

and I don’t know the answer because it wasn’t provided—is, who 

is getting the bigger share? The answer is, here in the United 

States. The United States has a choice. If you don’t want to send 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1126 

your child to a school on the base, you can send your child to a 

local school. We don’t have a choice. 

So the question is, how does the allocation get made? And it is 

based upon a committee system that is very arcane and maybe a 

bit achronistic. 

So that is the point. Here is the effect: If you come down and you 

have children, then the question is—young children, okay, probably 

enough flexibility, doesn’t make too much difference. The next 

question is, if you have middle-school- or high-school-aged children, 

which our mid- to senior-level officers will have, okay, where are 

we going? What is the school like? How close is it? How long is the 

bus ride? And do they offer A.P. courses or extracurriculars? 

And I think what we are seeing, starting to see here, is the danger of—and I don’t have the numbers, but I am pretty sure, 

anecdotally, it is happening—instead of coming as a family unit, 

mom and the kids stay home because they know, where they are, 

what they have, and they don’t want to take a chance that the children are handicapped where they are going. 

And, look, in all fairness, DODEA has done a very good job, 

DODDS-Europe, Department of Defense Schools—Europe, over 

these last several years of faculty enrichment. They have pretty 

good teachers. My kids went there over the years and it was up 

and down. Today I am pretty confident, I feel much better. Because 

we have shrunk the number of schools, they have kept hold of the 

best teachers and administrators. 

You can’t have that world-class and substandard facilities, because that also will keep the kids away, and mom and the kids 

stay in the States. If you do that, you break up the family unit, 

you have got a 2-year tour instead of a 3-year tour, you have got 

much more turnover, and you have got the continual possibility of 

something happening back home so dad or mom better go back and 

take care of this thing. It is more friction. 

And we need to make sure we don’t penalize the kids, we give 

them good opportunities, and that when they come back and they 

are competing for college entrance they compete fairly. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NATO

Mr. EDWARDS. Thanks for raising that issue. 

General, let me ask you about NATO. To be effective, clearly it 

has to be a two-way street. As member nations get the protection 

of the alliance, they also have responsibilities to participate when 

the alliance makes a decision to take an action. 

Could you give us a summary of what the problems are with 

some of the NATO members in Afghanistan and what does that 

suggest about the future of NATO and its effectiveness? 

General CRADDOCK. I think we are in a transformation of NATO. 

We still have a NATO that is by and large organized, arranged, 

processed for a 20th-century situation, a Cold War situation. They 

have not come to the reality of transnational threats and new situations that are not planning and preparing, as we did throughout 

the decades of the Cold War, but having to operate, make decisions. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1127 

Their sons and daughters of the nations that send their forces 

forward are in harm’s way. And we can’t wait forever to get decisions and processes in place to avoid that. 

So the fact is we are operating right now off of a strategic guidance from 1999. And the world has changed significantly since 

1999. So that is one of the things that, between now and next 

year’s 60th summit, I think that there is going to be some significant energy to try to get a new strategic document. 

Secondly, all the countries, 26 of them, know that the benchmark 

for contributions for their defense establishment is 2 percent of 

GDP. That is what NATO has said. ‘‘You guys, members, need to 

commit 2 percent of your GDP.’’ By my calculation, six of 26 meet 

that today. The trends are down for those that don’t meet, they are 

mostly going further away from meeting. And for the six that do, 

four of the six have got negative trends. 

So, now, this is the choice. The choice is, do you put that money 

against collective security, or do you put it into social services and 

32-hour workweeks and other things like that? But fair enough, 

those are national decisions. 

However, the realization, I think, has failed to hit home that it 

is not anymore about sovereign states are the problem; it is about 

transnational threats, for which there is very little we can do diplomatically or politically. Who will you negotiate with if it is time 

to do a diplomatic effort with a transnational threat like Al Qaida, 

AQIM, PKK, Hezbollah? I don’t know. They aren’t there. They 

don’t exist. So the new paradigms have to be, I think, recognized 

and acknowledged. 

European countries, by and large, consider terrorism a public security issue that is only going to be dealt with by the police when 

the problem is visited on their people. I think the Brits have got 

it now, that it is bigger than that, because they have been attacked. The Spanish have been attacked. I thought they had it; 

they have lost it. They are back to public security. And I think 

maybe some of the other countries—the Germans found out that 

they had some bad guys, and they did some good work. The Belgians have done some good work. The Danes have done some work. 

There is starting to be a realization, but it has not reached all 

of the nations. That is what we have to do, is continue to work with 

them to make them understand that. 

Now, in Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is that I think the 

level of ambition in NATO has exceeded its political will. They 

said, go provide a safe and secure environment in Afghanistan, tell 

us what it is going to take. My command did that. We said, here 

is what it is going to take to do what you told us to do. They have 

yet to give us those forces. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many forces? Can you say publicly, in this 

setting, how many forces? 

General CRADDOCK. We really deal with capability, but it is a 

matter of a few battalions. The key are the enablers—rotary wing 

lift—heavy and light helicopters—intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. These are the key enablers that we need that we 

don’t have, in addition to a handful of battalions. 

Does NATO have it? They do. The problem is, the political decisions have yet to commit to doing it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1128 

So what that does is a couple things. One, it limits us—and some 

of the forces they have provided have restraints, caveats. Either 

functionally, they can’t do certain functions; or geographically, they 

can’t go certain places. They can only stay in their own little area. 

So what is the sum total of this? This has then limited the ISAF 

commanders’ flexibility to use forces around the country. It constrains the regional commanders’ ability to use forces inside of his 

region, different provinces. And it puts every Soldier, Marine and 

Airman at great risk because of these inflexible conditions. And it 

is going to prolong the conflict, and it is going to get more people 

banged up, either wounded or killed. 

Now, the space we give them, the bad guys, the insurgents, is 

the space between what we need and what we have. And that is 

their operating space. If we could take that away, we will see 

progress faster. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there anything we can do in the next 12 months 

to change that situation? 

General CRADDOCK. The issue becomes one, I think, of European 

constituents and the ability for leaders of nations who have skeptical constituents to convince them that it is just, it is winnable, 

and if they don’t do this, the likelihood of having the terrorist visit 

them is higher. 

The parliamentarians, the NATO parliamentarians, of which 

there are several in Congress, can be very helpful when they meet 

with their counterparts and engage to carry the message and to 

push them to ask questions, to go to NATO, to find out the realities 

of what is happening on the ground. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

EUROPEAN COMMAND AREA OF OPERATION

Mr. WAMP. General, in the last hour, we have covered a lot of 

ground and a lot of issues, but you have a vast area of responsibility (AOR). Are there any other concerns that you have that we 

haven’t discussed today that are under your AOR? 

General CRADDOCK. Well, I think the ever-present threat of 

weapons of mass destruction is a concern I have, from a couple perspectives. 

One, if you look at my area of responsibility, I have more nations 

with nuclear capability than anywhere else in the world. 

Secondly, the Eurasian area, the Transcaucasus, the Balkans, 

eastern, western, have been traditionally crossroads for smugglers 

throughout history, whether it is contraband, it is people, weapons, 

explosives, drugs. And I think because those routes, channels, linkages, cells, networks, are present in today’s world, they could be 

easily co-opted into the movement of a weapon of mass destruction, 

whether it be nuclear or chemical or biological. 

So that is a concern. 

Third, I have a concern about energy security. That is my NATO 

hat and my EUCOM hat. And my concern is that the ability to use 

energy, whether it be natural gas or oil, as a political bargaining 

chip is now beginning to be more and more a reality. That when 

nations or a nation controls not only the reserves, the production 

and, most important, the distribution means, pipelines, to their adVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1129 

vantage, then I think that it could be very onerous acts occur and 

there is very little we can do. 

Today we have seen already valves shut down which affected a 

nation, but, downstream, other countries were affected. So there 

was some political pressure, cumulative, collective pressure, and 

the situation resolved. 

The more the control of the pipelines occurs, the buy-up of those 

distribution means, the greater the likelihood of a very precise 

shutdown. In a cold, northern European winter, if the natural gas 

is shut off and 3,000 people lose their lives, is that a weapon of 

mass destruction? 

So I think energy security has to be a focal area for NATO, I 

think for sure the European Union, because they have enormous 

opportunity to push back and resolve that, not only from not letting 

it get to a policy determinant, but to find alternative means to deliver in the event that these specific pipelines are threatened. 

Mr. WAMP. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Just a couple of other questions from me, General 

Craddock. 

KOSOVO

Kosovo—we plan and hope for the best-case scenario, but we 

have to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Not to say this is 

likely to happen, but could you outline what would be the worstcase scenario in Kosovo? 

General CRADDOCK. Well, we have definitely a unique situation 

where this coordinated declaration of independence 34 nations have 

recognized, I think is the number, which is a bit disappointing. 

We have the U.N. now operating, and NATO, under Resolution 

No. 1244, which we have for several years. That is our authority. 

There will be a constitution, it appears now. A draft has been approved. It will go to file and be implemented mid-June. 

We understand from the U.N. when that occurs that the United 

Nations will leave Kosovo and that the European Union will come 

in, and they will bring in a policing force. And they will bring in 

an international coordinator, who is from a European Union nation. He will be the international coordinator, but not a European 

Union coordinator. So it is a little bit unique. 

We say—‘‘we,’’ NATO—as the international military force. Now, 

the question becomes authorities. If 1244 is still in place, we have 

authority. Does the European Union’s delegation of police have 

1244 as their authority? If not, the Serbs won’t recognize them. If 

they do, the Serbs likely will. They say they won’t recognize it because it doesn’t fit. 

So there are incredibly complex legal decisions and judgments 

being made all the time. Worst case? Worst case is that mid-June, 

if not earlier, the Serbs say, we have had enough of this, and they 

try to take a hard partition north of the Ibar River and say that 

is now part of Serbia. And at the same time, the Kosovar Albanians say, we have had enough of this, and they go back to try to 

take it back. And then we, NATO, with a U.N. police force that is 

leaving, a European force that has yet to come in, are caught in 

the middle. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1130 

I think there has been considerable constraint, restraint, on the 

part of the Kosovar Albanians, and I applaud them for that. I think 

we have had some mischief out of Belgrade. 

On the 17th of March, there was a situation in Mitrovica that 

crossed a line for the first time, where the U.N. took a stand to ask 

NATO to help them take the stand. We took that stand. And it was 

not a demonstration by the people against it. It was a specific, warlike act of street combat by paramilitaries against both the U.N. 

force and the NATO force. The U.N. police had 35 Ukrainian policemen wounded, one killed. NATO had 50 French soldiers wounded. Fourteen required hospitalization. 

So that was a line that was crossed. So this has changed now 

this equation. I think that Belgrade was surprised that the U.N. 

and NATO stood up and said, no more. These paramilitary structures have been developed over time in the Serbian enclaves. Right 

or wrong, they developed. Now, our challenge is not to let them go 

hard and become a partition. So we have to stand our ground. 

And I think there has to be political engagement with Belgrade, 

and there has to be by the European Union, by the U.N., by NATO, 

to convince them their future is not east; it is west and the E.U. 

and Europe. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, General. 

Let me say, finally, before my last question, I appreciate your addressing these broad issues. We will have staff follow up on some 

of the specific MILCON issues. But, you know, it is such an important opportunity for us to get a big-picture view of your perspectives in order for us to make rational MILCON decisions. 

MILITARY PRESENCE IN EUROPE

So let me finish by going backward to the most basic of questions. For those who would say our presence in Europe is no longer 

needed, the Soviet Union has broken apart, let’s bring all the 

troops home—I know there is no serious effort to bring all of our 

forces home—but would you just outline for the record what are 

the positive military, security, economic, relationship benefits of 

our military presence in Europe? 

General CRADDOCK. Well, the world is changing faster now, obviously, in this post-Cold War period than during the 50 years or so, 

or 45 years, that we had that. I think that the first thing I would 

say is this is not about posturing against a rising Russia; that is 

not what this is about. 

This is about creating partners and allies. It is about helping 

them help themselves, build their capability to ensure that they 

have the capability to, one, secure their own countries; and then, 

two, if they desire and when asked, be able to help NATO, United 

Nations, whomever, to project forces for security operations anywhere in the world. 

And I will tell you that many of the new nations want to do that. 

They don’t have much capacity, they don’t have much capability, 

but they are trying very hard. So we are grateful for that. 

There is still instability in the Caucasus, frozen conflicts. There 

is still enormous distrust between those countries, many of them, 

or factions of those countries and Russia. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1131 

Russia is concerned that NATO is threatening them. At the Bucharest summit, I think President Putin talked about the western 

bloc. It is not a bloc. That term is old-think, it is Cold War. These 

are all democratic nations. These are all nations that have met certain criteria. They have stable governments, they are democracies. 

I can’t imagine being threatened when you have democracies on 

your borders unless there is something else at work. 

So I think that, to those who say, ‘‘Bring them all home,’’ we 

have brought a lot of them home. You know, I got to Europe, the 

first time, 1972. It was 780,000 active-duty forces. We are going 

down to 66,000. 

But the fact that we are there and that we are the gold standard 

for military efficiency, effectiveness, how to operate, everybody 

wants us on their team. And we have to have somebody there to 

do that. 

And the subtle part of this is, sure, we could rotate forces from 

the States every 6 months. But I found this out when I was down 

in Latin America, and we did that in Colombia with special forces. 

We were rotating the same guys. And over 30 years, they spoke 

Spanish. It was perfect. And then they went to Iraq, and we 

brought in a new team, and it was like, ‘‘Who are these guys? And 

they don’t speak our language. They don’t know us.’’ 

We have got to have—I call it the ‘‘Cheers’’ complex. You have 

got to go where everybody knows your name. Okay? And if you are 

there, and every few months you are dealing with those people, and 

pretty soon they trust you, they know you, and you will push up 

the relationship and their capabilities much faster than if you push 

it up for 6 months and then they are gone, new guys come in, get 

it up a little bit, then new guys come in, and you are always in 

a sine wave. 

So I think we do need some forward-deployed for that very purpose, of being able to engage every day. And secondly, all of our 

service members are diplomats. You know, when they are out 

there, that is a good thing. 

So I think that is important. So that is the answer I would give 

to the skeptics, that because, you know, we are the gold standard 

and everybody wants to be like us, and we have got to be there to 

show them what ‘‘us’’ looks like. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you do much training of foreign military officers in Europe? Or is that done more—— 

General CRADDOCK. The IMET, international military education 

and training, brings them back. Great program, most important 

thing we do. 

Secondly, oh, we absolutely—we do exercises, even though they 

are reduced. We do exchanges, platoon and company, reduced. We 

bring them to our training area—Grafenwoehr, Hohenfels—to our 

NCO academy at Grafenwoehr. Oh, absolutely. And we can’t do 

enough of it, quite frankly. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I was at Leavenworth not too long ago, and I was 

amazed to see how many foreign officers were there on a regular 

basis. 

General CRADDOCK. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What a great thing. 

General CRADDOCK. Very good. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1132 

So those are the things that—not so much, maybe, Western Europe countries, because we have been there a long time, had a relationship, but it is the outreach to the Caucasus and to the Balkans. 

We are seeing more and more—I said in this Mediterranean Dialogue, North Africa is trying to reach out, both north and south. 

But AFRICOM will be looking there also. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Great. Thank you. 

Zach, would you like the last word? 

Mr. WAMP. I am through. 

But I thank you, sir. 

General CRADDOCK. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. General Craddock, thank you very much. 

General CRADDOCK. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We look forward to working with you and your 

staff. 

General CRADDOCK. Come visit us. Come visit us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will do that. 

General CRADDOCK. All right. Thank you, sir. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

Question. The September 2004 Global Defense Posture Report to Congress stated 

that ‘‘the United States will strengthen its deployable military capabilities in Europe.’’ As commander of EUCOM, do you believe that your deployable military capabilities are as strong, or stronger, than they were in 2004? 

Answer. U.S. European Command’s (EUCOM) deployable military capability has 

increased since the development of the Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture 

(GDP) Report to Congress in 2004 and will continue to strengthen over the next five 

years until GDP goals are met. Prior to 2004, EUCOM capabilities consisted of 

heavy division centric, massed forces with robust infrastructure. Today’s forces, 

which may not have the same end strength capability of those five years ago, are 

tailored to be much more deployable to meet the needs for out of area operations. 

To date, the following GDP achievements have helped EUCOM attain a lighter, 

more agile and deployable fighting force: 

• Modularization of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team 

• Partial Modularization of two remaining heavy Brigade Combat Teams to 

allow them to participate in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 

• Integration of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team 

• Consolidation of U.S. Army, Europe and 5th Corps into 7th Army to form 

flatter command and control support functions 

• Merging of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and 6th Fleet Headquarters at 

Naples, Italy, to create a single Joint Task Force-capable headquarters 

EUCOM’s transforming posture continues to be characterized by more deployable 

capabilities as well as leaner command and support structures strengthening 

deployable military capability. Currently, EUCOM has two U.S. Army Europe Joint 

Task Force-capable headquarters, one 6th Fleet Joint Task Force-capable headquarters, one 3rd Air Force Joint Task Force-capable headquarters, and improved 

headquarters staffs across the components, providing a leaner command and support structure. EUCOM forces are more deployable than 2004. At the same time, 

EUCOM has fewer forces to deploy than in 2004. 

Question. Has EUCOM conducted any sort of infrastructure review to determine 

what the facility requirements would be if the two temporarily stationed Heavy Brigade Combat Teams were kept in Germany beyond 2013? 

Answer. The two Heavy Brigade Combat Teams have been stationed at non-enduring installations as reported in the 2004 Department of Defense Master Plan. 

The Operations and Maintenance funding accounts of these installations have been 

maintained to ensure current operations capabilities, but no Military Construction 

investments have been made to recapitalize the infrastructure for long-term use. 

In 2007, U.S. European Command staff conducted a study to identify the force 

structure requirements needed to accomplish theater objectives. During this study 

a general comparative assessment of the stationing options and capacity to retain 

the currently assigned four Brigade Combat Teams was completed. The study determined that operational and housing capacity exists; however, there has been an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1133 

vestment pause at non-enduring installations. Should two Heavy Brigade Combat 

Teams be retained, the normal modernization and recapitalization planning would 

need to be initiated for retained infrastructure. 

Question. How many permanent U.S. military personnel do you currently have 

within the EUCOM AOR, and what is the year-by-year schedule for completing the 

drawdown by 2013? 

Answer. There are currently 86,560 permanent military personnel in the EUCOM 

AOR. This number will decrease at a nonlinear rate to 62,800 military personnel 

in 2013. The preponderance of the drawdown of forces will include U.S. Army and 

USAF personnel, of which the majority will be U.S. Army personnel during the return of the 2 Brigade Combat Teams and supporting units in 2012 and 2013. 

The current 2008 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army—46,800; U.S. 

Navy—6,200; U.S. Air Force—30,700; U.S. Marine—1,060; SOF—1,800; Total: 

86,560. 

The 2010 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army—44,300; U.S. Navy—6,200; 

U.S. Air Force—28,200; U.S. Marine—1,060; SOF—1,800; Total: 81,560. 

The 2013 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army—28,000; U.S. Navy—6,200; 

U.S. Air Force—25,700; U.S. Marine—1,060; SOF—1,800; Total: 62,760. 

Question. Will EUCOM play any role in determining the personnel requirements 

for operating the ‘‘third site’’ missile defense facilities? 

Answer. It is EUCOM’s understanding that we will have the opportunity to review and comment on lead service proposals, but will not have approval authority. 

Question. When do you plan to complete construction on facilities programmed for 

the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Dal Molin? 

Answer. The 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team is currently the only splitbased combat brigade in the U.S. Army with four of its six battalions stationed in 

Schweinfurt and Bamberg, Germany. In order to reduce the operating inefficiencies 

and meet Strategic Theater Transformation timelines the Military Construction is 

scheduled for completion by early calendar year 2012 to enable the consolidation of 

the Brigade by the summer of 2012. The Dal Molin Complex at Vicenza was originally programmed for $479M ($306M in Fiscal Year 2007 and $173M in FY08) to provide facilities for locating the 173rd 

Airborne Brigade Combat Team. While the project is fully authorized, the Fiscal 

Year 2008 request was incrementally appropriated. Of the $352M appropriated to 

date, $80M has been expended. In addition, a design/build contract was awarded for 

the entire Dal Molin complex on 28 March 2008 to a construction company with a 

proven track record of early completion. It is reasonable to expect this company will 

finish the project in advance of the projected completion in early calendar year 2012. 

Question. When do you expect to achieve initial operating capability and full operating capability for the consolidated 173rd ABCT at Vicenza? 

Answer. The 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is currently the only 

split-based combat brigade in the U.S. Army with four of its six battalions stationed 

in Schweinfurt and Bamberg, Germany and the remaining forces stationed in 

Vicenza, Italy. EUCOM does not draw a distinction between Initial Operating Capabilities (IOC) and Full Operating Capabilities (FOC); The 173rd ABCT will be fully 

operational in Vicenza when all of the new facilities are ready and the brigade has 

consolidated in Vincenza. Based on current construction timelines, and assuming 

continued annual Congressional appropriations, the consolidation and FOC of the 

173rd ABCT are scheduled for summer 2012. 

Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget included a $7 million fuel pipeline project 

at Souda Bay Naval Station. This project was ultimately cancelled, at least partially 

due to obstruction by local government authorities. The FY09 request includes $27.8 

million for a similar project at Souda Bay. What has changed between FY06 and 

FY09 that led to this project’s revival? Why has the cost of the project increased 

from $7 million to nearly $28 million? Is this project eligible for NATO Security Investment Program funding? Is EUCOM confident that the Government of Greece 

fully supports the continued use and recapitalization of Souda Bay for both U.S. and 

NATO missions? 

