MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman 

SAM FARR, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

JOHN CARTER, 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. 

TIM PETERSON, SUE QUANTIUS, WALTER HEARNE, and MARY C. ARNOLD, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

American Battle Monuments Commission .................................................. 1 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............................... 25 

Arlington National Cemetery ......................................................................... 43 

Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................................... 61 

Veterans Affairs ................................................................................................. 79 

Navy and Marine Corps Budget .................................................................... 151 

European Command ......................................................................................... 197 

BRAC ..................................................................................................................... 287 

Central Command ............................................................................................. 409 

Air Force Budget ............................................................................................... 497 

DoD Overview .................................................................................................... 531 

VA Mental Health .............................................................................................. 647 

Testimony of Outside Witnesses .................................................................... 723 

Pacific Command ............................................................................................... 925 

Army Budget ....................................................................................................... 985 

Quality of Life .................................................................................................... 1069 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC7513
Part 7—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC7513
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman 

SAM FARR, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

JOHN CARTER, 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. 

TIM PETERSON, SUE QUANTIUS, WALTER HEARNE, and MARY C. ARNOLD, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

American Battle Monuments Commission .................................................. 1 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............................... 25 

Arlington National Cemetery ......................................................................... 43 

Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................................... 61 

Veterans Affairs ................................................................................................. 79 

Navy and Marine Corps Budget .................................................................... 151 

European Command ......................................................................................... 197 

BRAC ..................................................................................................................... 287 

Central Command ............................................................................................. 409 

Air Force Budget ............................................................................................... 497 

DoD Overview .................................................................................................... 531 

VA Mental Health .............................................................................................. 647 

Testimony of Outside Witnesses .................................................................... 723 

Pacific Command ............................................................................................... 925 

Army Budget ....................................................................................................... 985 

Quality of Life .................................................................................................... 1069 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

56–870 WASHINGTON : 2010 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC7513
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

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 

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 

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 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

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 

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 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC7513
(1) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION 

WITNESS 

SECRETARY MAX CLELAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the committee to 

order and to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is our first 

on the fiscal year 2011 budget cycle. Let me also begin with a few 

administrative things I would like to discuss briefly. 

First of all, I want to thank everyone, starting with our ranking 

member, Mr. Wamp, and every member of the committee on both 

sides of the aisle for your work last year. In a Congress that seems 

to have difficulty getting beyond partisanship I am so very proud 

that this subcommittee has continued a longstanding tradition—of 

bipartisanship on behalf of our servicemen and women and their 

families, our veterans, and the related agencies such as the American Battle Monuments Commission, and I think that is the way 

the American people would want it do be. 

We do have some changes in subcommittee staff I would like to 

mention briefly so that everyone knows. Carol Murphy, who had 

led the staff as staff director since the creation of the subcommittee 

in 2005 has retired. She will be sorely missed, and I want to say 

for the record, in my book she is one of the finest public servants 

I have ever known, worked on a cleanly bipartisan basis for the 

good of the people that we have the privilege of serving in this subcommittee. And again, we will miss her greatly but we wish her 

all the very best. 

In addition, Donna Shabez, who worked for the subcommittee 

since 2007, is an Army veteran who worked on veterans’ issues has 

been reassigned to the Labor, HHS Subcommittee, and we wish her 

very well. 

Tim Peterson, I am very happy to announce, will be leading this 

subcommittee as the staff director. Tim is no newcomer to the appropriations process or this subcommittee and we are very fortunate to have someone with his experience leading our subcommittee. He has been with the Appropriations Subcommittee for 

21 years and is a professional from day one to the last hour of the 

long hours he puts in. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Tim, thank you. We are grateful that you have taken on this position. 

We also welcome Sue Quantius. 

Sue, where are you? 

Ms. QUANTIUS. I am right here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Far in the back but not new to the appropriations process. 

She has been with the Labor, HHS Subcommittee for many, 

many years. 

How many years, Sue? 

Ms. QUANTIUS. About 19—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. About 19 years. Okay. Well thank you. Thank you 

for that. And we are thrilled to have you. 

And with her background in health care she will be a great addition to the work on V.A. health care and other issues as well. 