Answer. This military construction project will ensure continued ability of Naval 

Support Activity Souda Bay to provide theater tanker support. In FY06 the project 

was programmed to replace an existing 4-inch fuel transfer line between the 

Marathi Fuel Depot and Naval Support Activity Souda Bay with a 6-inch line. The 

existing pipeline was constructed in 1971 and has heavy corrosion, no cathodic protection and no leak monitoring system. This project has remained a priority due to 

the pipeline’s fragile condition and reduced operating capacity. However, due to 

problems securing local easement rights the project was delayed and funds reprogrammed. Continued engagement with the local government and Hellenic Defense 

staff recently secured approval for the project. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1134 

The current project combines the original FY06 project with a previously planned 

FY09 project to construct two new 12,000-barrel fuel tanks at the airfield. These two 

projects together account for the difference in cost from the original $7 million requested in FY06 to the $27.8 million requested in FY09 for the combined project. 

The project is potentially eligible for NATO Security Investment Program funding, 

however there is no current NATO capability package supporting this project. European Command staff is actively engaged with the host nation and with NATO to 

develop a viable means for common funding. A pre-financing package for the original pipeline project was submitted to NATO for the future recoupment of funds from 

the NATO Security Investment Program. A separate pre-financing package will be 

submitted for the full project, pipeline and tanks, in the near future. 

The Hellenic Defense General Staff has expressed support for operations at Souda 

Bay, to include support for both U.S. operations and the NATO maritime capability. 

There is currently no NATO mission related to the development of airfield capabilities. 

If this project is not funded, Souda Bay will not only continue to have inadequate 

fuel storage capacity to meet mission requirements for assigned and transient aircraft, but the pipeline capacity and condition will continue to adversely impact mission capability and pose a significant environmental risk. 

Question. A large portion of EUCOM’s AOR will be shifted to Africa Command. 

Have you reviewed your posture and infrastructure requirements in light of this development, and have you determined that any changes are necessary? 

Answer. The recommended U.S. Africa Command posture is based on a distributed command and control model that will leverage existing infrastructure. In carrying out its missions, Africa Command will consolidate the efforts of three commands into a single command focused solely on Africa. The command strategy for 

the continent relies on using security cooperation and leveraging multinational partnerships to build African security capacity. 

U.S. European Command and Africa Command theater posture planners are currently working the transfer of responsibility for the African AOR to the Africa Command. U.S. European Command will continue to review and update theater posture 

and infrastructure requirements through the U.S. European Command Master Plan 

and the Global Defense Posture Plan. EUCOM infrastructure will experience little 

change and only a minimum of new infrastructure will be required off the continent 

of Africa (in Europe) to enhance headquarters and component capabilities in support 

of Africa Command. 

Question. How will the ‘‘seam’’ between AFRICOM and EUCOM affect operations 

in the Mediterranean? 

Answer. The ‘‘seam’’ will affect our operations for the Navy very little. USEUCOM 

will continue to be responsible for all the water in the Mediterranean except for the 

territorial waters (out to 12 nautical miles) on the northern coast of North Africa. 

When naval units transit the Mediterranean and are tasked to pull into North African ports for Theater Security Cooperation engagements or logistics requirements, 

USEUCOM will shop Tactical Control for Force Protection to USAFRICOM and the 

engagement will proceed. This type of Combatant Command coordination occurs frequently. 

Question. What is the status of appropriated construction projects in Romania and 

Bulgaria to establish forward operating sites for Joint Task Force—East? How many 

exercises have been conducted at these sites? 

Answer. The Military Construction (MILCON) projects (phase 1 and 2) in Romania have been awarded for contract with completion scheduled for June 2009. Phase 

1 is currently under construction and Phase 2 will begin construction within two 

months. 

In Bulgaria the Military Construction project site has been approved. Contract 

award is to be not later than September 2008 with a projected completion of May 

2011. Until these projects are complete, all exercises are being conducted at temporary forward operating sites in the vicinity of the MILCON construction projects. 

While current force commitments do not support a rotation of brigades from the 

States, U.S. European Command has provided available forces on a rotational basis 

to: (1) further develop proof of principle; (2) enhance relationships with Bulgaria and 

Romania; and (3) develop future partners. Once the permanent facilities are constructed, we will utilize those facilities to support exercises similar to the engagement outlined below: 

The U.S. Air Force conducted three Flying Training Detachments (FTD) during 

Fiscal Year 2007. A FTD typically consists of a deployment of 4–12 aircraft and 250 

crew and support personnel for two to three weeks duration. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1135 

U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) conducted the Joint Task Force—East (JTF–E) 

Proof of Principle (PoP) exercise in Romania and Bulgaria from July to November 

2007. Most of the training event was conducted at MK Airbase. 

During the peak training periods, there were approximately 250 Romanian soldiers and 800 U.S. soldiers conducting combined training. The FY08 rotations will 

more than double this loading. 

U.S. Navy Europe maintains a Seabee Detachment on six month rotations at MK 

Airbase. The Seabees conducted facility maintenance and renovation work, as well 

as U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)-directed Humanitarian Assistance 

projects in the vicinity of the airbase. 

USAREUR maintains a 27-man military/civilian Mission Support Element (MSE) 

staff on MK Airbase year round to monitor the progress of MILCON projects, ensure 

facilities’ operational readiness, and conduct Host Nation military coordination in 

support of JTF–East operations, to include supporting planning conferences with 

Romanian and Bulgarian Armed Forces. 

In addition to the events listed above, the JTF–E MSE Staff supported the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit Support (U.S. and U.K. Air Force direct support) and the U.S. Presidential visit to Constanta, Romania to meet with 

the Romanian President. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1137) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008. 

U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

WITNESS 

ADMIRAL JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the meeting to 

order. Admiral Stravridis, welcome to the subcommittee and thank 

you for your distinguished military service to the country. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I have been asked if we would ask everyone to 

speak as directly into the microphones as you can. Sometimes the 

transcription effort is a little more difficult. If you will just wave 

or stand up or jump or do this if you can’t hear us, let us know. 

It is bad enough when people quote us accurately, but even more 

difficult if they quote us inaccurately. 

The subject of our hearing today is the fiscal year 2009 military 

construction and family housing request in support of Southern 

Command. Going back at least to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the 

security of the Western Hemisphere has been a vital interest of the 

United States. SOUTHCOM’s mission is to guarantee that security. 

Although SOUTHCOM’s fiscal year 2009 request of $164.8 million is relatively small compared to other combatant commands, 

there are issues within its responsibility—many issues within its 

responsibility—that merit this subcommittee’s attention. I am 

pleased to have Admiral Stavridis with us today to discuss these 

issues. 

Before we proceed with the testimony, I would like to recognize 

our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he 

would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if my calculation is right, this is the 

next-to-last hearing of our regularly scheduled hearings before this 

subcommittee. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We save the best, Mr. Wamp, for the last. 

Mr. WAMP. And if somebody could help me, what number hearing 

is—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. A dozen or more. 

Mr. WAMP. I just wanted to say that my eyes are not yet crossed 

and I am not dizzy, regardless of what my wife says about me, but 

this has been an unbelievable experience, a learning experience, an 

exhilarating patriotic experience to meet these heroes and these defenders of our way of life. The admiral came to see me and we hit 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1138 

it off from the very beginning because I am going to echo your 

opening comments briefly by saying that as we are able to expand 

our values and, for all the right reasons, our influence in the Western Hemisphere, we will secure our very freedom. It is so important for us to fend off the elements that are counter to our way of 

life within our hemisphere, which frankly in South America we 

have a few of those players today. 

I think we do that, though, by bringing people together, by helping with basic needs, by not exerting our military strength, sometimes as much as by just reaching out to people and establishing 

communications, dialogue, and understanding. The admiral understands the cultures in SOUTHCOM. That is such an important 

first step to making the progress that we need. 

We can help them with their security and very much help ourselves with our security in this hemisphere. If we are going to be 

competitive in this world, I think we have to build more alliances 

within the Western Hemisphere to compete with other parts of the 

world. That is why frankly our military presence is so important. 

SOUTHCOM, while it is a relatively small command financially, it 

is a very strategic command. 

I hope at some point maybe we could go with the admiral into 

his command because just talking it through with him today, there 

are some really strategic places that we really need to go into with 

him. 

I thank you for your leadership and your courtesy today, Admiral, and for your service. I look forward to this testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Very well said. As a Texan 

born not too far away from the border with Mexico, I have always 

felt our nation’s government often overlooks the importance of 

Latin America and its role in our nation’s security and its future. 

Admiral, again it is great to have you before this committee. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am going to go through your very long and distinguished career. But just as a matter of a few basics, Admiral 

Stavridis has been SOUTHCOM commander since October of 2006. 

He is the first Navy officer to command SOUTHCOM. He previously served as senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense; was commander of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group from 

2002 to 2004, including operations in the Persian Gulf. He was 

commander of the destroyer USS Barry from 1993 to 1995. If I 

went through all the list of the words of leadership in the Navy, 

we wouldn’t have time to complete the hearing. 

He holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 

at Tufts University. 

Admiral, without objection, your full written testimony will be 

submitted, along with any addendums you might have to offer. We 

would like to recognize you for your opening comments, and then 

we will continue on at that point with questions and answers. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES G. STAVRIDIS

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Representative Ander 

Crenshaw I must start by saying is not only on the committee overseeing me, but he is also literally my congressman. I am from his 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1139 

district in North Florida, so it is a pleasure to appear in front of 

this committee particularly on not only a professional basis, but a 

personal basis with my congressman, and he represents our district 

extremely well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will give him personal credit for championing 

your headquarters. [Laughter.] 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do want to say—I want to echo your comments, Mr. Chairman, and those of the ranking member, that I believe, and I think many of us who are focusing on this region believe this is an important place in the world for the United States. 

Our job at Southern Command is to look out, to report to the secretary of defense, and to look out over some 36 nations to the south 

of us in Central America and the Caribbean and South America, 

and try and affect not only security cooperation, but also in an 

interagency spirit to work with our partners, particularly the Department of State and to try and secure a positive frame of reference for overseeing this vital part of the world. 

This committee and this particular subcommittee looks at military construction. I want to first and foremost say thank you to 

this committee for your support of our headquarters. This command moved from Panama 10 years ago to Miami, Florida, where 

there is no DOD base. There is no military base there. So we have 

been in a rented essentially converted warehouse for 10 years. Our 

command is spread over nine buildings in the area. Due to your 

support and allocating us funding for a headquarters building, we 

will be able over the next 21⁄2 years to construct a facility that will 

bring all of those parts of our commands together. 

It will, most importantly, help address some of the quality-of-life 

issues because with that headquarters building, we will be able to 

put in a small medical clinic, a small commissary, a small exchange, none of which exist for our people today. So I want to 

thank this committee for the superb support you have given Southern Command, sir. 

I am happy to take any questions about the region, about the security situation there; anything the committee would like to discuss. And of course I can address the MILCON projects that are 

up in front of you. 

I want to close by doing two things, the first of which is to echo 

what the ranking member said, and to invite you, Mr. Chairman, 

and the ranking member and other members who are interested in 

traveling. Representative Farr was just down with us in Colombia 

recently. I encourage you to come to this region. There is a great 

deal to see, and there is no substitute for the tactile feeling of traveling in this region to understand it. 

And then secondly, I would like to close by simply saying thank 

you to the members of my command, the enlisted men and women 

in particular who serve this country so well. I am proud to stand 

with them at SOUTHCOM and to work with them. 

So, sir, with that I am open for any and all questions that you 

would want to pose. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral James G. Stavridis follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1140 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2609 here 42754E.001
1141 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2610 here 42754E.002
1142 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2611 here 42754E.003
1143 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2612 here 42754E.004
1144 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2613 here 42754E.005
1145 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2614 here 42754E.006
1146 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Admiral, thank you very much again 

for your distinguished service and the service of all those that you 

represent with your presence here today. 

I think Mr. Wamp will approve if Mr. Crenshaw, given the strategic location of your home state, if we began by recognizing you 

to start off the questions and comments. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you. 

I want to thank the admiral for his kind words. I don’t have that 

many constituents that come up here and testify before—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. I don’t have any admirals. 

But it has been great to get to know the admiral over the years. 

One of the reasons has been that I represent him. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. That needs to be on the record. [Laughter.] 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IN THE REGION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, we do thank you for your service. 

A couple of things, I would like to hear you comment on the military construction aspect. There are some dollars in here. As you 

may or may not know, this committee has been awfully sensitive 

to quality-of-life issues and housing and things like that. There is 

always controversy about getting—in terms of the—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But just tell us those military construction dollars, where do they go to? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, as you know, we have several construction projects at Naval Station Guantanamo. That is distinct from 

Joint Task Force Guantanamo. The JTF is where the detainees are 

housed. These projects would all be in front of you even if there 

weren’t a single detainee on the island. These are projects that will 

rebuild really a 50-year-old naval station that is of extreme strategic importance to us because of its location, as it is our furthest 

southern U.S. military installation in this region. 

So the projects there will be exactly what Representative 

Crenshaw just said. They will be the quality-of-life things that will 

support our people. We build family housing complexes because our 

families are down there. They will create an appropriate fitness 

center for our people. Again, they are distinct from the JTF detainee operation. 

So I think it is a prudent investment. I think it brings the naval 

station up to the standards that we hope for for our young men and 

women. I thank the committee for considering that request. 

FOURTH FLEET

Mr. CRENSHAW. And the other question I wanted to ask you, 

there has been a lot of discussion in the Navy about reestablishing 

the Fourth Fleet. And then from a parochial standpoint, there has 

been discussion about making the headquarters at Mayport in my 

congressional district. 

So I would like to hear your views. You would be very directly 

affected by that. What do you think about that concept? I don’t 

know if you have an opinion as to where the headquarters are. You 

are in Miami, as you pointed out. You don’t have a lot of facilities 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1147 

down there in Mayport, which is kind of a up-and-running operation. But comment on where you think it might be headquartered, 

but more importantly just how it would fit in and how it would 

make your life a little bit easier and probably better in your—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I would be glad to. I started talking with 

CNO Mullen back when Admiral Mullin was the CNO and I had 

just taken over at SOUTHCOM, and then continued that dialogue 

with CNO Roughead, Admiral Roughead. Both have been incredibly supportive of the idea of a Fourth Fleet. What Fourth Fleet 

does for us as a nation is it puts in place a naval near-time organization that is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean, where 

I think we can all agree there are important U.S. interests. 

So secondly, it would bring together in one location close to the 

area of operations—the ability to command and control ships and 

naval responses to things like a mass migration out of Cuba, to 

help us stop the flow of narcotics into the United States, to conduct 

security exercises of a maritime nature with our partners, both in 

the Caribbean and all around South America and Central America. 

There is no substitute for location. You know, having a numbered 

fleet commander close to the area of operations is critical. Now, as 

to where that location would be, Representative Crenshaw sir, that 

would really be a CNO decision. He is the—organizer. 

As the combatant commander, I am telling him that I need that 

level of support and he is going forward with it. I am fully supportive of it. I anticipate that it will be approved sometime in the 

near future. And as to the precise location, I leave that to the chief 

of naval operations. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Wamp. 

CUBA

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, you spoke in my office about your three greatest concerns. I would like for you to walk back through those for the subcommittee, and then talk specifically about Venezuela and Bolivia 

and Ecuador, and the alliances that we should be concerned about 

in SOUTHCOM. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I would be glad to. First, I would say 

particularly given our location in Miami, Florida, we watch Cuba 

very closely. We are concerned about Cuba, particularly from the 

SOUTHCOM perspective for the potential for mass migration out 

of the island. Historically, of course, we have had two large migrations from Cuba in the last 30 years, one in 1980, the so-called 

Mariel boatlift, and one in 1994. Both of those resulted from political decisions that were made by the Castro dictator in Cuba. 

So we are very concerned, and one of our jobs is to work with 

the Department of Homeland Security to respond if we had en 

masse migration. So we follow events there very closely. At the moment in Cuba, we see Fidel Castro stepping back. He has turned 

over the presidency in an unelected dictatorial fashion to his brother, Raul. Raul is making some very small economic openings, so we 

are simply watching events very closely there with our partners in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1148 

the State Department and our other partners in the interagency to 

try and get ahead of a potential situation which might lead to a 

mass migration. So we watch Cuba very closely. 

COUNTER-NARCOTICS EFFORT

Secondly, we are very concerned about the flow of narcotics 

through the region, notably cocaine, which comes from the Andean 

ridge from Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. So we put a high degree of 

effort into finding and stopping cocaine shipments that are moving 

through the Caribbean. Over the last 2 years, we stopped on average 240 tons of cocaine through the region. That means there is a 

lot that gets through to the United States. Of course, stopping drug 

use is a big national problem. There is a demand side to that here 

in the states. There is a supply side in the countries of the region. 

Our job is the interdiction portion of it. We spend a lot of time on 

that. 

Sir, it is not just the drugs. I worry that the pathways that allow 

drugs to flow through could then be used to move a weapon of mass 

destruction, move a terrorist. So I think there is a real homeland 

defense component to this counter-narcotics effort. So that is kind 

of the second thing that we focus on—Cuba and counter-narcotics. 

COLOMBIA

The third place where we are focusing a great deal is the situation in Colombia. Colombia is a success story. Colombia has come 

an enormous distance in 10 years from a period of time in which 

our Secretary of State, Secretary Rice—said Colombia in 1997 to 

2000 was almost a failed state. Today, Colombia by any accountable measure has improved vastly. They have reduced homicides 40 

percent. They have reduced kidnappings 80 percent. They have reduced killings of labor union leaders 65 percent over the last 10 

years. 

President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent approval rating. The insurgent group, the FARC, has an approval rating less than 2 percent. 

I mean, this is not a popular insurgency. The number of fighters 

in FARC has declined from 18,000 to less than 9,000 today. There 

is Colombian presence in 1,098 municipalities throughout the region. So the Colombians have looked a difficult insurgency in the 

face and they have walked their country back from it with a moderate level of bipartisan support from the United States. 

Plan Colombia started under the Clinton Administration. It has 

continued under the Bush Administration. Together, that level of 

support has been very, very salutary for events in Colombia. That 

is important for the United States because Colombia is our strongest friend and ally in the region. So as we look at the other countries in the region, they follow events there in Colombia very closely, and they are looking for continued U.S. support. 

So the Southern Command will do—military-to-military with our 

Colombian partners to help them train, equip and organize their 

military to operate in accordance with human rights, tactically effectively against the FARC, and in a way that is strategically supportable in a counterinsurgency role. 

So those are my three highest-focused areas. I do a lot of other 

things, but I put those three at the top of the list. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1149 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. WAMP. One more question in this round, Admiral. As I have 

shared with you, I turned 13 living on the Howard Air Force Base 

in the Panama Canal Zone, spending a few months with my aunt 

and uncle, when my uncle was stationed there. BRAC and changes 

in our military construction facilities around the world obviously 

changed many commands. What do you foresee in SOUTHCOM in 

terms of changes? Are there other bases that might be realigned 

or do you see a need for us longer-term than just this budget request, do you see other needs out in the future? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir—SOUTHCOM, we have a very light 

and lean infrastructure in the region. We have Guantanamo Naval 

Station, very important to us, and we have a request up in front 

of you for that. We have three of what are called forward operating 

locations, and these are really nothing more than a couple of hangars, a maintenance building, and access to an air strip. There are 

three of those right now, sir. One is in El Salvador, one is on the 

Dutch-owned island of Curacao, and one is in Manta, Ecuador. 

They are operated under 10-year leases. The one I am concerned 

about is the one in Manta, Ecuador. It is under a 10-year lease. 

The current president of Ecuador, President Correa, has said on 

several occasions that he does not intend to renew that lease. That 

lease is up in November of 2009. 

Now, we and the Department of Defense are working very closely 

with the Department of State, who have the lead on any kind of 

arrangement like this. We are attempting to convince our partners 

in Ecuador to renew the lease. If they do not, I would anticipate 

in this next budget cycle coming back to this committee for additional funds to establish an alternate forward-operating location. In 

terms of scale, that will not be a huge project, probably in the $30 

million to $45 million range. 

Mr. WAMP. Do you mean in Ecuador? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. We will probably need to go elsewhere because President Correa evidently, at least in his public 

statements, has indicated a lack of support. So we are talking to 

some of our other friends and allies in the region. I can provide a 

classified addendum because such discussions are sensitive, but I 

have every reason to believe that other friends and allies in the region will provide us support. So I will then come back to this committee in the next budget cycle for, again, a modest level of support 

to replicate that facility. 

Mr. WAMP. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CUBA AND GUANTANAMO

Admiral, I want to compliment you on your public service, and 

secondly, on your leadership. I was very impressed reading about 

the Southern Command engaging in what you call the battle of 

ideas, not the battle of missiles and bombs in the Western Hemisphere. I lived in Colombia for many years as a Peace Corps volunVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1150 

teer. I found a new meaning to the phrase I am proud to be an 

American! Well, all of Central and South America says the same 

thing. They all consider themselves a part of the Americas. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Representative Farr, you have no idea how 

often I make that point to my people. Seriously. We have appropriated that term to ourselves, but when I hear somebody use it 

down south, I am always corrected. I associate myself with your remarks. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, we have never as a country officially embraced— 

though I think we ought to—have a whole hemispheric strategy on 

energy, and a whole hemispheric strategy. It is the only way to go. 

I appreciate your speaking out about that and leading in that direction. 

There are a lot of issues and a lot of details, and I want to get 

to some of the details on some of these issues. I happen to disagree 

with our administration on the matter of Cuba. I have been to 

Cuba five times. One of the conferences I attended in Cuba concerned international narcotics enforcement. One participant there 

was a Coast Guard officer who was in civilian uniform. His impression was that Cubans are doing a great job on the drug war front. 

They don’t want drugs and in this area the U.S. has a great collaboration with Cuba. 

I wish we could employ that kind of collaboration in the military. 

It seems to me that it is in our best interests to begin creating a 

more established professional relationship with the Cuban military. 

If they are willing to help us on drug interdiction and things like 

that, we have the building blocks for regional or hemispheric stability. 

I think it is just a matter of time before we start changing our 

policy about Cuba. I just don’t believe it is a terrorist country or 

capable of being a terrorist country. You mentioned preparing for 

the boatlift. If we just told the Cubans that if they come here they 

are going to have to pay for their education and pay for health 

care, and not have affordable housing, not have universal access to 

health care, I don’t know if they would want to come at all. 

It would be a lot easier to do the ounce of prevention, which I 

think is what your mission about ideas is, and that of the secretary, on this whole new—AFRICOM briefing, this whole intergovernmental relationship. Congress has just passed a bill which the 

Defense Department is supporting on setting up a Crisis Corps, so 

that we can on the civilian end, through the State Department and 

the USAID, can respond like the military does with special ops that 

put people with special abilities in-country. 

So one of the things that the candidates have all called for is for 

Guantanamo to be closed. Is there a plan if that—if they get in the 

presidency, whoever is elected president, follows through, do we 

have a strategy for that, knowing what the cost-benefits of it would 

be? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Again, at 

SOUTHCOM, our job at SOUTHCOM is not the legal policy part 

of that package. Our job is to provide—— 

Mr. FARR. But you do provide for contingencies, don’t you? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, we provide for humane treatment of 

the detainees and contingencies within the island, but in terms of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1151 

a national decision to close the detention facility, we are not doing 

planning of that nature at SOUTHCOM. 

Mr. FARR. Your responsibility? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. That would be appropriately vested 

at the level of the deputy secretary of defense because it is a policy 

matter. 

COLOMBIA

Mr. FARR. Well—it would be helpful to get the information on 

what those cost-benefits would be. Since all the candidates have indicated that closing Guantanamo is likely, it is probably something 

we ought to look at. 

Another issue, you have been very good with our Andean assistance to Colombia and other Andean countries, but particularly Colombia, and working to upgrade their military to be a professional 

military. Many times the Washington Post reports that the Colombian security forces heavily rely on body counts to prove their effectiveness. Recently the Colombian Commission found that 287 civilians were allegedly slain by military and then dressed up to look 

like FARC or others had committed the deed. 

If you are going to use the body count as a success story, are we 

doing anything to end these extra-judicial killings? Is there a responsibility for the DOD in Colombia to vet all their military with 

a background check to see if they have a history of human rights 

violations? Does the military have a role in that, in helping civilian 

investigations of these crimes and things like that? Could you just 

brief me on what is the DOD and SOUTHCOM responsibility? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. Let me do a couple of things. Let me 

start. You were very gracious to thank me for my service and I 

want to thank you for yours, as a Peace Corps volunteer. I spent 

a fair amount of time over the last 18 months throughout this region, and come in contact with many Peace Corps volunteers. It is 

an integral part of what the United States needs to do in the region. 

I had a chance to talk to Senator Dodd a couple of days ago. I 

told him the same thing. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, the Peace Corps was taken out of Colombia in 

1981. The violence got so bad. Today there is consideration to return the Peace Corps back to Colombia. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think it is time, because I think that side 

of the equation in Colombia is vitally important, working with the 

Afro-Colombian population, working with the agrarian sector to 

find alternatives to the production of coca. So first let me thank 

you for your service. 

Second, let me thank you for coming and visiting Colombia recently. I again want to encourage all the members of the committee 

to travel in the region. 

Mr. FARR. A good place—to visit. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Indeed. Your questions are right on point. I 

have said personally to the chief of defense, General Freddy 

Padilla, the chief of the army, General Mario Montoya, that the 

center of gravity in this insurgency for the Colombian military is 

human rights, and they have to get off this body-count strategy. 

They acknowledge that. I believe they are moving away from that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1152 

I know that General Montoya has recently spoken against the 

body-count philosophy. They are in the process, Representative 

Farr, of causing that to be penetrated down to the lowest levels of 

their military. They recognize that they have got to sort that out. 

Now, what we do at SOUTHCOM, besides just me talking to my 

four-star interlocutors eye-to-eye, is we have a whole structure of 

people who do human rights training for the Colombians, and we 

do an awful lot of it. We are working that very hard. I would love 

to come and talk to you specifically about that. 

Mr. FARR. That would be very interesting. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Okay. And secondly—— 

Mr. FARR. They don’t come to SOUTHCOM. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That would be terrific. Come to Miami and 

we will give you the whole thing. 

The other thing, and this may surprise you given the antecedents 

of this place, but it is the so-called WHINSEC, the Western Hemisphere Institute for National Security, which used to be called the 

School of the Americas. Today, the curriculum at WHINSEC is over 

35 percent devoted to human rights. I would love to take you to 

Fort Benning and have you sit in a classroom there with representatives of the militaries of the entire region, including many Colombians, and see how our professional military is trying to inculcate 

those kinds of positive values in our mid-grade and junior officers, 

and that is what is so important. 

So I think there is a lot of good to show you there. That is not 

to say all these problems are solved by any means, but it is the 

center of gravity. They are moving away from body counts. I would 

like to talk to you some more about that. And I will submit something for the record. 

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA

Mr. EDWARDS. No, no. Very well said. Thank you. 

Admiral, let me ask a broad question follow-on from Mr. Wamp. 

One of the benefits of being on this subcommittee is getting to hear 

the overview of our combatant commanders about the economic and 

political situations in their regions of the world. Could you tell us 

what has happened over the last decade or so? It seems like in the 

1990s there as a trend toward democracies and a lot of hope toward Latin America, and now it seems to be going in the opposite 

direction. 

Tell us, just in general, what is going on politically and economically in Latin America? And then if you wouldn’t mind, tell us the 

good, the bad and the ugly in terms of their perceptions of the people in the United States and our government. Those that dislike us, 

what do they dislike the most about us, and what can we do over 

the next decade to bring about positive change in terms of our 

image in Latin America and the Caribbean? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could, you mentioned the 1990s. Let me actually take you 

back to the 1970s. If you looked at a map of the region in the 1970s 

and you put the color red on any country that was a dictatorship, 

you would see that essentially from Mexico south everything was 

a military dictatorship, with the exception at the time of three 

countries. So that was 1977. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1153 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Now, flash forward to 2007. If you looked at 

that map today and you put green on every democracy, there would 

be green everywhere on the map except for Cuba. Cuba is the only 

remaining non-democracy in the region. Now, do we get along with 

all our fellow democracies on every point? Absolutely not. I mean, 

that is the beauty of democracy, right? Countries, like people, that 

are democracies get to have opinions about things that aren’t tied 

to an individual. 

So I would say that there is enormous progress in the region in 

driving out the human rights violations that came with the military dictatorships, in instituting democracy, in by and large observing liberty on bills of rights kinds of things, although that is the 

harder challenge than simply having a democracy. But I think 

there has been enormous progress on the political front in that 

sense. 

Economically, I think the region since the 1970s has neither gone 

up tremendously nor down tremendously. Poverty still afflicts this 

region and is the most salient fact one needs to understand. Today, 

36.5 percent of the people live on less than two dollars a day in the 

region to the south of the United States. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Wow, 36.5 percent? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

In Haiti, for example, 80 percent of the people live on less than 

two dollars a day, but throughout the region as a whole, poverty 

is still the most fundamental fact that one needs to understand. So 

economically, it is a commodities-driven environment. It has had a 

bit of a run-up over the last 4 years—about 5 percent growth—but 

like all commodity-driven economies, it is at risk of reversing itself 

if there is a global slow-down. So economically, I would say it has 

been a bit of a roller-coaster. It is on an up-curve at the moment, 

but I am concerned about the potential for a commodity drop-off. 

I think in terms of—with the United States, which is what you 

asked me to address next, there are places in the region where the 

United States is still very well regarded. I use as my statistic here 

the Latino Barometer, which is a well regarded poll that is conducted throughout all the nations of this region. Our ratings, if you 

will, kind of run from 90 percent positive in places like the Dominican Republic and El Salvador and other parts of Central America, 

to as low as 10 percent in Argentina, which ought to cause us to 

pause and say why would a country like Argentina be concerned 

about the United States and have less of an approval rating. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is the answer? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I don’t know the answer to that exactly. I 

think there are some remaining resentments about the way the financial crisis was handled in Argentina in the early 2000’s. But I 

believe we are in the process of rebuilding a stronger relationship 

with Argentina today. 

My point is, our relationships in the region run a gamut from 

very positive and very favorable to very low. I would argue, and 

Representative Farr was saying, I don’t believe in a war of ideas, 

and I do not. I do not think we are in a war of ideas in this region. 

I think we are in a marketplace. We have to compete. We have to 

go down there and show that the ideas the United States stands 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1154 

for—democracy, liberty, free economies, free trade, human rights— 

that those are the right ideas for a society to move forward into a 

positive future. 

I think we have to do that in intelligent ways. We have to do it 

as an interagency working together. We have to do it with visits 

from important figures in U.S. life like all of you. We have to do 

it in a way that is not patronizing and not condescending. We have 

to do it in a way that looks at our partners to the south as equals. 

Let me close by saying, as I travel around people often say to me, 

you know, Admiral, what you are doing is really important because 

that is America’s backyard. That is a terrible expression if you stop 

and think about it—America’s backyard. It is patronizing. It is condescending. Think how it translates into Spanish. It is the wrong 

expression. 

What I say to people is, it is not our backyard. It is not our front 

porch. It is a home that we share together, the Americas. The sooner we recognize it as a home and look with an eye toward equality 

toward our partners, and move toward communication that is sensible and comes not just from DOD or not just from State or not 

from Commerce, but holistically approaches those, I think we will 

have a better opportunity to raise the bar of our national approval 

in the region. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I will just conclude with an observation before we go back to Mr. Crenshaw. I will never forget when General 

Jim Jones, who was our European commander—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I know him well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. He sat in that very chair and after testifying 

about MILCON projects, at the end, and this was as he was retiring, he said, you know, we have to do more in Africa to get in and 

prevent wars and prevent terrorist havens from being created. He 

talked about the need for business relationships and military and 

other relationships. And now we had General Ward testify about 

the Africa Command plans, and as you try to involve the State Department and other agencies in our efforts, it may be a model that 

works and hopefully will work in some parts of the world. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Two officers who I look up to in a 

lot of ways are both Marines, and they are General Zinni, who is 

a former commander of U.S. Central Command, and General Jones, 

a former U.S. European Command. And they both fully get it on 

the ideas of interagency and how we need to approach the world. 

Because the prevention is really a far better place to be than trying 

to solve a problem when it is at the far end of the spectrum. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

HOSPITAL SHIP ‘‘COMFORT’’ 

I just have one other question. It is kind of along the line of what 

we were talking about—the marketplace of ideas and what we are 

trying to do in Africa. I know last year, the Navy sent a hospital 

ship called the Comfort. There is something called a global fleet 

station we are doing. And those sound like the kind of humanitarian visible perceptive things that we can do to kind of follow 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1155 

through on what we are talking about. Can you maybe just kind 

of describe both the operational and the diplomatic successes that 

that brought? And is that something that you see us doing more 

of in the future? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, I sure can. The hospital ship Comfort sailed for 4 months last summer and did 400,000 patient encounters throughout the region, 12 different ports. We measured 

public opinion in the wake of that particular voyage and we really 

had a positive response to that. We don’t want to be just a onetrick pony. We have two large-deck amphibious ships that are 

going to come down this summer and essentially replicate that voyage. We will bring the Comfort back again in the summer of 2009. 

So our object is every year to try and do a large package of care 

from the sea. Now, this complements the medical diplomacy that 

is done by the Army and the Air Force ashore in a series of small 

clinics all over Central America and South America. I make that 

sound small, and you picture a few hundred people. It is actually 

one million patients treated over the last 4 years. That is on-shore. 

And then when we add to that what is coming from the sea, it 

is a very visible signal to the region of the compassion and the care 

of the United States. I think it is an important approach to take. 

It is one part of launching ideas, not missiles, into this region. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Are there any restrictions on draft or port conditions or anything that limit us to where we can go? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. There are with the big-deck hospital ship. So 

what I have asked Admiral Roughead to do, and he has agreed to 

do, is to purchase some high-speed vessels which are dual-hull 

catamarans that have a draft of only eight feet. Those can go almost anywhere. We are breaking down the large medical cruises 

into short-hitters that we can go into places like Suriname and 

Guyana, where there is an alluvial plain and it is hard to get in 

there with a big hospital ship. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Admiral, not to draw a contrast, but I was just interested. How many Ph.D. admirals with four stars on their shoulder 

are there? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think I am the sole specimen at the moment. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. That is admirable, Admiral. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. He lives in my district. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. How many Ph.D. admirals with four stars live in 

Ander Crenshaw’s district? [Laughter.] 

COLOMBIA

I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, but I do think this is 

important. You mentioned in terms of those things in our hemisphere that we need to promote, and you said free trade and it 

went right by. It is important that we have a free trade agreement 

with Colombia at this critical moment, isn’t it? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1156 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, we talked about it in your office. I am 

going to leave aside any political component to the answer, and I 

am going to leave aside any economic component, because those are 

not my lane. But I will tell you, from a security perspective, I think 

that having a free trade agreement with Colombia is an important 

thing to do. I think that is because it enables their economy to 

produce a better level of productivity. It allows them to feel geopolitically and geo-strategically attached to the United States. And 

I believe that others in the region are watching closely for that signal from a security perspective. I will leave aside the political or 

the economic issues to others. 

CUBA

Mr. WAMP. And then to take the conversation we are having, as 

Ander said, a little further. I know from studying a little history 

that Castro, for instance, wanted to reach out to people in the 

Western Hemisphere and he sent doctors all throughout South 

America to try to make friends and influence people. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. He is still doing it. 

Mr. WAMP. That was a very shrewd move on his part, but his 

ideology was wrong. Today, we have some wrongheaded thinking in 

the southern part of the Western Hemisphere and that is somewhat a threat to our way of life. And so when we look at ways to 

reach out and build bridges and make friends, frankly, and influence people for the good, you are thinking even beyond the extensions of the government, I understand, with public-private partnerships, NGOs, ways to kind of take all of the resources available and 

try to mobilize them through your command. 

We also talked in my office about this Os Guinness quote, ‘‘the 

power to convene is greater than the power to legislate,’’ and then 

we took it a step further and came up with ‘‘the power to convene 

is greater than the power to annihilate.’’ And our military strength 

clearly can take out enemies, but it is far more effective, frankly, 

for us to empower people to be our friends through our military. 

How are you leveraging these other resources for that purpose? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. What we are trying to do is to be a supporting platform for good works in the region. We are doing that, 

for example, on the hospital ship, the Comfort. We threw that open 

to volunteers and we were able to get a wide variety of nongovernmental organizations and medical international organizations to 

come on that cruise and be part of that. We are trying to provide 

the logistic support because we have that capability. We have the 

ability to move large amounts of people and materiel. So that is 

one example on the hospital ship. 

Secondly, we are working with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to fund something called the 

Caribbean Support Tender. ‘‘Tender’’ is a Navy word for a ship that 

goes from port to port and is helpful in rebuilding maritime capability. We are hopeful that we can have an international crew on 

that, have NGOs on it, and use that as a ship that would sail 

around the Caribbean doing not only the kind of medical clinic 

work that we are talking about, but also be able to go in and repair 

fishing boats, repair Coast Guard boats, work on a dock, provide 

maritime capability. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1157 

So I think it is one of these cases, sir, where the sum is so much 

greater than the individual parts. If we at SOUTHCOM can be 

part of the team, and we don’t want to take over, we don’t want 

to be in charge. We want to be a facilitator and create a logistical 

platform, if you will, that others can hook onto. Therefore, we can 

get everybody’s efforts at a higher level and try and promote these 

kind of activities. 

Mr. WAMP. Back to Cuba, do your personnel have the capability 

of leaving the base in Cuba? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. So everything is self-sustained right there within the 

base? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. The only contact at the base itself 

is once a month the base commander has a very amicable conversation with the local Cuban military commander, the so-called fenceline talks. It is a conversation about logistics, waterspace management, air management. But no, our people don’t go off the base at 

all. 

Mr. FARR. Do any civilians go off base? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. There are a very small handful of Cuban civilians who come and work on the base and then go back every 

day. They are effectively grandfathered in. When the last few of 

those pass away, then that will be shut off because the Cuban government doesn’t want to send any more after that. 

Mr. WAMP. Admiral, I am not where Mr. Farr is in disagreeing, 

but I am open-minded to the thought of more travel, maybe some 

trade, religious freedom, openness. But my question for you is, does 

Raul Castro seem to have a different attitude than Fidel? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think it is too early to tell, but the early 

indications would be that he does have a different approach, simply 

judging by the fact that he has opened up some small economic 

changes on the island, notably allowing Cubans to purchase cell 

phones. There are lines around the block today in Havana of people 

trying to buy cell phones and buy the ability to speak on those. 

He has opened up tourism, hotels that he did not previously permit Cubans to go to. Now, those are open to them. He is allowing 

for the first time Cubans—and this is complicated—but perhaps 

even buy the houses they live in from the government. In the past, 

they haven’t been allowed to do that. So we are at the very first 

stages of what Raul is going to do and we are watching that closely. 

To Mr. Farr’s point, I think this is a time when there may be 

change and we should be alert to changes and see what changes 

that brings from our perspective. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

CRISIS CORPS RESPONSE

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up on Mr. Wamp’s comment. We passed last 

month a bill that I sponsored, and you might even have been a cosponsor of it, it was H.R. 1084. It is in the Senate. It is a bill that 

creates within the State Department a Crisis Corps. It is strongly 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1158 

supported by DOD because civilians have different response capabilities than the military has. 

But I think what you are going to see is that the first instance 

of training for this new corps is all going to fall on the military because you have the institutions to do it. And right now, the first 

two schools of training for the State Department and USAID and 

others in this first cadre of first-responders has been designated at 

the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and the NDU. 

From what you are saying and your interest and your agency organization, it seems to me that the new direction for response 

strategy is in your mission of ideas which I think is very exciting. 

I think even with regard to Cuba, we are going to end up being 

a friend of Cuba or vice-versa over the years. That little island cannot just be without our support, and I think it is foolish for us to 

try not to open up doors down there, travel and so on. 

But does SOUTHCOM currently make use of the Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction at the Naval Postgraduate School? 

Do you know of any SOUTHCOM officers there? NPS has an FEO 

program now. Originally the Navy didn’t have MOS’s for people 

who got a master’s degree, but now leadership is screaming this is 

what we need to do. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. First of all, I agree completely with 

the overall direction that we need to go is much more of an interagency approach. You have identified two premier programs that 

are moving in that direction at the Postgraduate School in Monterey and at NDU here. We do make use of those. We have a center 

at NDU, the so-called Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. It 

is focused on this region and works very closely with the Stabilization and Reconstruction Center, both at Monterey and its counterpart in the INSS at NDU. 

There is no question that—in fact today, in front of the HASC, 

Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice sat side by side. I think that 

is the first time there has been a hearing, at least in front of the 

HASC, of both the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. 

And they talked about these exact issues in the context of where 

we need to go in the government to approach this interagency process more intelligently and more cohesively. 

I think in this region of the world and in AFRICOM, I think are 

the two places where we should try that first. We should move out 

on it. Again, we are not launching Tomahawk missiles down here. 

We are launching ideas. 

Mr. FARR. It seems to me this hemisphere, if any hemisphere on 

the planet can be pulled together, we are closer to and more capable of doing it than any other place on the planet. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Absolutely. And I would add to that the demographics. I mean, demographics are destiny, and the latest statistics released by the Census Bureau are that by the middle of 

this century, 30 percent of citizens of the United States will be of 

Latino descent. So the demographic pull between the United States 

and the rest of this region is profound and will continue to be profound. 

Today, the United States is the second-largest Spanish-speaking 

country in the world, after Mexico. More people speak Spanish here 

than speak Spanish in Spain or in Argentina or in Colombia. AlVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1159 

most 50 million people speak Spanish here, who speak Spanish and 

are of Latino descent, to say nothing of people like you and Senator 

Dodd who speak Spanish because you learned it and because you 

studied abroad. 

Mr. FARR. You wouldn’t want to hear our Spanish. [Laughter.] 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Anyway, I think that for all the reasons you 

state, as well as the demographics, as well as the geography, as 

well as the economic linkages, 40 percent of the trade of the United 

States runs north and south. That is more than runs east and more 

than runs west. Today, we get 50 percent of our oil from this hemisphere. If you ask the average American, where does the United 

States get its oil, they would say, oh, the Middle East. Well, we get 

22 percent of our oil from the Middle East. We get 50 percent from 

this hemisphere. 

Mr. FARR. Mexico and Venezuela? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Correct, and Canada, and Brazil just discovered at least eight billion barrels of oil off its northeast coast. 

There are reports as of yesterday that Petrobras may be about to 

announce double that in discoveries. So the energy sufficiency in 

the region, you mentioned a policy of energy connection. 

Mr. FARR. Wait a second. One thing I would hope that you might 

just keep in mind is that energy is the one issue that might totally 

unify the Americas. If we had a hemispheric energy policy that we 

would be independent of any foreign oil from any other place it gets 

away from the politics of Hugo Chavez or Morales or anyone else 

because they need all the technical alternatives that we bring. And 

we need to better utilize and manage our systems. We can do this. 

And what a great spirit to bring these two continents together. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. I agree. 

MILITARY/ARMED FORCES IN SOUTHCOM

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, let me ask about the long-term military 

challenges or potential threats. While the probabilities might be 

low, what would be some of the scenarios that might cause a military conflict? I don’t even know what size militaries various countries in Latin America have. Could you talk about the size of the 

militaries, their capabilities? What would be some scenarios that 

could lead to military conflict? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, first let me start by saying military 

conflicts state-to-state I believe is very unlikely in this region. It 

is good. I will provide you for the record a break-down of each of 

the militaries. None of them are overwhelming. None of them are 

designed in any way to attack a neighbor. 