I am also very happy to say that Mary Arnold and Walter 

Hearne are continuing their respective roles on the subcommittee 

staff. On the minority side we are very fortunate that once again 

Mr. Wamp has Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson, and Kelly Shea, all 

outstanding professional staffers who have made a real contribution to this committee’s work effort. 

In terms of last year, Mr. Wamp, I mentioned very briefly how 

proud I was that in a seemingly nonstop partisan Congress how 

proud I am that this subcommittee and each and every member 

and staff member continued the long tradition that you have been 

such a part of to see that we do our work on a bipartisan basis for 

the good of the servicemen and women and their families. And we 

again thank you for choosing to be back on this subcommittee and 

in this Congress as well. 

We had a lot of successes. I won’t go into all those, but a historic 

success—the number one priority for most veterans organizations 

last year was a multiyear funding for the V.A., as you all know, 

and I think that is a win-win for veterans and for taxpayers, allowing the V.A. to spend the tax dollars more wisely and knowing how 

they are invested ahead of time. 

So that was a great achievement and we took some major initiatives in terms of new funding for barracks for a lot of young troops, 

particularly in training facilities, that were living in barracks their 

parents were embarrassed to see when they came to proudly see 

their sons and daughters graduate from boot camp. We took real 

initiatives, additional MILCON funding for the Guard and the Reserve and to help military families in a time of dropping housing 

prices, when the country asked them to move from one base to another and they are stuck with a house. We have worked with the 

Senate and provided some additional funding. 

Mr. Secretary, we try not to give the Senate much credit very 

often around here, in all due respect, but it was a pleasure working 

with them on that initiative that they took up in the last year in 

our work. 

Before we proceed with the introduction of our distinguished first 

witness for this year I would like to recognize our outstanding 

ranking member, Mr. Wamp. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do truly appreciate you. In a time when there is so much rancor and division, we 

really continue to do this in a bipartisan, cooperative way and put 

our troops and our—families ahead of all of the divisions, and you 

have just done an extraordinary job. We have done a lot of good 

work. 

It is an honor to begin our third year together. I want to say, because this is my first day back—I was at Fort Campbell yesterday 

and I am moving around a lot these days—but it is my first day 

back since the break, and I am saddened that all of our friend, 

Jack Murtha, is not with us. I know there will be many, many tributes forever, but some of my early memories of the Appropriations 

Committee—this is my 14th year—were with him, traveling with 

him and getting to know he and his wife and becoming his friend. 

So many of us share this journey that, in many ways, the Appropriations Committee to me was Bill Young and Jack Murtha. 

[Laughter.] 

Everything else was sort of secondary—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Still is, isn’t it? [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. After the two of them. But it is good to 

start another year, and this will be my last year, and there will be 

times where I won’t be here, but I will always be working and diligent. 

I want to say, because Martin and Kelly are behind me from the 

minority staff, that also Erin Fogleman continues on my personal 

staff to be the lead on this subcommittee, and she is now engaged 

and I want to make that announcement. I want to say that my 

military liaison is Major Gilbert D’meza, from the United States 

Marine Corps. Ironically he joined me the first day of the year and 

his family is all from Haiti, and it is a real difficult time for him. 

He is over my shoulder. 

Raise your hand, Major, if you will please. 

He coordinated tremendous logistics and efforts for Haiti ever 

since the earthquake out of my office and it gave him a way of 

being engaged. He tried to go there but military had him on assignment so he had to stay with me, but we put him to work. He is 

a trooper. His wife is now pregnant with their third child so he has 

got a lot of balls in the air as well, but we are grateful for this 

team. [Laughter.] 

And then all I would say, Mr. Crenshaw is ably willing, and we 

already have the schedule coordinated. When I am not able to be 

here at hearings, he will be here so we will be well-represented. 

But as I said to Secretary Cleland a few minutes ago when I had 

the privilege of greeting him in the hall, he is one of the great patriots. I was born at Fort Benning in the state of Georgia and lived 

in Tennessee all my life—— 

[Laughter.] 

So I have got Georgia roots, but he is one of the great patriots 

of all time around here and every one of us ought to be honored 

to be in his presence. 

I am grateful that you continue to serve your country in an important way, and having been to Normandy and many places 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

around the world and seeing the importance of the service that you 

now give, I am grateful for it. Most of all I am grateful for your 

commitment to our country and freedom and the unbelievable sacrifice that you have made on our behalf, Max. You are a great— 

welcome to our subcommittee. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Zach, ditto on your comments about the work of 

your staff and your comments about Secretary Cleland, and also 

thank you for mentioning Mr. Murtha. And I would like to say for 

the record, while he was not a member of this subcommittee, this 

is an example where Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha and this subcommittee worked together—one of many—of doing more in the 

last several years than the Pentagon had done in 20 years in terms 

of modernizing our DOD hospitals. 

And there are about seven or eight military hospitals that now, 

because of the work Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young did in reaching out 

to hospitals, finding out about some of the needs. We had just 

kicked that can down the road for decades—these hospitals were 

undersized, outdated, and therefore inefficient. It is not even a 

good deal for the taxpayers. And the funding for the hospital renovations and new construction came from this subcommittee, but 

many of the ideas came from Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young. And we 

know Mr. Young how close you and Jack worked together—in light 

of Mr. Wamp’s comments I would like to recognize you if you care 

to make any comments. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I will tell 

you that Jack Murtha and I worked together for more than 20 

years in leadership roles on the Defense Subcommittee. We were 

friends; we had a very strong mutual trust. 

But it is good to be on your subcommittee and I really want to 

say I appreciate your leadership and Zach Wamp’s. This is a good 

subcommittee and the two of you handle the business that you are 

responsible for very well. 

Now, I wanted to welcome my friend, Max Cleland. He and I, 

over the years, have worked together on a number of different 

projects, but you know when you—and you know this—when you 

travel and visit some of our cemeteries overseas, which are kept so 

well, so beautiful, it gives you a special feeling for America and a 

special feeling for those who are buried there, those who fought 

those battles. 

And just one thought: General Colin Powell said something 

sometime ago that has stayed with me for years when he was getting beat up in Europe about, ‘‘You bad Americans. You selfish 

Americans. You arrogant Americans.’’ He stopped in, very pensive—he said, ‘‘You know,’’ he said, ‘‘after all this the only thing 

that America has ever asked for was enough ground to bury our 

dead.’’ And that is what this commission takes care of, and it is 

really an inspiration to see what our country has done over the 

years of sacrifices that our soldiers made, and I am really proud 

to have a chance to work with Mr. Cleland and this committee as 

we make sure that those battle monuments and those American 

cemeteries are kept up as they should be kept up. 

And Max, you do a really good job, I have got to tell you. They 

are beautiful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chairman Young. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. My I speak out of turn? 

I simply want to welcome my friend of long standing, Max 

Cleland, from Georgia. We were together under the capitol dome 

there in Georgia for many, many years. We served together and he 

is just a friend of long standing, and I have got to leave the subcommittee. I have got two conflicting subcommittees— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We understand. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Meeting at the very same time. But I 

did not want to pass and not at least acknowledge and greet my 

friend Max. He has done such a tremendous job in representing 

Georgia and representing the men and women of our country as a 

veteran, and of course he was our secretary of state prior to becoming a United States senator. So he has given awesome service; he 

is a great author, inspirational individual. 

And we welcome you, and I am sure that the Battle Monuments 

Commission will be better for your service. 

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Well, having kissed the ring of Chairman Obey and with those 

introductions, Mr. Secretary, there is not much more to say other 

than I want to add my two cents’ worth. It is an honor to have you 

here today, and all of this talk about patriotism, you have lived it 

and your service to our country in Vietnam and your incredible 

service as the secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs—I 

believe the youngest V.A. secretary in the history of that agency— 

and now continuing in your public service by overseeing the most 

hallowed grounds across the world, and I can think of no better 

way to put it than Colin Powell put it. 

We are thrilled to have you here. Your full testimony will be submitted for the record, but I would like to recognize you now for any 

opening comments you—— 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAX CLELAND

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to believe that I am back before this subcommittee. I never thought I 

would ever come back to this wonderful subcommittee dealing with 

the question of appropriations for America’s veterans. 