[The information follows:] 

Military/Armed Forces in USSOUTHCOM Area are: 

1. Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force: Army—86; Navy—29 (Coast Guard). 

2. Bahamas Defence Force: Naval/Marine—1200 (Includes air wing). 

3. Barbados Defence Force: Army—800 (Includes reserves); Air Force—(Part of the 

Army); Navy—100. 

4. Belize Defence Force: Army—1000 (includes all forces under the Ministry of 

National Security). 

5. Costa Rica = NA; Police Force only; Coast Guard—285 (Security Cooperation 

Activities only). 

6. Dominica = NA; Police Force only; Coast Guard—22 (Security Cooperation Activities only). 

7. Dom Rep Mil Total: Army—8K; Air Force—8.5K; Navy—5.5K. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1160 

8. El Salvador Armed Forces: Army—9600; Air Force—1400; Navy—1000. 

9. Grenada = NA; Police Forces only; Coast Guard—18 (Security Cooperation Activities only). 

10. Guatemala Mil Total: Army—13.2K; AF—700; Navy—860. 

11. Guyana Defence Force: Army—1500; Air Force—100; Navy—30. 

12. Haiti = NA: Police Force only; Coast Guard—92 (Security Cooperation Activities only). 

13. Honduras: Army—7113; Air Force—1527; Navy—1140. 

14. Jamaica Defence Force: Army—2500; Air Force—140; Coast Guard—190. 

15. Nicaragua Mil Total: Army—12.8K; Air Force—855; Navy—1.1K. 

16. Panama = NA: Police Force Only; National Maritime Service—800 (Security 

Cooperation Activities only). 

17. Saint Kitts & Nevis Defence Force: Army—98; Air Force—NA; Coast Guard— 

33. 

18. Saint Lucia = NA: Police Forces Only; Coast Guard—50 (Security Cooperation 

Activities only). 

19. St. Vincent & the Grenadines = NA: Police Forces Only; Coast Guard—74 (Security Cooperation Activities only). 

20. Suriname Armed Forces: Army—1800; Air Force—70; Navy—220. 

21. Trinidad & Tobago Defence Force: Army—2500; Air Force—150; Navy—1200. 

22. Argentina: Army—40,000; Air Force—13,000; Navy—19,000. 

23. Bolivia: Army—25,000; Air Force—4,000; Navy—2,700; Marines—1,800. 

24. Brazil: Army—204,000; Air Force—51,000; Navy—33,900; Marines—14,600. 

25. Colombia: Army—218,000; Air Force—11,926; Navy—5,502; Marines—22,000; 

Police—133,000. 

26. Ecuador: Army—46,300; Air Force—8,150; Navy—10,500. 

27. Paraguay: Army—7,000; Air Force—1,700; Navy—2,000. 

28. Uruguay: Army—16,500; Air Force—6,000; Navy—3,000. 

29. Peru: Army—75,000; Air Force—20,000; Navy—27,000. 

30. Venezuela: Army—38,500; Air Force—13,500; Navy—15,000; (National and 

Reserve) Guard—180,000. 

31. Chile: Army—45,000; Air Force—26,500; Navy—13,000. 

I think that the most recent close point of concern was actually 

about a month ago when there was a border incursion apparently— 

it is under investigation—but a Colombian aircraft, according to 

the Ecuadoran government, killed a Colombian terrorist inside the 

border of Ecuador. That led President Chavez of Venezuela to move 

tanks to the border of Colombia in support of Ecuador. The Ecuadorans also moved some troops to the Colombian border. 

Then an interesting thing happened, which is where I ground 

myself in my view that a real conflict in the region is unlikely. At 

that point, the governments in the region took the conflict to a 

summit meeting that coincidentally was occurring in the Dominican Republic. They had a conversation about it and the situation 

was defused. It also was helped by turning to the OAS that had 

a conversation about it, promised an investigation, which is ongoing now. And thirdly, President Lula of Brazil, President Bachelet 

of Chile stepped up, offered their good offices. And together, the 

countries of the region worked out what could have been a potentially dangerous situation. 

So there is an example, Mr. Chairman, of democracies and all 

those countries are democracies, disagreeing about an event, but 

then taking a deep breath, talking to each other, and defusing the 

tension. Now, is there continuing tension? Yes, but I think that is 

a good example of how I would foresee state-to-state conflict working out in the region. So I do not think it is a region where we 

could logically expect to see military activity. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Does Mr. Chavez have much of a military force? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. He has a capable military. It is much smaller 

than the Colombian military. It is much smaller than the Brazilian 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1161 

military. Senor Chavez has recently decided to purchase some advanced weapons from Russia. He has bought 30 advanced fighter 

aircraft. He has bought about 50 attack helicopters. He has bought 

100,000 AK–103 rifles. He is signing contracts to buy diesel submarines. 

I am concerned about that. I wouldn’t want to overstate that. I 

simply wonder what is the threat that he sees, because I don’t see 

it. I don’t see the logic of state-to-state warfare in the region. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What would be the purpose of these diesel submarines? What kind of weapons would they be? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would refer you to the ambassador of Venezuela to answer the question. I cannot as a professional military 

officer come up with a scenario that those would be useful, and 

that is why I wonder about the purchase. 

Mr. FARR. Historically, Venezuela—— 

NEW HEADQUARTERS

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. There is longstanding tension. 

Let me just ask quickly about a couple of MILCON projects. The 

new Southern Command headquarters, we appropriated $100 million last year. There is a request in for $82 million. I think originally I had seen where the total cost was supposed to be $237 million. Where are we? Has inflation outstripped the appropriations? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. We are right there. We have sent it 

out for contract. We have a contract that is within that number. 

We will work extremely hard to keep it inside that number. I am 

very cognizant of this. This will happen on my watch and I will deliver this for the committee at the price that you have so generously supported. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I compliment you for that, because construction 

inflation has been difficult, if you can do this without having to cut 

corners and scale down dramatically. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As of this minute, I am very confident that 

I will be able to do that, sir. I have an excellent command engineer 

who is with me who briefs me essentially daily on the project. It 

has my full scrutiny and will continue to have, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about the status of the Guantanamo legal 

complex? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Done. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is done? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Done and built. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about the Guantanamo mass migration, the 

initial step to be able to deal with up to 10,000? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, 10,000. I think it is a very prudent investment. We are 70 percent complete with it, and we will finish 

it before the hurricane season starts. It is on schedule and on-budget. 

PANAMA

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And then finally, any sense of what the 

strategic implications are, and perhaps any military implications, 

of the enhanced Panama Canal? And what is the timetable for 

that? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1162 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is a very impressive project by the Panamanians. I always say this when I talk about the canal. We, the 

United States, went through a big debate about whether to turn 

the canal over to the Panamanians. One of the things you heard 

in those days was, well, the Panamanians won’t be able to run it 

very well. 

I have sailed the canal under U.S. auspices and I have sailed the 

canal under Panamanian auspices. It runs better today under the 

Panamanians. They have run it in a professional manner. They are 

safeguarding it. They are up to speed on the security issues tantamount to running it. They take very seriously their responsibility. 

It is a well run, and from what I can see, corruption-free enterprise, and that is very impressive in that part of the world. 

As to the canal expansion project, the Panamanian government 

went to their people and asked for a $5.3 billion funding stream to 

expand the canal so it could handle larger ships. That was approved by over 60 percent of the Panamanian people. They are generating it out of revenues they garner from the canal itself, from 

bonds they are floating in the international bond market, and a 

small tax they are placing on themselves. 

They have the money. They are letting contracts. They are starting the project now. Senor Aleman, who runs the Canal Authority, 

has briefed me on it. It is a very impressive project. It will be good 

for the economy of the United States. It will be good for the economy of that region. I am very, very impressed with the Panamanian management of it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is going to be great for Florida and Texas—in 

California—that is an exciting project. 

Mr. Berry, any questions? 

Mr. BERRY. No, I was late. 

Mr. EDWARDS. No, we appreciate your attendance. Thank you. 

He is the smartest one on the committee, in essence. Thank you, 

Marion. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, it is really just a comment, and no 

more questions. I am really taken aback that if many of the people 

at our State Department had the diplomatic skills and the approach that you have we’d be better off, and that is so counter to 

many people’s perceptions of our military leadership in this country. You are to be commended for having the approach that you 

have. I think it is the most effective approach. It puts all of the 

men and women in uniform under your command in a very favorable light in a region and in the world. 

Yet security is still your serious business. And so I am grateful 

for that. I think it really bodes well for us, and I think the State 

Department can learn a lot from your diplomatic skills. 

I yield back. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You are too kind. 

Mr. BERRY. Those remarks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well said. 

Mr. Farr. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1163 

LATIN AMERICAN MILITARY AID

Mr. FARR. I would, too. In fact, it gives me great confidence that 

regardless of administrations, our regional commanders have just 

been outstanding people. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FARR. If we had people like yourself the U.S. would be a lot 

healthier around the world. 

I want to ask just one question. I see a nascent arms race in 

Latin America. I remember when Kennedy was president, there 

was a big issue about whether we should support military aid to 

Chile to buy U.S. fighter planes, and some said, well, if they don’t 

buy them from us, they will buy them from the French and it is 

good for U.S. business. 

There are some obviously lobbying for all this equipment to make 

sure that they buy American armament. On the other hand, you 

have Argentina upset that Chile is getting better equipment, and 

then Argentina has to have it. If we get into this arms race in 

Latin America where one-third of the people are poor as mice, we 

are spending limited resources on modernizing their military instead of on helping uplift the people. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I agree. 

Mr. FARR. I think that is the problem between Venezuela and 

Colombia. Colombia has gotten all this aid through the Andean initiative and the Colombia Plan. Colombia has a much better military now which is contributing to this historical silly little border 

war. 

After the recent incident between Colombia and Ecuador the two 

countries brought people from both countries together for a rock 

concert, showing that maybe a little cultural get-together could 

calm things down. 

I am worried about where Guatemala has gotten too. The Merida 

initiative gives the Guatemala military and police significant increases in assistance to fight narco-trafficking. Their military forces 

are going to get modernized. 

Do you have concerns about the integrity of their forces to be 

able to handle this and do it properly? I mean, this is a country 

that historically has not gone along with us. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Guatemala has had a history. 

Mr. FARR. Going on. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. My own personal view, having traveled several times to Guatemala and having just had the new Guatemalan minister of defense at my Headquarters. As you know, 

there is a new president of Guatemala who has stepped away from 

mano duro, and is taking a much more human rights-oriented approach. I think it is time to look and give them a chance and see 

how it comes out. 

Mr. FARR. But you will be—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. With the Merida, oh, absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. If you have any suggestions as we go on supplying these funds for any conditions we ought to put on them, we 

would appreciate it. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I will. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And thank you for your service. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1164 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral Stavridis, I don’t have any additional 

questions. There might be some follow-up written questions. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for being here and for your service, 

and for reminding us all of the importance of the Western Hemisphere to our country’s future. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

COUNTERDRUG OPERATING LOCATIONS

Question. Explain why the Manta site in Ecuador was originally chosen as one 

of the three forward operating locations under Plan Colombia, and the potential impact on operations of losing access to this site. 

Answer. The Ecuadorian Air Force Base at Manta, Ecuador was chosen as one 

of three locations required to offset the loss of access to major drug trafficking 

routes resulting from the closure of Howard Air Force Base in Panama in 1999. 

Plan Colombia, a Government of Colombia plan to counter the internal unrest 

fueled in part by counternarcotics trafficking, was not related directly to selection 

of the airbase at Manta. Colombia is, however, a focal point for cocaine and heroin 

trafficking from the Source Zone with most trafficking routes beginning there. In 

addition, over 2/3 of the narcotics bound for the United States from the Source Zone 

transit the Eastern Pacific. The location of Manta is strategic for Detection and 

Monitoring of the Eastern Pacific departure corridors and provides access for aircraft supporting the Air Bridge Denial program in Colombian airspace. 

Question. Please describe the facilities that have been constructed with U.S. funds 

at Manta. What is the residual value of these facilities? Does the lease agreement 

with Ecuador allow the U.S. to recover any of its infrastructure investment costs 

at the Manta site? 

Answer. 1. The following facilities were constructed at Manta, total MILCON cost 

was $75M: Installation infrastructure (sewer, electrical, water, roads, communications, etc.) airstrip upgrades and parking aprons; administrative facilities; billeting; 

dining facility; aircraft hanger and maintenance shop; four warehouses; and tank 

unloading facilities (no permanent tanks were installed). 

2. The legal arrangement for U.S. use of Eloy Alfaro Airbase at Manta is the 

Agreement of Cooperation between Ecuador and the U.S. dated November 12, 1999. 

Under the terms of the Agreement, the U.S. does not pay for access to Eloy Alfaro 

Airbase. Article XXI addresses construction at the Airbase. There is no explicit provision in the agreement that allows the U.S. to recover any infrastructure investment costs. While a formal evaluation of residual value has not been made, the estimate to rebuild the facilities in kind, in the same spot, in today’s market, would 

cost approximately $100 million. 

Applicable provisions from the Article XII (Construction) of the agreement are: 

a. ‘‘With prior authorization from the Ecuadorian Air Force, the United States 

may undertake new construction or improve, modify, remove, or repair the existing 

structures and areas at the Ecuadorian Air Force Base in Manta, in order to meet 

needs in connection with this agreement.’’ 

b. ‘‘At the termination of use of installations constructed or modified in connection 

with this agreement, the United States shall, after due consultations between the 

Parties transfer such installations to the Republic of Ecuador.’’ 

Question. What are the lease expiration dates for the forward operating locations 

in El Salvador, Aruba, and Curac ̧ao? Have the responsible governments indicated 

their intentions regarding renewal of those leases? 

Answer. There are no leases for the Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) at which 

the U.S. Government operates. Instead, the U.S. has negotiated Agreements of Cooperation that allow the U.S. access to the partner nation bases for the purpose of 

aerial counternarcotics operations. The status of our FOL agreements are as follows: 

Comalapa, El Salvador: Current agreement expires on August 22, 2010. The Government of El Salvador has indicated it will renegotiate and is currently assessing 

a U.S. proposal to extend the initial term of the agreement until 2015 after which 

it will remain in force until terminated by either side. 

Aruba and Curac ̧ao: Current agreement expires on November 1, 2011. The U.S. 

Defense Attache ́ to The Hague and the U.S. Consul General in Curac ̧ao have asVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1165 

sessed that the Kingdom of the Netherlands will extend the agreement. Neither negotiations nor discussions with the Dutch government have begun. 

GUANTANAMO

Question. How many permanently assigned military personnel and families do you 

have stationed currently at Naval Station Guantanamo? 

Answer. According to Naval Station Guantanamo and Joint Task Force—GTMO 

there are: 1,797 military members in Bachelor Housing; 197 military members with 

families in Family Housing; 1,994 Total military personnel. 

Note: Additional information: 66 DoD Civilians in Bachelor Housing; 122 DoD Civilians with families in Family Housing; 188 Total DoD Civilians. 

2182 Total military & DoD civilians (319 of them with families). 

Question. How many juvenile dependents do you have at NS Guantanamo? If 

child care services are provided, do you have a wait list? 

Answer. According to Naval Station Guantanamo and Joint Task Force—GTMO, 

the following is a breakdown of the number of juvenile dependents currently at 

Naval Station Guantanamo: 300 High School & Elementary School; 37 Child Development Center; 16 Child Development Home (Home care); 35 Other (newborns, etc.); 

388 Total. 

One pre-toddler is on the waiting list for Child Care Services. 

Question. Other than housing and fitness, are there any other quality of life issues 

at NS Guantanamo that can be addressed through military construction? 

Answer. A consolidated fitness center and the family housing are our only GTMO 

projects requiring MILCON in FY09. 

SOUTHCOM HQ

Question. When do you anticipate contract award, groundbreaking, and construction completion on the new SOUTHCOM headquarters facility? 

Answer. The Award date was March 31, 2008, the notice to proceed was April 15, 

2008, the groundbreaking is scheduled for June 6, 2008, and, the facility is scheduled to be completed on September 30, 2010. 

SOTO CANO

Question. Please describe the state of the facilities at Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras, and the challenges of maintaining these facilities in the climate. 

Answer. Many of the facilities at Soto Cano Air Base are over 20 years old and 

require constant maintenance/repair to mitigate the effects of the weather and termite infestation. The Soto Cano Joint Task Force-Bravo (JTF–B) Master Plan provides for the required number of facilities at Soto Cano. Currently, we have two 

projects to complete the housing requirements for JTF–B; Phase one, Enlisted Barracks in FYDP for FY11 at a cost of $11.2M and Phase two, Enlisted Barracks in 

the FYDP for FY12 at a cost of $15.5M. 

Many of the facilities at JTF–B are temporary facilities that are now 20–25 years 

old. To combat the effects of weathering and termite infestation, JTF–B must commit significant resources to maintenance and repair. Rapid degradation necessitates 

the replacement of the exterior components every 2–4 years. These temporary facilities do not meet DOD standards: they are wooden structures that do not meet current building codes, do not provide sufficient living space or interior bathrooms, and 

are insufficient given the often-severe weather (e.g. no central air conditioning and 

not hurricane rated). 

The extensive maintenance and repair effort costs JTF–B approximately $700,000 

plus $100,000 to replace and repair air conditioners each year. Moreover, this figure 

does not include the cost of cooling these temporary facilities, and has driven up the 

annual power bills by 35% since 1996. 

Question. What are the terms of U.S. access to Soto Cano AB? Does the U.S. pay 

the Honduran government rent or provide in-kind consideration for use of the site? 

Answer. The U.S. operates Joint Task Force—Bravo at Soto Cano Airbase, Honduras, under the umbrella of the Bilateral Military Assistance Agreement between 

the Government of the United States and the Government of Honduras effective 

May 20, 1954, and the May 07, 1982 addendum to such agreement. The agreement 

establishes conditions for U.S. operations and presence in Honduras, but does not 

specifically address Soto Cano Airbase. The U.S. does not pay rent or provide inkind consideration for the use of the site. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1166 

SOCSOUTH 

Question. How long has Special Operations Command—South been located at 

Homestead Air Reserve Base? What is the state of the facilities currently used by 

SOCSOUTH? 

Answer. Special Operations Command—South completed their move from Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico on March 31, 2004. 

The current facility, originally built in 2004, consists of 38 re-locatable assembled 

modular units. In February 2008, the Chief, Facilities Policy Division, Assistant 

Chief of Staff for Installation Management purchased the re-locatable facilities for 

$2.3M using (OPA) funds. The re-locatable trailers may be retained for a period not 

to exceed six years. 

These trailers, originally designed for 150 personnel in 2004, currently provide 

workspace for 274 personnel, an 82% increase in occupancy. Based upon this increase, the current structure is particularly deficient in the following areas: 

—Air Quality (The building’s heating ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 

system designed for 150 occupants is inadequate and overburdened) 

—Sanitation (does not meet standards established by 29 CFR 1910 Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards 

A new SOCSOUTH HQ’s construction project for $32M will provide a permanent 

Command and Control HQ’s facility for SOCSOUTH and accommodate all personnel 

within established standards. Currently $20M is included for this facility in the 

FYDP and is listed as HAB, administrative building. The updated DD1391 for $32M 

is currently at OSD. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1167) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

WITNESS 

ADMIRAL ERIC T. OLSON, COMMANDER, SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I will call the committee to order. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Admiral Olson, it is an honor to have you here, and thank you 

for your distinguished service for so many years to our country. 

We are here today to review the fiscal year 2009 military construction budget request for Special Operations Command. 

SOCOM, which marked its 20th anniversary last year, is the designated lead command for the Global War on Terrorism. As such, 

SOCOM intends to transform and grow by 13,000 personnel by 

2013, pursuant to the policy laid out in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

SOCOM is not a command that ordinarily appears before our 

subcommittee, but there are two very good reasons why we requested Admiral Olson to be here and why we are grateful he is 

here today. First, SOCOM itself has called MILCON ‘‘the enabler’’ 

of its expansion. Secondly, Special Operations forces, much like the 

rest of the military, has been heavily deployed since September 11, 

2001. 

One of this committee’s main priorities is quality of life, so I 

know we will be interested in hearing about the rate of deployments and the impact that has had on the forces, as well as the 

families. 

Admiral, before we proceed, I would like to recognize our ranking 

member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he would care to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say at the 

end of 19 hearings this year through the regular order of hearing 

from all of the different commands and all of the different parties 

that this subcommittee funds, at a total of more than $70 billion 

a year around the world, and all the men and women in uniform, 

it is an honor for us to serve those who serve and have served. We 

do understand the extraordinary history of the Special Operations 

Command, so we can say with confidence that we saved the best 

for last, Admiral Olson. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1168 

We are grateful for your presence here today. You are bringing 

up the rear, but you are doing it from the top. So thank you for 

your presence. I look forward to your testimony today. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

To follow up on those comments, let me also thank the staff of 

the subcommittee, Mary Arnold, and all the staff, for the tremendous work you have done in setting up these 19 hearings. They 

have gone smoothly—and all of your support from both sides of the 

aisle, for this staff work. 

By way of very brief introduction, because if I talk about his entire distinguished career, I would take all the committee’s time this 

morning, but by way of brief introduction for Admiral Olson, he 

was appointed SOCOM commander in July of 2007. He has served 

for 35 years, having graduated from the Naval Academy in 1973. 

He qualified as a naval special warfare officer in 1974, and previously served as deputy commander of SOCOM. 

How long, Admiral, were you in that position? 

Admiral OLSON. For 3 years and 10 months, sir. I can’t go into 

the days and hours. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For 3 years and 10 months, and the—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Among his many distinctions, he is 

the first Navy SEAL to reach both the three- and the four-star 

rank. 