I first came before this subcommittee when Bill Young and I 

were a lot younger. I was 34 and now I am 67. He is still here. 

I am still here. [Laughter.] 

But we worked together on construction when I was head of the 

V.A. and he was helpful in the money to put together the new $200 

million Bay Pines V.A. hospital there in the Tampa, St. Pete area. 

So it is hard to believe that I am back before this very subcommittee and we are glad to see you, my friend. 

Zach Wamp, of course, is my neighbor from Tennessee and we 

concluded in our brief discussion in the hallway that when someone 

got drunk in Tennessee and fell across the line in Georgia it improved the intelligence level of both states, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

And my friend, Mr. Salazar, from Colorado, when I was out there 

I said that—he has a brother who was in the United States Senate 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

and now secretary of the Department of Interior with whom we 

might do a little computer business. We can get into that if you 

would like. 

But I said that—that is two brothers Salazar in Colorado—to 

those people out there that if you just see the name on the ballot, 

Salazar, vote for it. 

And Sanford Bishop, my dear friend, I am enamored with him 

but I am much more enamored with his wife, Vivian. We have 

known them for a long, long time. It is great to see him. And anybody born at Fort Benning has my undenied admiration. 

Thank you for surviving Fort Benning. There are those of us who 

have in many ways. 

And Steve Israel, my good friend, we look forward to being with 

him in May, and particularly in terms of the East Coast Memorial 

there in Lower Manhattan. 

Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied today by some wonderful people: Mr. Steve Hawkins, who is an expert and a general from the 

Army—Army Ranger—two tours in Iraq, and he now heads up our 

operational headquarters in Garches, France, which is a suburb of 

Paris, and he heads up our worldwide operation. And we have Matthew Beck, our acting chief financial officer; and Mike Conley, who 

is helping us with our communications and particularly with our 

interpretive program. 

I was thinking while you were talking about the bipartisan nature of the committee and, in effect, the bipartisan nature of our 

mission. What is all this about? It really is about the 131,000 buried overseas and the 95,000 who are listed on our Walls of the 

Missing around the world. 

That is a staggering number of people—almost a quarter of a 

million Americans primarily lost in World War I and World War 

II who never made it back. And as someone who almost didn’t 

make it back alive I have a special interest in their welfare. 

In so many ways they are still on duty for the United States because the cemeteries and the monuments and memorials of the 

American Battle Monuments Commission carry as great a weight 

as anything can be to the citizens of these nations in which we are 

located. We are located in 14 different nations. 

So, if they want to look at the commitment of the United States 

to their people all they have to do is visit one of our cemeteries. 

Every American ambassador usually takes distinguished visitors 

like all of you to the cemetery as part of their routine visit. 

I have been personally invited—I haven’t been able to take advantage of it but I have personally been invited by the American 

ambassador to the Philippines, American ambassador to Luxembourg, the American ambassador to Tunisia. And it is not because 

I am warm and wonderful, it is because of the incredible sacrifice 

of the people who are buried there who demonstrate day in and day 

out their love of this country and their love of that country. 

And Mr. Bill Young—Chairman Young—was correct that the 

only thing we have really ever asked for pretty much as a country 

is a place to bury our dead. We are asking, therefore, the committee to approve our request of some $20 million in the foreign 

currency fluctuation account. We have a relatively unique position 

in the federal government in which all of you have entrusted to us 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

the ability to call upon the Treasury Department whenever we 

need to adjust the currency fluctuation vis-a-vis the dollar. When 

the dollar goes up or down we have the funds to adjust to that currency fluctuation that you all have given us, and that $20 million 

fund, I think, is adequate as we go into fiscal year 2011. 

We are asking for $64.2 million for the current operations of the 

agency. What does that include? You were so kind to give us some 

$2 million extra over what the president requested last time 

around and we are using that $2 million or so for increasing the 

interpretation program and to start and kick off a financial management system which we may be going into partnership with the 

Department of Interior to put together. 

We have asked for $1.5 million more than fiscal year 2010 basically because the Office of Management of Budget has estimated 

that the Congress will pass something around 1.4 percent pay increase in terms of federal employees. When I got to ABMC I found 

that it was very, shall we say, contract-heavy and consultantheavy, so I removed from the Washington office some eight contractors and some five consultants and we saved about $1.2 million. 

So within our budget, then, that gives us, using your add-on of 

$2 million last time around as our base, that gives—and the cuts 

we have made—that gives us enough money, then, to do some 

extra things. One of the extra things is to finalize the Honolulu 

Memorial. It is located in the National Memorial Cemetery of the 

Pacific—the cemetery known as the Punchbowl. It is run by the 

V.A. I used to run it. 

When I was head of the V.A. in 1980 I noticed that you had in 

the Court of the Missing—the 18,000 missing from World War II 

and 8,200 missing from Korea. But you did not have the names of 

the missing from the Vietnam War. So when I was head of the V.A. 

I made sure that the Court of the Missing in Honolulu, run by the 

American Battle Monuments Commission, added the names of the 

over 2,500 missing from the Vietnam War. 

Now it is interesting that I am in the position now of saying to 

you, ‘‘Please approve our budget request,’’ which includes the finalization of that memorial, which means we are going to add, with 

your help, what we call the Vietnam battle maps. It is about $3.5 

million in terms of a project but we want to, in effect, tell the story 

as best we can of the Vietnam War. 

The story of World War II in the Pacific is told by the World War 

II battle maps. The story of the Korean War is told by the Korean 

battle maps. But we do not have the story of the Vietnam War told 

by the Vietnam battle maps. That is in our budget; we request your 

approval. 

Finally, what we are able to do, due to the generosity of this 

committee and your leadership, Mr. Chairman, is upgrade substantially our second most visited spot in the world in terms of our 

cemeteries, and that is at Pointe du Hoc. The most visited site is 

Normandy—over a million visitors a year—and you were kind 

enough and Mr. Murtha was kind enough with Mr. Obey and this 

Appropriations Committee was kind enough to give us enough 

money—$30 million to $40 million—to put together the Normandy 

Visitor Center, which is awesome. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

I saw it first in June of last year when I welcomed the dignitaries, including the president of the United States, and Prince 

Charles, and the prime minister of Canada, and the prime minister 

of Great Britain, and the president of France, and everyone wanted 

to know where the holding room was for his wife, so, I mean, we 

had our priorities right. But there were the dignitaries representing the nations that were instrumental in the Normandy invasion 65 years ago. We had them at the Normandy Visitor Center. 

And there is a little plaque there to Congressman Murtha and to 

Dave Obey in honor of them, long before Mr. Murtha passed away, 

so that plaque will stay there. 

But we want to move to Pointe du Hoc because if you go about 

nine miles down Omaha Beach to Pointe du Hoc, which General 

Bradley said was the most dangerous mission of D-Day—it was undertaken by the Army Rangers, and Mr. Len Lomell, who the 

chairman has introduced me to, I had the pleasure of visiting, and 

he is 90 years old now, and he is the guy that landed at Pointe du 

Hoc, climbed the cliffs, found that the five 155-millimeter German 

guns were not there and went looking for them with a buddy and 

found them a mile away and destroyed their capability with 

thermite grenades. 

He won the Distinguished Service Cross for that and the historian Stephen Ambrose says that other than Eisenhower Len Lomell 

had the most significant impact on D-Day being a success. So 

Pointe du Hoc becomes an incredible icon in American military history and an incredible memorial to those who took on what Bradley 

said was the most dangerous mission of D-Day. 

So we are doing three things at Pointe du Hoc with your money 

and your support—taxpayers’ money, but with your support and 

the leadership from the chairman especially, and Texas A&M has 

been very wonderful in helping us gauge what we need to do there. 

First of all, we want to upgrade the visitor center. It is run by the 

French, owned by the French, it is a French building, but we want 

to upgrade that. 

Secondly, we want to upgrade the interpretation and understanding and the story of Pointe du Hoc. And third, we are going 

to save the Pointe. You gave us $6 million to deal with the complex 

problem of saving that Pointe instead of seeing it washed out into 

the sea. The Pointe has been closed to visitation for 10 years because it was caving in. 