Admiral, again, we are honored to have you here. By unanimous 

consent your written testimony or anything you might want to include will be submitted for the record. We would like to recognize 

you now for any opening comments you care to make, and then we 

will go into discussion and questions and answers after that. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ERIC T. OLSON

Admiral OLSON. Chairman Edwards, thank you very much for 

the opportunity to be here. Congressman Wamp, Chairman Dicks, 

it is a pleasure to appear before you. I am honored to be the 19th 

of 19, and I hope this wraps up your ordeal in a positive way. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am sure it will. 

Admiral OLSON. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my written statement for the record, but I would like to highlight a couple 

of things. One of them you mentioned, we did celebrate our 20th 

anniversary as a command last year. We are actually celebrating 

our 21st birthday today. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is tremendous. 

Admiral OLSON. And we are unique among the combatant commands. I know you have had the opportunity to speak with all of 

them. But we were created by this body, by the National Defense 

Authorization Act Amendments of 1986. We were created to be different from the other combatant commands. In fact, we have a significant number of service-like authorities and responsibilities. We 

are represented in many of the Pentagon-OSD-level discussions in 

a service-like capacity. 

Unlike most of the combatant commands, SOCOM is more like 

a service. I do have people assigned to me full-time that I am responsible for their care and feeding, training, education, and equipping throughout the course of their service in Special Operations 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1169 

Command. And the expectation of the requirement is that the 

budget that I am provided be utilized to answer Special Operations-peculiar requirements. I am obliged to spend those funds on 

Special Operations-unique equipment, material, supplies, and services. 

That makes me heavily dependent on the other services for much 

of what it is we have. We don’t own or operate bases. We only go 

to buildings and range facilities, and then once those are completed, we actually turn title over to the owner of the base, and he 

becomes responsible for the majority of the maintenance to sustain 

them—the facilities that we—we don’t build barracks. We don’t 

build dining halls. We don’t build bowling alleys. We don’t build 

family support facilities. So we are very dependent on the services, 

and what is good for the service MILCON budgets is generally very 

good for Special Operations Command personnel as well. 

So what I will address today are really the Special Operationspeculiar aspects of military construction. We are in a growth period. You mentioned 13,000 growth. That is largely the result of the 

last QDR, but it was also before and after in terms of the POM 

cycle. We are on track with that growth. It was front-loaded heavily in fiscal year 2008, so we are seeing those people come in rapidly. About 40 percent of the 5-year growth is in the first year. But 

we are on-pace with and in some areas exceeding even our optimistic estimates of how rapidly we could grow. 

I will say that we are growing at about the maximum rate we 

can absorb the growth in any sense, so any idea that we can sort 

of instantly double the size of the community or create this goodness at a more rapid pace is probably not right. Our 2009 budget 

request does include 14 projects for a relatively small dollar item. 

Of these 14 projects, 13 of them are in the United States and one 

is overseas to accommodate one of our permanently deployed units. 

The total value is $254.9 million. This is $230.4 in major construction and $16.8 million in the planning and design, and then $7.7 

million in unspecified minor construction. 

Of the $230.4 million that is major construction, about threefourths of that is operations and maintenance and about one-fourth 

of that is training. The operations and maintenance largely is to accommodate our growth and sustainment. These are new buildings 

for new units that have been provided to us through the 13,000 

person growth plan. Approximately $50 million in training facilities 

mostly has to do with ranges and facilities that will enable our people to train closer to home. 

The pace of operational deployment is high enough that we are 

very concerned that when they are not deployed, they ought to be 

home and not away from home training someplace else. Because we 

compete for service ranges on our big bases and because we are located in some of the areas where it has just been hard to develop 

ranges, this MILCON for about $50 million this program does chip 

away in order to keep our people home, so that they can train during the day and sleep in their own bed that night, instead of having to travel too much to train. 

I would say the themes of our program are to keep facilities in 

sync with our overall growth and keep our recapitalization rate at 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1170 

a very reasonable level, and again to construct training facilities 

that are closer to home. 

Our fiscal year 2009 request is down significantly from fiscal year 2008 at $255 million. But 2008 was a surge year and much 

of the front-loading of the people in the first year of the cycle also 

front-loaded the MILCON in the front year of the cycle. And so the 

fact that we are down from last year is not an item of real concern 

for me. 

We did prioritize within our top line fiscal guidance that was provided to us by the department, and that fiscal guidance was actually down slightly from fiscal year 2008 for the same reason. Fiscal 

year 2008 had been a surge year for us. Except for the surge in 

2008 and to a lesser extent in 2007, our fiscal year 2009 program 

is higher than any previous year. It is on-pace with the general 

growth trend that we are experiencing across the Special Operations community. 

So I thank this committee for your support. Our MILCON request for fiscal year 2009, if approved, will sustain our current and 

programmed growth at a reasonable level and with your continued 

support, I think that Special Operations will continue to meet the 

high expectations of the American people. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral Eric T. Olson follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1171 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2681 here 42754E.007
1172 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2682 here 42754E.008
1173 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2683 here 42754E.009
1174 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2684 here 42754E.010
1175 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2685 here 42754E.011
1176 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2686 here 42754E.012
1177 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2687 here 42754E.013
1178 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2688 here 42754E.014
1179 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2689 here 42754E.015
1180 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral Olson, thank you very much. 

I think we are going to turn first to Mr. Dicks. He is, as you 

know, senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, 

and with his love and commitment to Fort Lewis, I know he has 

had a special hand in supporting the Special Operations Command 

over the years. 

Mr. Dicks, I would like to recognize you. 

GROWTH OF SOCOM

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I also want to welcome Eric Olson here. I know Eric Olson. He 

was born and raised in my district and is a graduate of Stadium 

High School, then the Naval Academy. His mother was my first office manager in my district office in 1976 and is still a very close 

friend. We are very proud, obviously, of the work that Eric has 

done in all his assignments, but the fact that he has reached three 

stars and now four stars, and is the head of SOCOM, we are very 

proud of his accomplishments. 

And also, his good work. He has an amazing record and we are 

proud of what you are doing, and the fact that SOCOM is growing 

so fast. Since we didn’t have a hearing in Defense, maybe we could 

wander a little bit, Mr. Chairman, just to talk a little bit about 

your overall growth of SOCOM. As I have it, you are up to 55,895 

civilian and military personnel, of which 43,745 will be active duty. 

Tell us about where you see this going and then we will talk about the $38 million. [Laughter.] 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you, sir. The world has changed and I 

think there is a realization that Special Operations is more of a solution in the future world than it may have been in the past. It is 

simply that the work for us is very steady now. There used to be 

a sense that Special Operations forces were sort of a spot application force, in case of war, break glass. But in this totally different 

environment in which we live now, there is a much higher expectation that Special Operations forces will be everywhere all the time. 

Our own little mantra is that we may pride ourselves on running 

to the sound of guns, but if we are always running to the sound 

of guns, then we are always too late, that we need to be out ahead 

of the sound of guns. In fact, we woke up this morning in about 

68 countries of the world in a variety of activities, mostly having 

to do with enabling national sovereignty, so that other nations can 

protect their borders and care for their people, that will prevent us 

from maybe having to do that at some future point. 

I mentioned that we are growing 13,000. You mentioned 55,000- 

plus today. Those are accurate numbers, with 43,000 active duty 

and a much smaller reserve component. Our reserve component is 

mostly in Green Beret Special Forces capability and they are highly qualified and full members of the force. 

Of those 43,000 active duty, about 16,000 are what you would 

call the operators of Special Operations—the volunteers who have 

been selected to go through some sort of advanced training, generally with a demanding training with a relatively high attrition 

rate in order to earn the badge or the beret or the boots or the tab 

or the wings, or whatever it is that may identify them as an operator of Special Operations. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1181 

The others are the full range of enablers—administrative, intelligence, logistics—that permit Special Operations forces to do their 

job. They are also highly qualified. They are also usually volunteers. They also try to stay with us as long as they can, and that 

is in our interest to keep them. 

So this is a force that really operates at a different level. On average, we are much older than the rest of the military. On average, 

we are married at a higher rate. We are more stable in the places 

that we live. We are more engaged in our communities because we 

do tend to regionally orient, particularly in the Army Special 

Forces where language qualification is a requirement and one’s 

first assignment is to a Special Forces group based on that group’s 

regional orientation. 

The First Special Forces Group at Fort Lewis is aimed at the Pacific. The Special Forces Group in Colorado is aimed at Europe. The 

Third Special Forces Group is aimed at Africa and parts of the 

Middle East; the Fifth Group at the rest of the Middle East; the 

Seventh Group at South America. So that with that orientation, 

they have a growing expertise in the course of their careers, and 

that contributes then to the stability. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You just mentioned language, Admiral. And that 

is why Mr. Farr just came in. He is our expert on language training for our military personnel. 

Please go ahead. 

Admiral OLSON. So, the nature of the force is that we are now 

in demand, not just in response to, but especially in order to prevent, as a preemptive force with the language ability and cultural 

skills, and the engagement that we do over time. Our measure of 

linguistic success, for example, is not 75 percent accuracy in machine translation. It is exchanging photos of our families, because 

of the relationships that we build through that sort of orientation. 

But in specific answer, our ability to grow tops out at about 5 

percent per year. That is about what we are programmed to do 

now. 

Mr. DICKS. Through 2013? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. The 2008 plan has us growing. We are 

a little bit front-loaded. It is kind of 6 percent in the early years 

and 3 percent to 4 percent in the later years of the 2008 to 2013 

plan, but that is about what we can do, the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

Marine Corps, with the Marine Corps component just having celebrated its second birthday here in February. 

Mr. DICKS. What are they going to do—2,500 Marines, what will 

be unique about them? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, the force is really split in thirds. They are 

both trainers on the order of Special Forces regionally. They are 

culturally attuned, language-skilled and they will deploy in 14-man 

teams, not just to the same country, but ultimately to the same zip 

code within that country over and over and over again to maintain 

relationships. And they are going to go some of the places where 

we have always wanted more presence and just haven’t had the 

force to do it. The Marines are giving us that capability—Chad, 

Mauritania, Kenya, some of those. They are already doing that, 

and that is a significant portion of the force. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1182 

Another significant part of the force is direct action strategic reconnaissance company-level—100-man companies who are going to 

fight where there is a fight. Right now, they are in Afghanistan. 

They are in a fairly remote section of Helmand Province, and they 

have been heavily engaged in the fight against the Taliban in 

Helmand Province. 

The third category is the enablers, the military working dogs, 

air-to-ground call-for-fire experts, counterintelligence, linguists and 

interrogators, explosive ordnance disposal—all those supportive 

skills that enable the rest of it to occur. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I have exceeded my time. I will be glad 

to wait until the next round. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Wow. We do a lot of talking about the buildings and 

facilities and childcare centers and all those type of things, and 

this is different. You talked about the average age being older. I 

was interested in that. Do we get people to fight or serve in Desert 

Storm and Desert Shield and then come back because they are 

under your command, and they have a specialty or they are the 

kind of soldier or Marine that you need in the situation like this? 

You are talking about the average age. They have obviously done 

things. Did they leave and come back? Or do they pretty much stay 

and they are still in this game? 

Admiral OLSON. They pretty much stay, sir. In each of the services now, there is an opportunity to serve for an extended period 

of time in Special Operations, and there is some opportunity to 

stay forever if they continue to meet our standards and we continue to meet theirs. So we do have careerists within each of our 

Special Operations branches. The Marines are too new to see exactly how that is going to play out, but the discussion is that they 

will model their career activity after the other three services. 

Mr. WAMP. When General Ward came in to brief us on 

AFRICOM and talked about Djibouti being a forward operating 

base, I assume then that your guys work out of any of these facilities around the globe. That is like their home away from home, and 

they have access to any of these type places to do whatever is necessary. 

Admiral OLSON. That is correct, sir. We do have some permanently forward-based, but most of our forces are expeditionary and 

they go where they are needed. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, let me ask one other question. I am new and 

I am still learning. It has been a great privilege. But I assume then 

that the average person under your command would know more 

about the quest to capture the Osama bin Laden-types, the bad 

guys, than the average man or woman in uniform in our armed 

forces. Is that a good sense of it? 

Admiral OLSON. That is a fair statement. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. You mentioned when meeting with Chairman Edwards and I about the nine principles that guide your organization. 

Can you kind of go through at least those three general parameters 

here? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1183 

MISSION, PEOPLE AND ACQUISITION PRIORITIES

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. The three categories are mission, people, and acquisition priorities. I call them mission, people, and 

stuff. The mission priorities are to plan and conduct special operations at an ever-increasing level. We believe that nobody has ever 

done it quite like this in history, and we are reinventing that capacity and capability every day. Included within that category as 

well is international engagement and interagency engagement, 

which we understand is absolutely essential to success. 

We understand that we are not going to kill our way or talk our 

way to success in—war on terror. We are going to behave our way 

to success, and much of the opportunity to exhibit that behavior is 

through the interagency and international—people, and it is about 

training and educating them. It is about ensuring that they are 

properly cared for both responsibly and proactively and preemptively—ensuring that they get the attention and the care that they 

need to stay with us for as long as we need them and beyond. 

And the third is the acquisition priorities, which have to do with 

personal equipment, mobility and situational awareness. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, thank you for your service to our country. We appreciate that. Thank you for being here today. 

NPS FIELD EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM

I want to direct some questions on special ops and some training 

that is going on today at the Naval Postgraduate School. I received 

a memo from General Hassim expressing his strong support for the 

field experimentation program for Special Operations Command. I 

just wondered if you could comment on the value of that program. 

As you know, the school that I represent, the Naval Postgraduate 

School, has a program and has significant infrastructure—at Camp 

Roberts and Camp Hunter Liggett—to support field experiments 

and to provide real value to the USSOCOM. And other government 

agencies and laboratories, industries and universities work collaboratively and innovatively with you on this. 

I have heard some good comments, and was wondering what you 

thought about it. Is the continuing involvement of the Naval Postgraduate students a good investment strategy for us? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. We are committed to supporting that 

the best we can, and thank you for your support. We have a very 

strong relationship with the Naval Postgraduate School, and it is 

certainly not because I am Navy. In fact, most of the students that 

we put through the Naval Postgraduate School are not Navy. There 

is a Special Operations low-intensity conflict curriculum within 

their National Security Affairs Department, and we have 50 Army 

students in that at any one time, and fewer than 10 Navy and Air 

Force students. This is really a program that is strongly supported 

by the Army. 

The project you are talking about has mostly to do with situational awareness in a battlefield environment. It is how to collect, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1184 

process, analyze, disseminate information from a wide variety of 

sensors, headed up by a retired professor named Dave Netzer, who 

has been kept on to work that project. He has been extraordinary 

in his energy and support for that. So the short answer is two 

thumbs up. We are very high on that program, sir. 

Mr. FARR. It is my understanding that you are working towards 

getting FEPSO into the fiscal year 2010 budget so that it will not 

have to be earmarked all the time? 

Admiral OLSON. It has been proposed to my headquarters as a 

fiscal year 2010 initiative. We are actually having those meetings 

this week and next to reconcile the priorities for fiscal year 2010. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. All right. I will have to do my homework. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Olson, you have a naturally very low voice. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. I hope this is on. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Speak softly and carry a big stick. 

Admiral OLSON. All right, sir. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BOYD. A couple of questions, Admiral. Thank you for your 

service to our country. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you mind pulling that microphone up? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOYD. I thought I would speak loudly enough. 

Your fiscal year 2009 MILCON request includes $40 million for 

a Special Forces complex at Eglin Air Force Base. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

SPECIAL FORCES COMPLEX AT EGLIN AFB

Mr. BOYD. The fiscal year 2009 BRAC request contained $148 

million for a Special Forces complex at Eglin also, to comply with 

the mandate to move the Seventh Special Forces to Eglin. 

Admiral OLSON. Correct. 

Mr. BOYD. Is the MILCON project a new requirement since the 

BRAC request? Or was it missed in the BRAC submission? Or is 

it a redundant request? That was somewhat confusing to us. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. It is a new requirement. The background is that the BRAC decision was to move the Seventh Special 

Forces Group from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Eglin Air Force 

Base. At the time that decision was made, the Seventh Special 

Forces Group consisted of three operational battalions and a support battalion. Since that BRAC decision was made, we have 

achieved this Special Operations community-wide growth, which 

includes one additional battalion for each of our Special Forces 

groups. So the Seventh Special Forces Group has four operational 

battalions now, not three, or is programmed to have. So this is specific to that. 

The Army was responsible for funding through their MILCON 

program the original BRAC-directed move, but because this is a 

Special Operations initiative to grow the additional battalion, that 

is why it is in our budget. 

Mr. BOYD. And that $40 million will be for housing? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1185 

Admiral OLSON. It doesn’t include housing. It includes the operational-related facilities, headquarters, training capability, motor 

pool—those sorts of things—dive blocker, parachute loft—those 

things that are peculiar to Special Operations. Army and Air Force, 

because this is at Eglin Air Force Base, they are responsible for the 

service-common items. 

AL UDEID AIR BASE

Mr. BOYD. Let me shift gears slightly and go across the water to 

Al Udeid, which is a very critical location to our activities in the 

Central Command. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOYD. There is a $9 million request for a project inside the 

CENTCOM AOR at Al Udeid Air Base. This is in addition to funding in 2007 and 2008, and the 2008 supplemental which totaled 

about $115 million. Can you speak to the long-term return on this 

investment in this specific region? Has that been carefully considered and does it support an investment this large? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir, it does. This facility is a training facility. It is going to be essential to support SOF training in theater 

for forward-stationed special forces in support of U.S. central command. 

We see the demand for Special Operations forces in CENTCOM 

increasing over time, not decreasing. As the environment shifts 

from one of occupy and high-intensity combat to one of train and 

assist, that is a forte of Special Operations. So I believe that this 

project has an enduring value for us. 

Mr. BOYD. So it has to do with communications facilities? 

Admiral OLSON. It is a training facility. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOYD. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more 

quick question? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. BOYD. Let’s come back to Florida, to Hurlburt Field. Cannon 

Air Force Base is being converted from a fighter wing to a Special 

Operations forces wing under the BRAC decision. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOYD. Currently, we are aware of only one project being requested, and that is to construct a hangar. Are there other base infrastructure requirements that might be needed that are not included here? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. Just for the record, the BRAC decision 

was actually to close Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico unless 

another user was identified. At the same time, we in Special Operations were looking for a western base to accommodate the growing 

Air Force component within Special Operations. The Air Force offered us Cannon. We accepted the offer and that then became the 

reason for transferring this from a fighter wing to a Special Operations base. That actual transfer occurred last October and now the 

owners-occupiers of Cannon Air Force Base are the Special Operations component of USSOCOM. 

This is a phased growth. It was not quite a turnkey operation, 

but it was an up and running base. It had maintenance facilities. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1186 

It had people. It had barracks. It had chow halls. It had all the rest 

of it. So the MILCON demands, although significant, were not urgent. We can grow into that base at the rate our assets are moving 

in. This is a phased period across time. So we will see more 

projects at Cannon beyond 2009, but in 2009 the right level was 

as we have requested it. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. We would all like to thank you and everyone here for 

this hearing. I am new on this committee and I don’t know enough 

to ask you a question that would make any sense. But I know 

enough to appreciate what you do and to know that this committee 

does its best to provide you with what you need. We hope that you 

do and expect that you will—they do know something about this 

stuff. I am appreciative of that. 

So we thank you again for your service. 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Just don’t believe one thing he said, and that is 

he doesn’t know enough to ask tough questions. [Laughter.] 

He is as sharp as a tack. 

Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Sir, welcome. 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you pull up the microphone for transcription purposes. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Special Forces kind of—mission involves extensive contact with 

the region’s military and police, and much of it is through training. 

The Special Forces teams deploy frequently to Latin America to 

train foreign units in counter-narcotics often with joint training activities. Do we have adequate training facilities for the operations 

in Latin America? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. We don’t own any of our own facilities 

there. We just use the facilities of the countries with which we are 

training. It typically amounts to a few hundred people on any given 

day spread across five to nine Latin and South American countries. 

GROWTH OF SOCOM

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. Our understanding is that you are 

responsible for growing the size of the Special Operations forces 

and that it takes almost 2 years to train a Special Operations force 

servicemember. The baseline for recruiting folks with the right 

mental and physical background is extremely high and most of the 

ones who start training don’t complete it. How are you progressing 

in increasing your numbers? 

In addition, the thought is that quality is better than quantity. 

Have you been required to lower your standards? Or will it just 

take more time to get the right people? Do you have adequate faVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1187 

cilities for training the folks that you need to train in this growth 

spurt? 

Admiral OLSON. There are several questions in there, sir. I will 

try to answer them all. 

First of all, we are not sacrificing quality at all. In fact, I think 

because we are getting smarter about our training, our quality is 

actually improving as we are able to tailor it better to the needs 

of the force. Recruiting is good. It has been fairly steady for a couple of decades, but now we have better capacity in our school 

houses so that we can accept more volunteers, and therefore we are 

turning more out. 

So our growth is pretty much on-pace. Through most of our specialties, we are on our expected growth slope. We are falling behind 

in a couple of areas, but ahead in a couple of others. But as an example, in preparation for our growth, we increased the capacity of 

our Special Forces school house. These are the Green Berets who 

are most of our operational force, at least the largest single segment. 

Five years ago, we had never graduated more than 300 Green 

Berets in a year. Last year, we graduated 820. So we are in fact 

increasing by the strength of a battalion per year in Army Special 

Forces. Everybody will tell you that the quality is as good or better 

than it has ever been. 

In terms of training facilities, I think we are very okay with that. 

Our program addresses that, but it is not so much in terms of our 

basic training facilities to create Navy SEALs and create Green Berets and create Army Rangers. It is more to sustain their training 

by keeping them closer to home when they are not deployed. It is 

very important to us to have facilities that are within commuting 

range of where people live and work, so that when they finish 

training they can go home at night. The operational demands keep 

them away from home far too much as it is. So we are looking for 

some relief from the requirement to travel to train. 