And there is an observation bunker there—a German observation 

bunker—still preserved after 65 years. If you saw the movie ‘‘The 

Longest Day,’’ the German sentry looks out through this slit in this 

observation bunker and sees this incredible armada, and that is 

how ‘‘The Longest Day’’ begins. That observation post is still there. 

It was that observation post that failed to communicate to the Germans that were manning the 155-millimeter guns that the Americans had landed. 

So Len Lomell and his comrade were able to go to the five 155- 

millimeter guns and destroy them before the Germans got the 

word. Had the 155-millimeter guns not been destroyed, with a 

range of 10 to 14 miles they could have pivoted. They were targeted on Utah Beach, but they could have been pivoted to focus on 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

Omaha Beach and the landing craft. That would have been disastrous. 

So that is what the mission at Pointe du Hoc was all about, was 

about those guns. And so Earl Rudder, the lieutenant colonel, and 

his team climbed Pointe du Hoc with 80 percent casualties, took 

the Pointe, and destroyed the guns. They accomplished their mission. Unbelievable. 

But that monument needs help. So we are upgrading the French 

visitor center, we are improving the interpretation of the whole 

battle, and we are saving the Pointe thanks to all of you. 

I might say I have come across, in conclusion, a line from an Archibald MacLeish poem, the poem being ‘‘The Young Dead Soldiers 

Do Not Speak.’’ Archibald MacLeish was a veteran of World War 

I, and he lost his younger brother in World War I, who is buried 

at Flanders Field Cemetery. And MacLeish wrote the poem, and at 

the end MacLeish concluded, ‘‘We leave you our deaths. Give them 

their meaning.’’ 

So we take that as our charge, those of us who are alive, those 

of us who are able to work on these issues. We take that as our 

sacred charge. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Max Cleland follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 56870A.001
11 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 56870A.002
12 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 56870A.003
13 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 56870A.004
14 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 56870A.005
15 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 56870A.006
16 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 56870A.007
17 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 56870A.008
18 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 56870A.009
19 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, before you—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Chairman Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Secretary, count me in—— 

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I need to be excused. The Defense Committee is just 

starting up a hearing on combat aircraft. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. Chairman Young, thank you for—— 

Mr. YOUNG. I am glad I was able to hear you—— 

Secretary CLELAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. Not only see you again, Max, but hear 

what you have to say this morning. 

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see 

you again. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your eloquent and passionate statement. And I am so grateful for your commitment to this commission and couldn’t say it better than Archibald MacLeish. But that 

Pointe du Hoc project—is something that every member of this subcommittee ought to be proud of. I consider that one of the greatest 

symbols or statements of American service to the world of any 

place on the globe. 

And I thank this subcommittee for the work that you and your 

commission played a role in saving that when it could have just 

fallen into the ocean unceremoniously. That is something that I 

think that will be a great ambassador for the United States for 

long after we are all gone, so I thank you. 

And I know Mr. Israel, who is a student of military history, has 

to be squirming in his seat to get his turn here—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. I want to go. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are going to have to do that soon. 

Secretary CLELAND. Can I say, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, please actual time. 

Secretary CLELAND. You have gotten a written invitation and a 

verbal invitation, but the entire subcommittee is invited to ceremonies D-Day, June 6, 2011, when we will, in effect, honor and recognize all those projects—those three projects that we are doing. 

We are going to complete the saving of the Pointe by September 

this year, but June 6, D-Day of 2011, the entire subcommittee is 

invited to come and we will commemorate the upgrading of the visitor center, the interpretation upgrade, and the saving of the 

Pointe. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is tremendous, and I will personally take it 

on if I am here to ask the governor of Tennessee to come—— 

Secretary CLELAND. Right. 

INTERPRETIVE CENTERS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, let me ask, in terms of interpretive 

centers, with the 2011 budget and the 2010 budget how many centers—interpretive centers—do we have funded at this point and 

then how many more need to be funded? I think it is such a great 

way to bring meaning and allow those who died on foreign soil to 

continue to make a statement to the world. How many more centers do we need to fund? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

Secretary CLELAND. We have three underway, Mr. Chairman, 

starting with Cambridge, which is very much underway at this 

point, and why Cambridge in England—the two cemeteries, Cambridge and Brookwood—but Cambridge is only about 90 miles from 

London and in 2012 we have the London Olympics. And on the 

walls of the missing at Cambridge are the names of Joe Kennedy, 

Jr. and Glenn Miller. 

So it is a powerful symbol of America’s commitment to particularly Western Europe and to freedom in the world. And so when 

the Olympics happen we expect increased visitation at Cambridge 

and we want to be ready for that with our interpretive center. 

There are other interpretive centers on the books, like Manila 

and others. When we got extra money for the interpretive program 

we were able to increase the number that we have underway. If 

you take the remaining items, that is—we have three underway 

but we have 24 cemeteries, so it is painfully obvious that if you 

went at this current rate you would take 15-plus years to bring all 

those interpretive projects up to speed. We wouldn’t like to wait 

that long. We would like to get underway with many of them in 

the next several years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. You know, I don’t have any questions. 

I just want to say, Max, that I don’t think the president or our 

country could be possibly better-served by having someone run the 

American Battle Monuments Commission than you. Your passion, 

your knowledge, the depth, normally I would have asked you to 

prioritize everything, but you did it. I mean, your opening statement basically says it all so I am kind of in Chairman Young’s category. Let us just fund it and move on. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Shall take relatively small amount, 

relative to the $100 billion-plus budget of this committee, an awful 

lot could be done at the ABMC, as they have done with some of 

the extra funding we have done over the last few years. 

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Zach. 

Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PARTNERING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

And Mr. Secretary, it is truly an honor to be here with you. I 

look up to you as a mentor and just a wonderful human being. 

You mentioned something about doing something with the secretary of interior? 

Secretary CLELAND. That is correct. You would like for me to expound on that? 

With $1 million—you gave us a little bit more than $2 million 

last time around, beyond the president’s budget, for which we are 

grateful. And we are taking $1 million of that to crank up what we 

need desperately—a new financial management system so we can 

account worldwide for every dollar and every cent in a more meaningful way. But that is the world of computers. 

All I know about a computer is you need to make sure it is 

turned on. So we have a wonderful team at our agency that is deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

fining the requirements, but to get it done, as they say, we are interested in partnering with a larger agency, and the Department 

of Interior has stepped forward in very meaningful ways. So it may 

be that later this spring we may partner with the Department of 

Interior to, in effect, run our system the way we would like to have 

it run and handle, with us, our financial management of the agency. 

So it is computer-speak, but the Department of Interior has 

stepped forward in very meaningful ways and it would be a pleasure to work with Secretary Salazar and his team, knowing that 

they have the computer power and we have the requirement. And 

that partnership will save us money and this committee money and 

get our job done as well. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Israel. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am struck by an irony. 

In one of the other subcommittees on which I serve, State Foreign 

Operations, Secretary Clinton is going to come in today and ask for 

tens of billions of dollars to fund the State Department for the projection of American diplomacy and you are doing it for less than 

$100 million, and very effectively. This is one of the smartest and 

most profound diplomatic tools that we have in our arsenal and I 

am so grateful that you are leading it. 

I just have one question: I think if Pointe du Hoc could have an 

ambassador to the United States it would be the chairman. [Laughter.] 

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

When I got on this subcommittee the first thing he told me to 

do is to read the Douglas Brinkley book, ‘‘The Boys of Pointe du 

Hoc,’’ which I enjoyed immensely. Pointe du Hoc, we recognized, 

needed some help and this subcommittee with the leadership of the 

chairman and your leadership, Mr. Secretary, is doing that. Do you 

have a sense of, what are the other Pointe du Hocs? What else 

should we be concerned about over the long term? Manila? 

Secretary CLELAND. Manila is the largest cemetery in our system. My father was stationed at Pearl Harbor after the attack in 

World War II. He is going on 96. And he told me that the American 

cemetery we know as the Punchbowl, run by the V.A. in Honolulu, 

was, when he was there, was called Nimitz Bowl. Why would that 

be called Nimitz Bowl? 

Well, only recently have I come to understand that the Pacific in 

World War II was in two theaters—cut into two theaters. One was 

Nimitz’s area of operation, the five-star Nimitz, which my father 

saluted one day. And then the other area was MacArthur’s area of 

operation, the so-called ‘‘Island Hopping Campaign’’ all the way to 

the Philippines. So in effect, one could say that Nimitz’s dead are 

buried at the Punchbowl and MacArthur’s dead are buried at Manila. 