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I guess as a segue then, are there any other 

issues related to quality of life—training facilities that we need to 

be aware of for your folks? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I like the way a former chief of naval operations used to term it. He called it quality of service. Quality of 

service equals quality of life plus quality of work. I think that the 

great interest in recent years for improving the quality of housing 

for all of our servicemembers of all the services is paying huge dividends. At least in the force that I have responsibility for, I am not 

hearing complaints about inadequate housing. Often the commute 

is further than they would like it to be, but that is because sometimes Special Forces are in very desirable places. Our headquarters 

is in Coronado, California and Virginia Beach, Virginia and Fort 

Lewis, Washington, and these are places where people need to just 

buy a little bit further away, where the on-base housing isn’t sufficient or they choose not to live on-base. 

The quality of all that is very high, and that is a service responsibility, not a Special Operations responsibility. So we are focused 

on improving the quality of work, which we can do largely by imVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1188 

proving the headquarters facilities, the maintenance facilities, and 

the training facilities for our forces. 

Mr. BISHOP. I was concerned about whether or not you had any 

problems with morale and with retention because of family problems related to the commute or related to the requirements on the 

Special Operations forces person which separates them from family—family problems with children, with divorces, with family violence, any of those types of issues. 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I am concerned about a future fragility in 

the force. We are not seeing it in the data yet, but we are on a 

quest to determine how predictive and preemptive we can be in our 

family care programs. Again, those are largely the responsibility of 

the services to provide those family support, child care kinds of activities. The services are good about talking to us to see whether 

or not what they are doing will meet our needs. And so that is a 

good healthy relationship. So I am not seeing that sort of stress in 

the force at this point. 

Mr. DICKS. Would you yield just briefly? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Does the fact that you have shorter deployments, 6 

months to 7 months, do you think that makes a big difference between what is happening with Special Forces and the rest of the 

military, especially the Army and the Marine Corps? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, that is huge. We have great flexibility in 

how we deploy our force and almost none of our forces are gone 

more than 7 months at a shot. In some cases, they are gone 90 

days or 120 days. That is much more sustainable over the long 

haul. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, let me ask you, what percent of your 

troops or your servicemen are married under your command? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, it is between 60 percent and 70 percent 

married. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Between 60 and 70 percent. When you said on average older age than the services, that was a real surprise to me. 

I guess I would have had the image of these tough single guys, 

young tough single guys out there without families. 

In regard to the families—— 

Mr. FARR. Like the Rambo movies. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, you are right. You are right. That leads to 

one of my other questions later. 

But in terms of housing, since you are dependent upon the services, and human nature being what it is, one of my concerns would 

be that sometimes maybe you are not at the top of the priority list 

for each installation commander. Do you have any kind of numbers 

that would show what numbers of forces under your command are 

living in housing, either barracks or family housing, that don’t 

meet basic DOD standards? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I am going to have to take that question for 

the record. I don’t have those numbers. I don’t have any evidence 

that that is occurring at this point. But I would like to put a plug 

in, if I might, for the public-private venture housing program. I 

know there were a couple of rocky starts to that, but I think that 

program is up and running fully now and overall it has been a very 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1189 

good thing for our people. Those who are living in public-private 

venture housing are very satisfied with it. 

[The information follows:] 

USSOCOM relies on the Services for service-common support to include unaccompanied and accompanied housing. The following chart depicts the percentage of barracks and housing that currently do not meet DOD standards: 

Component Barracks (%) Housing (%) 

MARSOC ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

AFSOC .............................................................................................................................................. 75 55 

JSOC ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

USASOC ............................................................................................................................................ 14 0 

NSWC ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC): The United States 

Marine Corps has a permanent 2 + 0 waiver of the 1 + 1 module DOD standard 

for junior personnel (Lance Corporal and below/E1–E3). 

Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC): Barracks will require significant investment to meet DOD standards. All Air Force owned housing is approved 

for privatization. AFSOC housing will be brought up to standards within a 5-year 

development period. 

United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC): The Army Barracks 

Improvement Program continues to progress with 1,278 barracks projects programmed from now to FY13. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is great to hear, because this subcommittee 

played a key role in that when a lot of people didn’t want to try 

something in a different way. 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But if you could give us those numbers. What we 

want to do is have a metric where each year we ask that same 

question of each of the services, but we would also like to ask it 

of you, how many under our leaders’ commands are living in housing that doesn’t meet DOD standards for adequacy. So we want to 

see that coming down. 

I think in family housing, we have made great progress. In barracks, I am not quite sure, but we would like to keep a special eye 

on Special Operations folks as well. 

OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Could I ask about the op tempo? While the deployments are for 

a shorter period of time relative to the 12 month to 15 month deployment for Army soldiers, do you have a number in terms of the 

average how much time away from home and family have your 

forces been away since September 11 of 2001? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, the forces in our operational units—our 

SEAL platoons, our Special Forces Operational Detachments, what 

we call A-teams, our aviation crews both fixed-wing and helicopter, 

they have been between sort of a one-to-one deployment ratio and 

a 1.5 home for one forward kind of ratio. Where we suffer our highest operational tempo is actually in our headquarters because we 

have more flexibility to rotate out the tactical elements where the 

headquarters have to go. So we are at just a little bit under one 

back for one over, particularly with our Special Forces group command at the O–6 level. 

Mr. EDWARDS. General Casey recently testified to our subcommittee that ideally in the long term the ratio he would want 

for time away from home would be 1 year deployed and 3 years at 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1190 

home. What would be your long-term goal? Would it be similar to 

that? 

Admiral OLSON. We subscribe to that ratio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is your present op tempo sustainable? Or if you 

can continue this level of op tempo of approximately 1-to-1 for the 

next 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years, do you start to see a loss of your key 

leaders and problems in the families? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I think we do. We don’t have the data that 

shows that yet because everybody is still doing exactly what they 

signed up to do. But I don’t know how long that is sustainable. I 

do believe that 1-to-1 is not sustainable. I think that 2 back and 

1 over, we could probably hold for some period of time, probably 

not for the entire course of a career; 3 over and 1 forward, and we 

are sustainable for the long haul. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

I would like to go to the ranking member, and then we will go 

to Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Dicks is here again, 

I wanted to comment that if Admiral Olson’s mother worked in 

your office, then Mr. Dicks you obviously are older than you look. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. That is, I think, a compliment. [Laughter.] 

Admiral OLSON. I am not sure what that says about my mother. 

[Laughter.] 

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Mr. WAMP. I have a couple of things I might talk about here. I 

know you may have to be careful in how you respond. But one of 

the things that I believe you said was under your area of responsibility to assert and extend is nuclear nonproliferation. There is an 

article out this morning that says threat of nuclear attack in the 

United States said to have grown in recent years. In my 14 years 

in the House, I don’t think anyone has spent more time trying to 

encourage the enforcement of Nunn-Lugar and shining the light on 

this issue of nuclear nonproliferation than Chairman Edwards. I 

have served on several subcommittees now with him, and he is a 

champion. 

I happen to represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which also plays a 

pretty critical role in this whole business. What can you tell us 

about that from Special Ops and what your men and women do 

around the world, and what you can say about this angle today, or 

anything at all. I know you have to be guarded in what you would 

say. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. Without going into closed session, what 

I can say is that of the nine core activities assigned to Special Operations Command, counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass effect is one of those nine. Special 

Operations does not own that mission area. We have niche tasks 

to perform within that mission area. Our niche tasks have mostly 

to do with interruption and interdiction of the activities associated 

with proliferation, mostly at the operational and tactical levels. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1191 

So we do maintain some specially trained forces who are able to 

detect, interdict, and transfer weapons of mass destruction, their 

chemicals and precursors, and the facilities that support those. 

Mr. WAMP. Would you say that your command has more or less 

authority from the Department of Defense now than you had before 

September 11? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, we have significantly more authority now 

than we had before 9/11. That authority is codified in unified command plan language that assigned the commander of Special Operations Command as the lead combatant command for planning, 

synchronizing and, as directed, executing Department of Defense 

operations against terrorists and terrorist networks. 

So that gives us a significant role of leadership in the plans and 

planning for global Department of Defense operations, not just Special Operations. 

Mr. WAMP. And even with that said, the lead combatant command and your role in the world, in the other room you told Chairman Edwards and I that the people under your command are very 

sensitive that every time we kick the proverbial door down in the 

world, we agitate, and that there is a need to be effective diplomats 

as well. And I have been blown away over these last 19 hearings 

to see the effective diplomacy of our leaders in uniform of all these 

commands. 

Frankly just about every DOD person that has been in this room 

this year has proven more effective diplomatically than the average 

State Department person over in another room, which to me is very 

counter to the beliefs, not just in our country, but around the world 

about the nature of our armed forces. It is very effective, even 

under your command, which are the door-kicking-down guys, and 

not necessarily the peacemakers. But diplomacy and being a good 

diplomat is also part of the mission, correct? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. Just stepping away from Special Operations, clearly the agency of our government that has the most people in the most places every day is the Department of Defense. So 

within my command, I am reminding them every day that they are 

diplomats whether they like it or not. That is a responsibility that 

they bear and we have high expectations of them with respect to 

that. 

I would also like to say that although we are the door-kickers of 

the world, and we are certainly high-end door-kickers, the civil affairs forces of the Department of Defense are under my proponency 

as well. We are also the school-builders and the well-diggers and 

the culvert-placers. Although we are doing kinetic kinds of operations, mostly with our counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan every 

night, in most of the places of the world we are doing education, 

engagement, training engagement, civil affairs engagement, advise 

and assist kind of engagement. We are doing much more of that 

globally than we are door-kicking. 

Mr. WAMP. You are doing that with uniformed personnel or a 

combination of uniformed and civilian? 

Admiral OLSON. Mostly uniformed personnel, sir. 

Mr. WAMP. Would you say, just briefly, that our combined forces 

around the world, regardless of their mission, are pleased to see 

Special Ops forces come whatever the mission is today? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1192 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. I would say they are all pleased to see 

us. In fact, we are there at their invitation. But sometimes, they 

are more pleased that the quieter we can be about it, the more 

pleased they are to have us. In many cases, our access depends on 

our ability to not talk about it publicly with nations that are not 

too proud to accept our assistance, but they are too proud to publicly acknowledge it. 

Our people are pretty good at that. We are pretty good at getting 

in and training and getting back out without drawing a great deal 

of attention to it. It is mostly small numbers of specially trained 

people who are doing this kind of activity. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, in that case I have no more questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. A very good line of questions. 

Mr. Dicks and then Mr. Farr. 

C–130

Mr. DICKS. On equipment, and we will get to the $38 million 

here pretty soon, on the equipment side, I notice, is there a shortage of C–130s? Or do we need to get new C–130s? Are these the 

C–130Js? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, the new model is the C–130J. Our effort is 

to recapitalize our older models, most importantly our C–130 Echo 

models with C–130Js. There are center wing-box issues. There is 

a degradation of the fleet. Our average age of our C–130 is 28 

years at this point, but we have several that are 35 and more years 

old. So it is urgent that we one-for-one replace our aging fleet. 

Mr. DICKS. What is the plan? Is there a 5-year plan? 

Admiral OLSON. Our requirement is 37. We have in our budget— 

and this is one of these interesting connections between us and the 

services. 

Mr. DICKS. Right. 

Admiral OLSON. The C–130 is a service-common airplane, so I 

am not responsible for purchasing that. The Air Force is. Then they 

are obliged to provide that to me so that I can modify it with the 

budget that I am provided for Special Operations-peculiar items. So 

in the case of a C–130, about three-quarters of the airplane is 

bought by the Air Force and about one-quarter by me, and we synchronize that so that it rolls off the production line and we can 

make our modifications for the Special Operations-peculiar mission 

aspects. It is in my budget to fund 20 modifications in order to deliver 12 airplanes within this 5-year plan. And Air Force is pursuing an appropriate amount of funding to make those airplanes 

available. 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, because there may be some opportunity to add 

to that C–130 line. So if there was going to be some money added, 

you would have to add the modifications, too, right? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. At some point in the 5-year budget? 

Admiral OLSON. The platform money goes in the Air Force’s 

budget. The modification money goes in mine. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

What about UAVs? How are you doing on UAVs? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1193 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, you have hit my top two acquisition priorities back to back here. 

Mr. DICKS. That is good. 

Admiral OLSON. It is bigger than UAVs. It is the entire system 

that it takes for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. We 

are at the point now where just buying more UAVs doesn’t solve 

the problem. It is the people. It is the training. It is the ground 

crews. It is the analysts. It is the communications capability. It is 

the band-width on the satellites to transmit the full motion video 

imagery. There is a whole lot to that. 

But if your question is about where do sensors and UAVs being 

part of that package fit in our priority, it is at the very top. 

Mr. DICKS. Right at the top. 

SOF RANGER BATTALION COMPLEX AT FORT LEWIS

Tell me about this SOF Ranger Battalion complex at Fort Lewis for $38 million. Tell us about that a little bit. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. Part of the growth plan for Special Operations grows one company for each of our three Ranger battalions. We will grow from three operational companies to four operational companies. Sir, this is specific. I know this is a trend here. 

I talked about growing our Special Forces Group from three to four 

battalions. We are growing our Ranger battalions from three to 

four companies. That is for the long-term goal to get us in 3-back1-forward on a rotational basis. So this is fully in sync with General Casey’s comments on that. So this is to accommodate a new 

growth company at Fort Lewis. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. We will do our best to help you on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. Farr. 

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

I want to follow up on Zach Wamp’s comments and talk a little 

bit about education. First of all, I would like to echo your comments. I served in local and state offices, as other members of this 

committee have, and what is unique about being in Congress is 

working with DOD. We don’t have that at the state or local government. So the entire military presence before our committee is 

unique to Congress. 

I would like to say that the biggest surprise is the competency 

of the Commands we have heard from. It is just incredible. I share 

those opinions. I think there is much more of sensitivity awareness 

about things that I think are really important, which is this understanding other cultures and being able to cross the cultural divide—than there is among people who are trained professionally in 

departments that are supposed to be doing that. It is a compliment 

to your sensitivity. 

In the training areas, Congress set up in the Naval Postgraduate 

School a Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction. I appreciate 

you going out and visiting the school. I understand that one of your 

priorities is developing capabilities among partner countries to support stability, security, transition, and reconstruction operations. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1194 

What we find also, as the commands have been telling me, is that 

there are very few officers who are currently slated for the degree 

program at the Naval Postgraduate School and SSTR because the 

Services have failed to establish an MOS for combatant commands, 

and that the combatant commands have not established a formal 

requirement. 

I think you stated earlier and in your testimony that there really 

is a need for expertise in this area. I wondered if you have thought 

about establishing a requirement for such expertise and utilizing 

the expertise in this area at the Naval Postgraduate School for the 

global peace operations initiative. 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I haven’t initiated any effort. That is a consideration that I will make. Our Special Forces officers are mostly 

going through the Special Operations in low-intensity conflict curriculum at Naval Postgraduate School. The curriculum that you 

mentioned in the stability and reconstruction areas is mostly appropriate to our civil affairs officers, but I will study that, sir. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I know Admiral Mullen is very interested and 

he was very supportive. The Navy has two officers out there now, 

but the problem is that there is no MOS. Why get a degree in this 

field if you are not going to get an assignment. I think again we 

are ahead of the bureaucracy. We need the bureaucracy to catch up 

and create those MOS’s. 

The other that we hear a lot about is irregular warfare environments and training for that, but not a lot of adjustment for the 

training of it. I wondered what SOCOM has done to correct the deficiencies that pertain to stability operations and prevention operations. Are the essential training programs in place? 

Admiral OLSON. Special Operations Command is emerging as a 

leader within the department in the entire field of irregular warfare. During the QDR discussions, I represented Special Operations 

in irregular warfare needs to the department as the deputy commander of Special Operations Command. 

Since taking command, I have established a new division within 

my headquarters that we call the Irregular Warfare Division. It is 

the J–10 in military-speak. Most commands don’t go beyond single 

digits, but we thought it was important enough to have an organization dedicated to irregular warfare. So we were co-drafters of the 

irregular warfare joint operations concept, for example, for the Department of Defense. We are contributing heavily to the Department of Defense directive on irregular warfare. So we are trying to 

put the academic underpinnings to this. 

I do have, I call it a junior varsity war college. It is called the 

Joint Special Operations University. It is an institution of higher 

education for us. I call it junior varsity because most of its courses 

are days or single-digit weeks long, but we have established an irregular warfare curriculum within that Joint Special Operations 

University as well, for both U.S. and international students. 

So we are growing into this, but I agree completely that there 

needs to be a broader awakening within the Department of Defense 

in order to incentivize this sort of behavior that leads to irregular 

warfare expertise. 

Mr. FARR. I understand that about 88 percent of the civil affairs 

personnel reside in the Army Reserves. I wondered if that preVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:37 Jul 12, 2008 Jkt 042754 PO 00000 Frm 01194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A754P2.XXX A754P2

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1195 

sented any problems for you, that this expertise is within the Reserves. 

Admiral OLSON. One-hundred percent of civil affairs used to reside within Special Operations Command. It was a QDR decision 

to transfer the Reserve component to the Army. I have retained the 

active component of civil affairs under my immediate command, 

and I remain the Department of Defense proponent in the terminology for all active and Reserve civil affairs. That means I am responsible for the doctrine and the consistency of training and compatibility of equipment and those sorts of things, even as it extends 

into the Reserve force. 

The issue is one of qualification and accessibility in the Reserve 

component. To do civil affairs right, you have to be steeped in the 

culture in which you are operating and it is very hard for a Reservist to do that. The nature of civil affairs, and I am a huge fan of 

what civil affairs does, but the nature of the civil affairs community has changed significantly in the last several years. It used to 

be doctors, dentists, lawyers, police chiefs, water purification engineers, mayors—people who could sort of come together in their reserve capacity to deploy forward and help build governments and 

infrastructures. 

Given the demands of the last few years and the need to grow 

the civil affairs community rapidly, what we have now is a much 

younger force that is learning the civilian skills at the same time 

they are learning their military skills. But our maturity in civil affairs as it turns out does reside within the Reserve component. It 

is very important to be able to sustain that and be able to get at 

them. 

Mr. FARR. The largest Army Reserve training base is Fort 

Hunter Liggett, CA. I really want to be able to work with you and 

integrate the training programs to meet the mission needs. I appreciate anything you could do to tell us what more we can do to help 

that training process. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. I have no further questions. 

INFLATION

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me just ask you, Admiral, and I am going to 

be fairly brief in my final questions. MILCON inflation is hitting 

military construction, as it is highway construction, construction in 

all parts of our economy pretty heavily. Is your military construction budget funded in 2008? I know, as you mentioned, it was a 

surge year. Have those dollars been eroded because of inflation in 

ways you didn’t expect? Were there any challenges there? Are you 

having to cut corners or delay building installations because of inflation? 

Admiral OLSON. That is a great question, sir. Because it was a 

robust year for us, there were challenges, but we overcame them. 

Among the ways we overcame them was finding that some of our 

plan and design money was unexecutable, et cetera, et cetera. So 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1196 

we found enough buffer within our own program to answer most 

of our needs without having to cut into other programs. 

But the larger question is how are we affected by the growing 

construction costs, and the fact that we do have to adjust to them 

every year. It is a real concern for us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We have to get a better way. In the past, OMB 

has dictated a 2.4 percent inflation factor, which when you talk to 

the Associated General Contractors it doesn’t even pass the laugh 

test. And so we know corners are having to be cut, projects delayed, 

others pushed out in the out-years, so we will have to continue to 

look at that. 

Let me ask you also, SOCOM is going through a process I believe 

of reviewing global posture. When will that report be finalized? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I think very quickly. I think we will have 

the Secretary of Defense guidance on that here within the next 2 

weeks to a month on that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would conclusions involve new military construction needs, change end-strength numbers? Without getting into 

specific conclusions before the report is finalized, what would be 

the kind of issues you would be addressing in that? 

Admiral OLSON. It would be minor adjustments in the out-years 

based on tweaking the presence of our force globally. 

COUNTERINSURGENCY EFFORT

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And the final question I have is in terms 

of counterinsurgency efforts. There have to be a lot of lessons 

learned, I would imagine, from Iraq and Afghanistan—the times 

you have to kick down the doors, and you have people trained the 

toughest of the tough—but as you commented, it has been so important for us to hear. It is also important for us to earn the respect of local citizens if we are going to fight a counterinsurgency 

effort. 

Are there some lessons learned out there that you could just 

summarize briefly in terms of how we not only go after the worst 

of the worst enemies, but at the same time deal with communities 

in a way that earns their respect and ultimately their support? I 

know they are critical as we are fighting the bad guys. We have 

to have the local citizens telling us where the bad guys are, and 

not vice versa. Any general thoughts on lessons learned there? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I think you just said them. I think the main 

lesson is in a counterinsurgency is that it is our responsibility to 

provide a better alternative than the insurgents. You do that 

neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city in terms of gaining support for anti-insurgent activity among the people. We can’t operate 

among the people and rid them of the insurgents in their midst. 

They have to be part of it. There has to be an environment that 

is inhospitable to that kind of activity. 

And so it is providing education alternatives to the Madrasas. It 

is providing recreational opportunities, and I don’t mean to exaggerate recreation, but the kinds of places that enable people to 

gather in a productive way. There are many activities that can just 

return hope to the people, to the sense where people everywhere 

will bet on a winner. When the insurgents no longer look like the 

winners, then that is demonstrated success. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1197 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Well, any other questions? 

Admiral, I think I can speak for all of us in saying this has been 

very, very informative and helpful to our subcommittee to have you 

here. Thank you for that. My one request of you would be to let 

this committee know where we can be of help on military construction projects, even if that involves the housing and barracks 

projects that are funded through the various services since that 

money comes through this subcommittee. 