So Manila has over 17,000 dead. Keep in mind that after World 

War I and after World War II the family—the next of kin—was 

given a decision to make—an irrevocable one that could not be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

voked, and that was, ‘‘Bring the body home or leave it where,’’ as 

Teddy Roosevelt said, ‘‘it fell.’’ 

So basically, 60 percent of Americans decided to bring the bodies 

home but 40 percent of Americans decided to leave the son, daughter, uncle, husband, whatever, with their comrades. So the biggest 

cemetery we have is Manila. It is a complex—somewhat complex 

political situation with the Philippines, given the fact that we 

pulled out militarily, and there is no longer such thing as Clark Air 

Base, and also we maintain—I think I can say it right—Cabanatuan. About 60 miles away from Manila is a memorial in honor 

of those who died on the Bataan Death March and at the Cabanatuan POW Camp. Our staff in Manila are supposed to maintain 

that, and we try our best. 

But this is the Pacific. We have been focused, as we all know, 

on Western Europe, and rightfully so. But when you come to another part of World War II, the Pacific often gets overlooked. 

Therefore, we have sent Steve Hawkins out there and Nick Glakas 

is going to go out there, and the director of that cemetery is one 

of our 14 World War II superintendents worldwide. So we are upgrading that cemetery. We are doing a top-to-bottom review and we 

are looking at upgrading the Cabanatuan Memorial. 

So I would say that as we take care of all of these interpretive 

centers, Pointe du Hoc, and other things, probably we need to look 

at Manila and the Cabanatuan Memorial. Because they are so far 

away they tend to be overlooked, even by us. So that may be an 

area of focus that we want to focus in on. 

Otherwise, we are in pretty good shape. We are doing wheelchair 

accessibility in Honolulu; we are doing a wheelchair accessibility 

down in Mexico City. But in terms of a glaring, massive cemetery 

we are talking about Manila as the essence of what went on in the 

Pacific. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am glad you asked that question. Thank you. 

I have no additional questions. 

Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here. I know I speak for 

the entire committee, and you have heard it from them, but to 

those that aren’t here, we are deeply grateful you have taken on 

this responsibility and really look forward to working with you to 

move these projects forward. 

Secretary CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I might say that coming into the American Battle Monuments 

Commission and being there less than a year, it is painfully obvious that we would not be able to make the progress that we have 

been able to make at Pointe du Hoc without this committee. This 

committee literally has saved Pointe du Hoc, and with your leadership, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It is our honor to work with you. 

Thank you very much. 

Stand recessed for just a couple minutes for the next witnesses 

to come in. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Farr follow:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

HONORING OUR PACIFIC HERITAGE

You mentioned in your testimony that the American Battle Monuments Commission has overlooked the significance of the Pacific region. You specifically mentioned 

sites in the Philippines and in Honolulu that should be improved to better honor 

the sacrifices and battles of our armed forces. 

Question. What other sites in the Pacific region would you recommend for improvement or creation? 

Answer. Our plans for the Honolulu Memorial in Hawaii—handicapped access 

and the addition of Vietnam Battle Maps—are outlined in our fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

During his testimony, Secretary Cleland also mentioned the Manila American 

Cemetery, and the Cabanatuan Memorial in the Philippines. As outlined below, 

plans for these sites are part of the Commission’s overall responsibility for overseas 

commemorative cemeteries and memorials. The funding for these future projects are 

budgeted within the President’s out-year allowances for the Commission’s maintenance and infrastructure programs. 

At Manila, we completed a Top to Bottom review that revealed the need to develop a Master Plan for the site. It will take several years to develop and execute 

such a plan, but we expect it to focus around a new Interpretive Center, which 

would be most effective if built near the cemetery’s main entrance, in the area 

where the superintendent’s and assistant superintendent’s quarters are now located. 

The quarters would be moved to the opposite side of the cemetery. We also would 

move the service area to that side of the cemetery and install a headstone engraving 

machine—a critical element in our plan