Given the level of sacrifice your personnel are making and their 

families are making in this time of war, in that kind of Global War 

on Terrorism we are fighting won’t go away overnight, so the sacrifices will continue—let us know where we can be of help to your 

folks on quality of life issues, including housing and barracks and 

child care facilities. 

Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I forgot one thing. I wanted to follow 

up on one aspect. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME/TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Mr. DICKS. When we talked about the deployments, 6 or 7 

months. What are you seeing on post-traumatic stress syndrome 

and traumatic brain injuries? 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is a good question. 

Admiral OLSON. We are seeing some, clearly. Within my force, it 

is statistically lower than across the rest of the department I think 

because of the level of training, because when you get shorter deployments, because our people do sort of stay together longer and 

have a family within the military to a greater degree than most of 

the force does. 

If you are looking for specific statistics, I can get those to you for 

the record. I have snapshot numbers in my head of specific elements of our force, but it is an issue for us. 

[The information follows:] 

All surveys done by the Services show that USSOCOM forces have much less 

Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS)/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/ 

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) than other military units. Within the command, we 

have good survey data which indicate a much lower occurrence when compared with 

our conventional counterparts, but we can not validate actual numbers. Experts believe that many personnel who experience PTSS/PTSD do not report the conditions 

for various reasons. For those reporting and being seen at medical centers and clinics, the Service Surgeons General are best able to track those numbers and would 

prove DOD’s most reliable source of the most current and accurate statistics. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. No, I am glad you asked that question. RAND 

Corporation is coming out publicly tomorrow with a report. They 

have done a rather extensive report on PTSD and TBI as well. It 

will be interesting to see how much attention that draws. 

Mr. FARR. Can I have a follow-up question on that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. You mentioned that a shorter deployment probably is 

a factor, but how about training? That is something we have never 

looked at, better training. You have people that are knowledgeable 

about where they are going. They are linguistically trained. They 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1198 

are culturally trained. So it is not such a shock effect when you arrive. 

Admiral OLSON. That is exactly right, sir. 

Mr. FARR. You probably aren’t as exposed to as many improvised 

explosive devices, are you? 

Admiral OLSON. No, sir. I think we are. 

Mr. FARR. You are. 

Admiral OLSON. I think we are exposed man-for-man at a higher 

rate than most of the force. 

Mr. FARR. Really? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Didn’t you mention that to Mr. Wamp and me in 

our brief meeting before the hearing? 

Admiral OLSON. We invested with real energy in what we call 

medium mine protective vehicles, sort of an MRAP, an off-shoot of 

that program. The specific vehicles are called RG–31s and RG–33s. 

We fielded them to our force for the first time since Christmas. In 

the months of March and April, we have had six incidents. It destroyed at least four of those vehicles, perhaps all six. Inside those 

vehicles, we sustained casualties, but we are convinced that we 

saved at least eight and maybe ten people. 

But what we have seen is an increasing threat in response to the 

increased capability of the vehicles. The mines that these vehicles 

hit were larger of explosive weight. In the past, we were used to 

30 pounds or less. These vehicles protect very well against that 

former low-level IED threat. We didn’t consider it low-level at the 

time. It was destructive. But against these vehicles, it is not destructive, so they are upping the explosive weight of the mines. We 

are going to have to continue to struggle to stay ahead of that. The 

good news is that it is a lot harder to move and place a larger mine 

than it is a 30-pound mine, so they are more detectable by us in 

terms of the activity that it takes to get them there. But that has 

been a very successful program. 

For the record, I would like to say that any sense that the diminishing of violence in Iraq should lead to a decision to back away 

from protecting our people in these kind of vehicles, it is way too 

early to make that decision. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I follow up on this? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please do. It is important. 

Mr. BISHOP. The issue that you describe, were they IEDs or were 

they the explosive projectiles? 

Admiral OLSON. It is a combination. We had IEDs of the traditional IED type. We had the explosively formed projectiles and we 

had the pressure plate contact mines as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. And where you had survivors, were those IEDS, was 

it a combination where they were destructive with the EFPs? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. The casualties were killed by large contact mines emplaced in a dirt roadway. The EFPs and the IEDs 

were survivable by these vehicles. 

Mr. BISHOP. Because you had the MRAP-type vehicle? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Was it with the V-shaped bottoms? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir—V-shaped bottoms, and they are also 

designed to be destructed. Much of the energy of the explosive is 

absorbed by throwing the transmission one way and the engine in 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1199 

another way and blowing the wheels off and sort of taking all that 

so that the cocoon of the vehicle survives. 

Mr. DICKS. If you would yield. There has been some concern that 

these things don’t do well off-road, that they are pretty limited in 

how they can be utilized. We are going out there and buying 10,000 

of these things or whatever the number is, and there has been 

some concern that maybe we ought to think through this a little 

bit, about the utility. Because you know, the next situation may be 

different. 

Admiral OLSON. No, you are right. A family of vehicles is required, including some that are off-road-capable. These vehicles, all 

of them, all of the truly mine-protective explosive-projectile-protective vehicles, weigh upwards of 30,000 pounds. Ours are about 

37,000 pounds that we are delivering. Those are not off-road-capable vehicles. It doesn’t require hard pavement, but it does require 

some sort of improved hard-packed dirt roadway at a minimum. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Good questions. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Members, as we finish the 19th of 19 2009 budget 

hearings, we have had a pretty busy op tempo ourselves. Thank 

you all for your participation, knowing how many other subcommittees that you sit on. A special thanks to Mr. Wamp, the ranking 

member, who has been here at each one of the 19 hearings. 

We all would like to thank again an incredibly able and talented 

and dedicated staff led by Carol Murphy, staff who have worked 

without regard to politics or partisanship. Thank you to all of the 

staff for making these hearings so productive. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

Admiral, thank you very much for being here and for your service. 

Admiral OLSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards.] 

Question. Have you identified the total capacity (in square footage) of SOF-peculiar facilities that you need to support SOCOM’s personnel growth and transformation? When do you expect to meet that requirement? 

Answer. Yes. The FY 2009 program consisting of 13 projects at 11 installations 

in seven states and one overseas location represents a total capacity of 1,078,200 

square feet. This figure includes the second increment of our 323,000 square foot 

operational requirement at Dam Neck, Virginia. Our FY 2009 construction requirement supporting USSOCOM’s personnel growth and transformation will be met approximately 2.5 years after project awards. 

Question. How do the various SOF units differ demographically? Focus in particular on rates of marriage and number of dependents. 

Answer. Marriage and dependency rates among the Special Operations Forces 

components are higher than their respective Services. The following information is 

provided based on data available as of 30 Sep 07: 

—58% of Army Special Operations Component (ARSOC) enlisted were married, compared to 53% of the total Army enlisted 

—91% of ARSOC Warrant Officers and 78% of Commissioned Officers in 

ARSOC were married, compared to 82% and 68% respectively for the total 

Army Warrant and Commissioned Officers 

—46% of ARSOC enlisted have two or more dependents, compared to 42% of 

the total Army enlisted 

—82% of ARSOC Warrant Officers have two or more dependents, compared 

to 73% of the total Army Warrant Officers 

—59% of ARSOC Commissioned Officers have two or more dependents, compared to 52% of the total Army Commissioned Officers 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1200 

—64% of Naval Special Warfare (NSW) enlisted were married, compared to 

52% of the total Navy enlisted. 

—97% of Warrant Officers and 75% of Commissioned Officers in NSW were 

married, compared to 88% and 69% respectively for the total Navy 

—42% of NSW Enlisted have two or more dependents, compared to 35% of 

the total Navy Enlisted 

—79% of NSW Warrant Officers have two or more dependents, compared to 

78% of total Navy Warrant Officers 

—55% of NSW Commissioned Officers have two or more dependents, compared to 51% of the total Navy Commissioned Officers 

—65% of Air Forces Special Operations Component (AFSOC) Enlisted were 

married, compared to 58% of the total Air Force Enlisted 

—75% of AFSOC Officers were married, compared to 72% of the total Air 

Force Officers. 

—47% of AFSOC Enlisted have two or more dependents, compared to 41 % 

of the total Air Force Enlisted 

—53% of AFSOC Commissioned Officers have two or more dependents, likewise 53% of the Total Air Force Commissioned Officers have two or more dependents 

Note: ‘‘Married’’ includes those who are married, those who are separated, and 

those under an interlocutory decree. The limit for tracking ‘‘Dependents’’ is two or 

more, which assumes at least one child and one spouse. 

Question. Please describe the optimal training and deployment cycle for the various SOF units, and how this has been impacted by GWOT/OEF/OIF. 

Answer. In general terms, for the majority of SOF units, the optimal training and 

deployment cycle would be 2:1 (in-garrison: deployed). However, the deployment 

cycle for various SOF units has adapted to the situation in multiple theaters since 

the beginning of the GWOT, where the majority of our forces are currently operating 

at a 1:1 ratio. The actual rotation cycle varies with the unit type and mission, and 

the following typical SOF deployment cycles are based on unit schedules for Operations ENDURING FREEDOM, ENDURING FREEDOM—PHILIPPINES, and 

IRAQI FREEDOM. 

U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) units: 7 months 

Naval Special Warfare (Sea, Air, and Land [SEAL] and Special Boat Units): 

6 months 

Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) air crews and support: 3 to 

6 months 

Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) deployments: 

6 months 

Active Civil Affairs deployments: 6 months 

Active Psychological Operations (PSYOP) deployments: 6 to 12 months 

U.S. Army Ranger deployments: 4 months 

SOF deployments for Theater Security Cooperation Events (Joint Combined Exercises for Training (JCET), Counter Narco-terrorism, Mobile Training Teams, Exercises) typically vary from 2 weeks to 4 months. 

Question. Does the $9 million training range requested for Al Udeid reflect a need 

to conduct more training in theater? Is this related to the high rate of deployment? 

Answer. The establishment of a training range is required because no enduring 

special operations training facilities exist in theater. Thus the $9 million training 

complex requested for Al Udeid reflects the need for special operations forces to conduct realistic training in theater to ensure they are sufficiently prepared to execute 

their mission in support of USCENTCOM. 

Question. What are the Guard and Reserve component units of SOCOM, and 

where are they based? 

Answer. USSOCOM is comprised of the following Guard and Reserve Components, listed with their associated locations. 

Location 

Air National Guard (ANG): 

123rd Special Tactics Flight ............................................................................... Louisville, KY. 

193rd Special Operations Wing .......................................................................... Middletown, PA. 

Army National Guard (ARNG): 

20th Special Forces Group .................................................................................. Birmingham, AL. 

Company B, 1st Battalion/20th Special Forces Group ....................................... Decatur, AL. 

1st Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ................................................. Huntsville, AL. 

Company B/1st Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ............................ Mobile, AL. 

Company A/5th Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................ Los Alamitos, CA. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1201 

Location 

Company A/5th Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Redwood City, CA. 

Company B/5th Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Fort Carson, CO. 

5th Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ................................................ Watkins, CO. 

3rd Battalion/20th Special Forces Group ........................................................... Camp Blanding, FL. 

Special Operations Detachment Central ............................................................. MacDill AFB, FL. 

Company A, 3rd Battalion/20th Special Forces Group ....................................... Ocala, FL. 

Company C, 3rd Battalion/20th Special Forces Group ...................................... Wauchula, FL. 

Company A/2nd Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ............................ Chicago, IL. 

Kentucky Military Intelligence Detachment ......................................................... Louisvilla, KY. 

Company C/1st Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Springfield, MA. 

Special Operations Detachment Joint Forces ..................................................... Baltimore, MD. 

Company B/2nd Battalion/20th Group ............................................................... Glen Arm, MD. 

107th Weather Flight (ANG Unit assigned to ARNG Unit) ................................. Detroit, MI. 

Company C/2nd Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ............................ Grenada, MS. 

2nd Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ................................................ Jackson, MS. 

Special Operations Detachment South ............................................................... Jackson, MS. 

190th Chem Recon Detachment ......................................................................... Helena, MT. 

Company B/3rd Battalion/20th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Roanoke Rapids, NC. 

Company A/2nd Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................ Columbus, OH. 

Company A/2nd Battalion/19th Group ................................................................ Middletown, RI. 

Special Operations Detachment Global .............................................................. Providence, RI. 

181st Weather Flight (ANG Unit assigned to ARNG Unit) ................................. Forth Worth, TX. 

Company C/5th Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. San Antonio, TX. 

19th Special Forces Group .................................................................................. Draper, UT. 

1st Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ................................................. Camp Williams, UT. 

Company B/1st Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Camp Williams, UT. 

Company C/1st Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Camp Williams, UT. 

Company A/1st Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Camp Buckley, WA 

Special Operations Detachment South ............................................................... Camp Buckley, WA. 

Company A/1st Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ............................. Spokane, WA. 

2nd Battalion/19th Group Special Forces Group ................................................ Kenova, WV. 

Company C/2nd Battalion/19th Group ............................................................... Kingwood, WV. 

Special Operations Detachment Europe ............................................................. Kingwood, WV. 

Navy Reserve (NR): 

Naval Special Warfare Operational Support Group ............................................ San Diego, CA. 

Naval Special Warfare Operational Support Team ONE ..................................... San Diego, CA. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd South Detachment 108 ................................... Hialeah, FL. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Europe Detachment 530 ................................. Jacksonville, FL. 

Navy Reserve U.S. Special Ops Cmd Headquarters ........................................... Tampa, FL. 

Navy Reserve U.S. Special Ops Cmd Intel Detachment ..................................... Tampa, FL. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Central Detachment 208 ................................. Tampa, FL. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Pacific Detachment 620 ................................. Pearl Harbor, HI. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Korea Detachment 101 ................................... Houston, TX. 

Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd JT Forces Cmd Det 606 ................................... Norfolk VA. 

Naval Special Warfare Operational Support Team TWO ..................................... Norfolk, VA. 

Air Force Reserve (AFR): 

919th Special Operations Wing .......................................................................... Eglin AFB, FL. 

Question. How does SOCOM generate its MILCON requirements? Are they generated at the installation level? What is the role of SOCOM’s component commands 

in the process, and what is the role of the engineering/facilities commands of the 

Military Departments? 

Answer. SOCOM generates SOF MILCON requirements through a four-phased 

comprehensive Strategic Planning Process (SPP). The SPP ensures compliance with 

DoD directives and policies to produce the USSOCOM Major Force Program—11 

Program Objective Memorandum/Budget Estimate Submission or Program Review/ 

Program Budget Review. The SPP is the principal vehicle for assigning priorities 

and allocating resources among approved and validated SOF requirements, including MILCON, with the desired goal to include these priorities in the POM to maximize USSOCOM’s capabilities through the end of the Future Years Defense Program. This process is a collaborative effort involving installation, component, and 

headquarters levels. SOCOM’s component commands are an integral partner in the 

process. All SOCOM MILCON projects comply with DoD and Military Departments 

engineering/facilities commands policies and procedures for construction. 

Question. Is the execution of SOCOM MILCON overseen at the headquarters 

level, or is this delegated to the component commands and/or installation level? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1202 

Answer. Yes, MILCON execution is overseen at the headquarters level together 

with our executive design and construction agents. The component commands also 

maintain oversight along with SOF tier units at the installation level. 

Question. How does the 13,119 growth figure break down among the SOCOM component commands? 

Answer. Component command breakout of the 13,119 growth figure is as follows: 

Army—7,769; Marine—2,461; Air Force—1,513; Navy—1,376. 

Question. How many and what types of new units will be stood up with the additional 13,119 personnel? 

Answer. The following is a list of new units that will be stood up with the 13,119 

growth: 

Army: 4 Special Forces Battalions; 3 Ranger Companies; 1 Civil Affairs Brigade 

HQ; 3 Civil Affairs Battalions; 3 Psychological Operations Companies. 

Air Force: 1 UAS Squadron; 6 Operational Aviation Detachments—A; 1 Special 

Operations Distributed Ground Station Unit. 

Marine: 2 Marine Special Operation Advisory Groups; 2 Marine Special Operation 

Battalions; 1 Marine Special Operation Support Group. 

Question. Are the personnel for the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon included in the 13,119 growth figure? 

Answer. Personnel for the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon are not included in the 13,119 growth figure. Cannon relocation decisions came post-QDR. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions for the record submitted by 

Chairman Edwards.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1203) 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2750 42754E.016
1204 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2751 42754E.017
1205 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2752 42754E.018
1206 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2753 42754E.019
1207 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2754 42754E.020
1208 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2755 42754E.021
1209 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2756 42754E.022
1210 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2757 42754E.023
1211 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2758 42754E.024
1212 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2759 42754E.025
1213 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2760 42754E.026
1214 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2761 42754E.027
1215 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2762 42754E.028
1216 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2763 42754E.029
1217 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2764 42754E.030
1218 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2765 42754E.031
1219 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2766 42754E.032
1220 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2767 42754E.033
1221 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2768 42754E.034
1222 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2769 42754E.035
1223 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2770 42754E.036
1224 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2771 42754E.037
1225 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2772 42754E.038
1226 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2773 42754E.039
1227 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2774 42754E.040
1228 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2775 42754E.041
1229 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2776/3000 42754E.042
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Abate, Statement of Paul ........................................................................................ 766 

Arny, Wayne ............................................................................................................. 955 

Baker, Statement of Kerry ...................................................................................... 851 

Bell, General B. B .................................................................................................... 531 

Beversdorf, Statement of Cheryl ............................................................................ 659 

Blake, Statement of Carl ......................................................................................... 838 

Breckler, Statement of Steven ................................................................................ 754 

Brown, Statement of James K ................................................................................ 737 

Campa, Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R ............................................................. 45 

Casey, General George W., Jr ................................................................................. 1036 

Conway, General James T ...................................................................................... 459 

Cox, Timothy C ........................................................................................................ 197 

Craddock, General Bantz J ..................................................................................... 1084 

Daigh, John Jr ......................................................................................................... 237 

Davis, Statement of John R .................................................................................... 724 

Eulberg, Major General Del .................................................................................... 619 

Fallon, Admiral William J ...................................................................................... 350 

Finn, Belinda ........................................................................................................... 260 

Granahan, Statement of Marcie ............................................................................. 745 

Greene, Chief Judge William P., Jr ....................................................................... 218 

Hake, Statement of Jonathan E ............................................................................. 713 

Howard, the Honorable Robert T ........................................................................... 896 

Jonas, the Honorable Tina W ................................................................................. 950 

Jones, Statement of Rick ......................................................................................... 692 

Keating, Admiral Timothy J ................................................................................... 517 

Kelley, Statement of Raymond ............................................................................... 868 

Kent, Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent ................................................................. 24 

Kussman, the Honorable Michael J ....................................................................... 390 

Maupin, Statement of John E., Jr .......................................................................... 681 

McKinley, Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J ......................................................... 58 

Mosely, General T. Michael .................................................................................... 588 

Needham, Statement of Christopher ..................................................................... 861 

Nicholson, Brigadier General John W ................................................................... 171 

O’Neill, James J ....................................................................................................... 250 

Olson, Admiral Eric T ............................................................................................. 1170 

Peake, Honorable James B., M.D ........................................................................... 108 

Preston, Sergeant Major Kenneth O ...................................................................... 5 

Regan, Maureen ....................................................................................................... 262 

Robertson, Statement of Steve ............................................................................... 821 

Rodriguez, Statement of the Honorable Ciro ........................................................ 652 

Roughead, Admiral Gary ........................................................................................ 446 

Stavridis, Admiral James G .................................................................................... 1140 

Weaver, Statement of Terri .................................................................................... 673 

Woodley, the Honorable John Paul, Jr .................................................................. 182 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Quality of Life 

Page 

Base Realignment and Closure, Effects of ............................................................. 97 

Campa, Prepared Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R ...................... 47 

Campa, Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R ....................................... 45 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... l 

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 94 

Family Housing ........................................................................................................ 80 

Family Support Network, Integrated ..................................................................... 92 

Financial Counseling ............................................................................................... 96 

Guard and Reserve .................................................................................................. 90 

Health Care, Quality of ........................................................................................... 86 

High School Graduates ............................................................................................ 81 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 92 

Kent, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent .......................... 25 

Kent, Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent .......................................... 24 

McKinley, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J .................. 61 

McKinley, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J ................................... 58 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ............................................................................. 84 

Preston, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O ............................... 8 

Preston, Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O ............................................... 5 

Quality of Life Priorities, Top ................................................................................. 88 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 3 

Sexual Assault, Programs for Victims of ............................................................... 82 

Veterans Affairs 

American Lake, Washington ................................................................................... 134 

Benefits, Overpayment of ........................................................................................ 151 

Blood Glucose Monitoring ....................................................................................... 154 

Budget Projections ................................................................................................... 138 

Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) .............................. 136 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 105 

Construction Inflation ............................................................................................. 144 

Denver, Colorado—Major Construction ................................................................. 165 

Dole-Shalala Commission—Disability Compensation ........................................... 157 

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Implementation of ......................................................... 129 

Gravesite Expansions—Major Construction .......................................................... 168 

Information Technology ........................................................................................... 146 

Legislative Proposals ............................................................................................... 156 

Long-Term Care ....................................................................................................... 159 

Louisville, Kentucky Hospital ................................................................................. 166 

Medical Research ..................................................................................................... 160 

Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury ......................................................... 137 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

iv 

National Cemetery Administration—Minor Construction ................................... 161 

Orlando, Florida—Major Construction .................................................................. 162 

Outpatient Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida ............................................................. 148 

Peake, Prepared Statement of the Honorable James B., M.D ............................. 113 

Peake, Statement of the Honorable James B., M.D ............................................. 108 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ............................................................................. 130 

Prosthetic Research ................................................................................................. 145 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 106 

San Juan, Puerto Rico—Major Construction ......................................................... 163 

St. Louis, Missouri—Major Construction .............................................................. 164 

Suicide Rate among Veterans ................................................................................. 150 

Sustainability and Energy ...................................................................................... 167 

Transition to VA ...................................................................................................... 134 

Vet Centers .............................................................................................................. 152 

Veterans Cemetery in Jacksonville, Florida .......................................................... 149 

Veterans, Burial Needs for ..................................................................................... 132 

American Battle Monuments Commission 

Chairman, Statement of the ................................................................................... 169 

Foreign Currency Fluctuation ................................................................................ 177 

Nicholson, Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John W ............................ 173 

Nicholson, Statement of Brigadier General John W ............................................. 171 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 170 

Security at Normandy Visitor Center .................................................................... 179 

Supplemental ........................................................................................................... 177 

Cemeterial Expenses, Army 

Amphitheater ........................................................................................................... 195 

Cemetery Management Plan .................................................................................. 192 

Chairman, Statement of the ................................................................................... 182 

Honor Guard and Horses, Care of .......................................................................... 193 

Tomb of the Unknowns ........................................................................................... 193 

Woodley, Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Paul, Jr ........................... 185 

Woodley, Statement of the Honorable John Paul, Jr ........................................... 182 

Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Cox, Prepared Statement of Timothy C ................................................................. 200 

Cox, Statement of Timothy C ................................................................................. 197 

Green Construction .................................................................................................. 210 

Gulfport Facility ...................................................................................................... 210 

Homeless Veterans .................................................................................................. 208 

Private Developments, Other .................................................................................. 211 

Washington Facility ................................................................................................. 212 

Court of Appeals 

Appeals Process ....................................................................................................... 230 

Cases, Backlog of ..................................................................................................... 228 

Full Time Equivalents ............................................................................................. 230 

Greene, Prepared Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr ................................ 221 

Greene, Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr ................................................. 218 

Pro Bono Consortium .............................................................................................. 229 

Office of Inspector General 

Benefit Overpayments ............................................................................................. 268 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

v 

Benefits Claims, Backlog of .................................................................................... 296 

Benefits Processing .................................................................................................. 297 

Bureaucratic Management Issues .......................................................................... 272 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 235 

Contracting ............................................................................................................... 266 

Daigh, Statement of John Jr .................................................................................. 237 

Data-Mining ............................................................................................................. 257 

Drug Diversion ......................................................................................................... 287 

Finn, Statement of Belinda ..................................................................................... 260 

Hiring Personnel ...................................................................................................... 285 

Inadequate Care ...................................................................................................... 253 

Information Management ....................................................................................... 296 

Inspector General, Authority over .......................................................................... 282 

Interoperability between DoD and VA ................................................................... 273 

Las Vegas, Nevada Office ....................................................................................... 255 

O’Neill, Statement of James J ................................................................................ 250 

Office of Inspector General, Prepared Statement from the .................................. 239 

Patient Advocate System ........................................................................................ 284 

Personnel, Hiring Additional .............................................................................. 251, 285 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ............................................................................. 293 

Prescriptions, Cost of ............................................................................................... 274 

Private Health Care Providers, Contracting with ................................................ 266 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 236 

Recruitment .............................................................................................................. 255 

Regan, Statement of Maureen ................................................................................ 262 

Reports, Request for Copies of ................................................................................ 297 

Staff Resources and Workload ................................................................................ 256 

Tallahassee, Florida Office ..................................................................................... 255 

VA Facilities, Staffing Issues .................................................................................. 298 

Procurement Activities ............................................................................................ 346 

VA Standards of Delivery of Care .......................................................................... 273 

VISN Management Issues ....................................................................................... 264 

VISN Structure ........................................................................................................ 295 

Whistleblower Protection Act ................................................................................. 283 

Central Command 

2009, Beyond ............................................................................................................ 379 

Afghanistan .................................................................................................. 366, 374, 383 

Banking and Mail Delivery ..................................................................................... 381 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 349 

Countries in CENTCOM ......................................................................................... 370 

Djibouti ..................................................................................................................... 374 

Fallon, Prepared Statement of Admiral William J ............................................... 354 

Fallon, Statement of Admiral William J ............................................................... 350 

Host Nations ............................................................................................................ 380 

Iran ........................................................................................................................... 371 

Iraq, Daily Life in .................................................................................................... 377 

Iraq, U.S. Footprint in ............................................................................................. 376 

Long Term Security ................................................................................................. 365 

MacDill AFB......................................................................................................... 376, 379 

Parking at CENTCOM Headquarters .................................................................... 375 

Ranking Minority Member ...................................................................................... 350 

Syrian Border ........................................................................................................... 366 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Veterans Affairs—Medical Care 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 389 

Chattanooga Area Health Care and CARES Decision .......................................... 437 

Community-Based Outpatient Clinics................................................................ 402, 435 

Disability Evaluation System/Wounded Warriors ................................................ 437 

Dual Diagnosis Mental Health Programs .............................................................. 432 

Electronic Health Records ....................................................................................... 401 

Federal Recovery Coordinators/Wounded Warriors .............................................. 436 

Future of Healthcare Research ............................................................................... 416 

GAO Report .............................................................................................................. 437 

Head Trauma ........................................................................................................... 409 

Homeless .................................................................................................................. 431 

Innovation ................................................................................................................ 413 

Joint VA/DoD Medical Facilities ............................................................................ 425 

Kussman, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael J ................................ 393 

Kussman, Statement of the Honorable Michael J ................................................ 390 

Long-Term Care ....................................................................................................... 433 

Louisville, Kentucky Hospital ................................................................................. 431 

Medical Accounts ..................................................................................................... 430 

Medical Administration and Medical Services Accounts, Request to Merge ...... 434 

Medical Research ..................................................................................................... 433 

Non-Institutional Long-Term Care ........................................................................ 440 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ............................................................................. 432 

Priority Eight Veterans ........................................................................................... 412 

Quality Care, Access to ........................................................................................... 428 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 390 

Rural Health Care ................................................................................................... 441 

Seamless Transition between VA and DoD ........................................................... 440 

Smoking Cessation .................................................................................................. 433 

Suicide Rate of Veterans ......................................................................................... 418 

Transfer of Records from DoD to VA ..................................................................... 404 

Vet Centers .............................................................................................................. 439 

Vision Impaired Veterans ....................................................................................... 407 

VISN Structure ........................................................................................................ 441 

Women’s Health ....................................................................................................... 430 

Navy Budget 

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 481 

AFRICOM ................................................................................................................. 493 

Barracks, Aged—Replacement Projects ................................................................. 503 

Barracks MilCon ...................................................................................................... 500 

Barracks PPV ........................................................................................................... 500 

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 ..................................................................... 507 

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................. 480 

Basic Housing Allowance ........................................................................................ 509 

Blount Island ........................................................................................................... 495 

Camp Lejeune Water Contamination .................................................................... 512 

Camp Lemonier Budget Request ............................................................................ 508 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 445 

Child Development Center Construction ............................................................... 511 

Child Development Centers Expansion Plan ........................................................ 511 

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 490 

Conway, Prepared Statement of General James T ............................................... 461 

Conway, Statement of General James T ............................................................... 459 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

vii 

DDG 1000 ................................................................................................................. 488 

Dispersal of Assets .................................................................................................. 485 

Environmental Impact for LCS Homeporting ....................................................... 501 

Environmental Impact Study ................................................................................. 486 

Family Housing—Construction, Improvements, Planning and Design ............... 509 

Family Housing—O&M and Leasing Costs ........................................................... 511 

Family Housing—Renovate, Replace, Sustain Housing in Overseas Locations . 510 

Family Housing Budget Overseas Locations ......................................................... 510 

Family Housing Budget .......................................................................................... 509 

Family Services Program ........................................................................................ 489 

Grow the Force—Barracks Acquisition Strategy .................................................. 502 

Grow the Force—Barracks ...................................................................................... 502 

Grow the Force—Construction ............................................................................... 502 

Grow the Force—FY 09 Requirements .................................................................. 508 

Grow the Force—Marine Corps .............................................................................. 508 

Grow the Force—Reserves ...................................................................................... 502 

Grow the Force—Temporary Facilities .................................................................. 502 

Guam—Flag Housing .............................................................................................. 502 

Guam Realignment .................................................................................................. 506 

Guam Relocation—Futenma Replacement Facility .............................................. 506 

Guam Relocation—Plans, Decisions, Budget ......................................................... 507 

Guam Relocation—Units and Capabilities ............................................................ 505 

Guam Requirements ................................................................................................ 501 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .......................................................................................... 498 

Housing Privatization .............................................................................................. 487 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 477 

Incremental Funding ............................................................................................... 498 

Inflation Figures ...................................................................................................... 500 

Japan to Guam, Moving from ................................................................................. 480 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 493 

Joint Basing Process ................................................................................................ 508 

MV–22—Military Construction Cost for Beddown ................................................ 506 

Naval War College ................................................................................................... 497 

PPV-Child Development Facilities ......................................................................... 501 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 445 

Reprogrammings ...................................................................................................... 492 

Roughead, Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary ................................................. 448 

Roughead, Statement of Admiral Gary .................................................................. 446 

Single vs. Married Servicemembers ....................................................................... 477 

Special Weapons Security ....................................................................................... 500 

Training Barracks .................................................................................................... 503 

Unaccompanied Housing Construction Strategy ................................................... 499 

Unaccompanied Housing FYDP .............................................................................. 499 

Youth Activity Needs ............................................................................................... 501 

Pacific Command 

1-Year Tour .............................................................................................................. 564 

Accompanied Tours .................................................................................................. 573 

Bell, Prepared Statement of General B. B ............................................................ 534 

Bell, Statement of General B. B ............................................................................. 531 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 515 

China ........................................................................................................................ 560 

Construction Costs ................................................................................................... 584 

DMZ .......................................................................................................................... 577 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

viii 

Family Housing in Korea ........................................................................................ 571 

Guam Construction Costs ....................................................................................... 576 

Guam ........................................................................................................................ 560 

Housing ..................................................................................................................... 562 

Housing, Substandard ............................................................................................. 575 

Keating, Prepared Statement of Admiral Timothy J ............................................ 519 

Keating, Statement of Admiral Timothy J ............................................................ 517 

Long-Term Leasing .................................................................................................. 570 

Military to Military Engagement/Security Progress ............................................. 585 

Okinawa to Guam Transition ................................................................................. 567 

PACOM Global War on Terror Efforts ................................................................... 569 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 515 

South Korean Economy ........................................................................................... 559 

Strategic Culmination Plan .................................................................................... 585 

Taiwan ...................................................................................................................... 566 

Yongsan Garrison Relocation Plan ......................................................................... 578 

Air Force 

AFSOC Wing at Cannon Air Force Base ............................................................... 644 

B–35 Beddown ......................................................................................................... 642 

Bachelor Housing ..................................................................................................... 648 

Base Realignment and Closure Funding............................................................ 627, 649 

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................. 623 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 587 

Child Care Waiting List .......................................................................................... 634 

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 649 

Combat Search and Research Helicopter .............................................................. 643 

Cyber Command ...................................................................................................... 631 

Dorms–4–Airmen ..................................................................................................... 643 

Engineer Shortage ................................................................................................... 647 

Eulberg, Statement of Major General Del ............................................................. 619 

Family Housing ........................................................................................................ 648 

Fitness Centers ........................................................................................................ 649 

Guam Military Construction ................................................................................... 643 

Housing, Inadequate ............................................................................................... 621 

Inflation Assumption ............................................................................................... 629 

Infrastructure Funding, Risk in ............................................................................. 646 

Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 638 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 603 

Korea, Training Ranges in ...................................................................................... 644 

Military Construction and Family Housing .......................................................... 642 

Military Construction, Decrease in ........................................................................ 626 

Moody Air Force Base ............................................................................................. 632 

Moseley, Prepared Statement of General T. Michael ........................................... 591 

Moseley, Statement of General T. Michael ............................................................ 588 

Okinawa to Guam, Relocation from ....................................................................... 644 

Permanent Party Dormitories ................................................................................ 643 

Personnel Relocations in the National Capital Region ......................................... 645 

Pipeline Dormitories ................................................................................................ 643 

Private Sector ........................................................................................................... 639 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 588 

RED HORSE and Prime BEEF .............................................................................. 624 

Renewable Energy ................................................................................................... 648 

Road Map ................................................................................................................. 642 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

ix 

Outside Witnesses 

Abate, Prepared Statement of Paul ....................................................................... 768 

Abate, Statement of Paul ........................................................................................ 766 

Baker, Prepared Statement of Kerry ..................................................................... 853 

Baker, Statement of Kerry ...................................................................................... 851 

Beversdorf, Prepared Statement of Cheryl ............................................................ 662 

Beversdorf, Statement of Cheryl ............................................................................ 659 

Blake, Prepared Statement of Carl ........................................................................ 841 

Blake, Statement of Carl ......................................................................................... 838 

Breckler, Prepared Statement of Steven ............................................................... 756 

Breckler, Statement of Steven ................................................................................ 754 

Brown, Prepared Statement of James K ............................................................... 739 

Brown, Statement of James K ................................................................................ 737 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 651 

Davis, Prepared Statement of John R ................................................................... 727 

Davis, Statement of John R .................................................................................... 724 

Granahan, Prepared Statement of Marcie ............................................................ 748 

Granahan, Statement of Marcie ............................................................................. 745 

Hake, Prepared Statement of Jonathan E ............................................................ 716 

Hake, Statement of Jonathan E ............................................................................. 713 

Jones, Prepared Statement of Rick ........................................................................ 695 

Jones, Statement of Rick ......................................................................................... 692 

Kelley, Prepared Statement of Raymond ............................................................... 870 

Kelley, Statement of Raymond ............................................................................... 868 

Maupin, Prepared Statement of John E., Jr ......................................................... 684 

Maupin, Statement of John E., Jr .......................................................................... 681 

Needham, Prepared Statement of Christopher ..................................................... 863 

Needham, Statement of Christopher ..................................................................... 861 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 651 

Robertson, Prepared Statement of Steve ............................................................... 824 

Robertson, Statement of Steve ............................................................................... 821 

Rodriguez, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ciro ........................................ 655 

Rodriguez, Statement of the Honorable Ciro ........................................................ 652 

Weaver, Prepared Statement of Terri .................................................................... 675 

Weaver, Statement of Terri .................................................................................... 673 

Veterans Affairs—Information Technology 

Accountability .......................................................................................................... 924 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 895 

Community-Based Outpatient Clinics ................................................................... 915 

Consolidated Information Technology Operations ................................................ 942 

Data Exchange ..................................................................................................... 916, 927 

District Casework Overload .................................................................................... 940 

Electronic Health Record ........................................................................................ 937 

Encryption/Privacy of Mobile Service Delivery ..................................................... 936 

Financial Management ............................................................................................ 913 

Fiscal Year 2009 Information Technology Budget Request ................................. 942 

Howard, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert T .................................... 898 

Howard, Statement of the Honorable Robert T .................................................... 896 

Information Technology Initiatives ........................................................................ 939 

Information Technology Systems ........................................................................... 926 

Internal Facing Information Technology Systems ................................................ 937 

Lost Data .................................................................................................................. 933

Lost Records ............................................................................................................. 942 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

x 

Office of Information and Technology .................................................................... 931 

Proposed Legislative Language .............................................................................. 931 

Reprogramming Letter ............................................................................................ 934 

Rescheduling Projects .......................................................................................... 924, 935 

Security Breach Developments ............................................................................... 911 

Staffing Requirements ............................................................................................. 914 

Surveys and Investigations Report ........................................................................ 934 

Transmission of Electronic Health Records ........................................................... 919 

VA Communications System ................................................................................... 943 

VA/DoD Coordination on Disability Claims .......................................................... 941 

Veteran Facing Information Technology (IT) Systems ......................................... 937 

VISTA Contracting .................................................................................................. 932 

VISTA Foundations Modernization ........................................................................ 932 

VISTA Legacy System ............................................................................................. 939 

Budget Overview 

AFRICOM ................................................................................................................. 996 

Army, Prepared Statement of Wayne .................................................................... 959 

Army, Statement of Wayne ..................................................................................... 955 

Base Realignment and Closure Sites, Cleanup of ................................................. 1019 

Base Realignment and Closure................................................................. 995, 999, 1006 

Camp Lejeune War Contamination ........................................................................ 1011 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 949 

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 1011 

Construction Inflation ............................................................................................. 997 

Cuba, Plan for .......................................................................................................... l018 

Directive 3005 .......................................................................................................... 1002 

Economic Development Conveyance ...................................................................... 1016 

Global Center for Security Cooperation ................................................................. 1003 

Guam ........................................................................................................................ l014 

Health Care .............................................................................................................. 1025 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 1023 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 1004 

Jonas, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tina W .......................................... 952 

Jonas, Statement of the Honorable Tina W .......................................................... 950 

Naval Station Newport ............................................................................................ 1009 

Overseas Housing .................................................................................................... 1021 

Privatization ............................................................................................................. 1007

Rebalancing the Army ............................................................................................. 1013 

Army 

Army Medical Action Plan and the Soldier Family Assistance Plan .................. 1075 

Army Training Reserve Facility ............................................................................. 1074 

Balance, Restoring ................................................................................................... 1051 

Barracks Privatization ............................................................................................ 1076 

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 ..................................................................... 1081 

Base Realignment and Closure Privatization ....................................................... 1070 

CACTF ...................................................................................................................... 1074 

Casey, Prepared Statement of General George W., Jr ......................................... 1040 

Casey, Statement of General George W., Jr .......................................................... 1036 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1035 

Child Care Fees for an E–5 .................................................................................... 1072 

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 1071 

Community Based Outpatient Clinic at Former Fort Ord ................................... 1054 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

xi 

Construction Inflation on Military Construction .................................................. 1053 

Europe, Footprint in ................................................................................................ 1071 

Family Housing, Impact of Grow the Force .......................................................... 1077 

Fiscal Accountability ............................................................................................... 1067 

Fort Benning, Georgia ............................................................................................. 1055 

Fort Riley, Health Care Needs at ........................................................................... 1064 

Full Spectrum Operations ....................................................................................... 1057 

Grow the Army ........................................................................................................ 1079 

Guard and Reserve .................................................................................................. 1059 

Health Care .............................................................................................................. 1063 

Impact Aid ................................................................................................................ 1061

Korea ......................................................................................................................... 1072 

Modularity ................................................................................................................ 1077

Monterey, Staffing New Medical Clinic in ............................................................. 1054 

Mortgages ................................................................................................................. 1062

National Guard Equipment .................................................................................... 1069 

Prepare ..................................................................................................................... 1080 

Quality of Life Issues .............................................................................................. 1053 

Range and Training Land Strategy ....................................................................... 1078 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 1036 

Recruitment Goals ................................................................................................... 1066 

Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction ....................................... 1068, 1074 

Stress ........................................................................................................................ 1050 

Sustainment ............................................................................................................. 1079 

Temporary Facilities and Interim Capacity .......................................................... 1078 

Tour Lengths, Reduced ........................................................................................... 1070 

Training Facilities ................................................................................................... 1052 

European Command 

AFRICOM ................................................................................................................. 1123 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1083 

Craddock, Prepared Statement of General Bantz J .............................................. 1087 

Craddock, Statement of General Bantz J .............................................................. 1084 

Education .................................................................................................................. 1127 

Egypt ......................................................................................................................... 1120 

European Command Area of Operation ................................................................. 1130 

Fluctuation of the Dollar ......................................................................................... 1115 

Germany, Force Posture in.............................................................................. 1114, 1121 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 1123 

Kosovo ....................................................................................................................... 1131 

Military Presence in Europe ................................................................................... 1132 

Missile Defense ........................................................................................................ 1117 

NATO ........................................................................................................................ 1128 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 1083 

Southern Command 

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................. 1151 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1139 

Columbia................................................................................................. 1150, 1153, 1157 

Counter Narcotics Effort ......................................................................................... 1150 

Counterdrug Operating Locations .......................................................................... 1166 

Crisis Corps Response ............................................................................................. 1159 

Cuba and Guantanamo ........................................................................................... 1151 

Cuba .................................................................................................................. 1149, 1158 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

xii 

Fourth Fleet ............................................................................................................. 1148 

Guantanamo ............................................................................................................. 1167 

Hospital Ship Comfort ............................................................................................. 1156 

Latin American Military Aid .................................................................................. 1165 

Military Construction in Region ............................................................................. 1148 

Military/Armed Forces in SOUTHCOM ................................................................. 1161 

New Headquarters ................................................................................................... 1163 

Panama ..................................................................................................................... 1163 

Political and Economic Developments in Latin America ...................................... 1154 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 1139 

SOCSOUTH ............................................................................................................. 1168 

Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras ............................................................................... 1167 

SOUTHCOM Headquarters .................................................................................... 1167 

Stavridis, Prepared Statement of Admiral James G ............................................ 1142 

Stavridis, Statement of Admiral James G ............................................................. 1140 

Special Operations 

Al Udeid Air Base .................................................................................................... 1187 

C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 1194 

Cannon Air Force Base ........................................................................................... 1187 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1169 

Counterinsurgency Effort ........................................................................................ 1198 

Inflation .................................................................................................................... 1197 

Mission, People and Acquisition Priorities ............................................................ 1185 

Naval Post-Graduate School Field Experimentation Program ............................ 1185 

Naval Post-Graduate School ................................................................................... 1195 

Nuclear Proliferation ............................................................................................... 1192 

Olson, Prepared Statement of Admiral Eric T ...................................................... 1173 

Olson, Statement of Admiral Eric T ...................................................................... 1170 

Operational Tempo .................................................................................................. 1191 

Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome/Traumatic Brain Injury .................................. 1199 

Quality of Life Issues .............................................................................................. 1189 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 1169 

SOF Ranger Battalion Complex, Fort Lewis ......................................................... 1195 

Special Forces Complex, Eglin Air Force Base ..................................................... 1186 

Special Operations Command, Growth of ...................................................... 1182, 1188 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ..................................................................................... 1194 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING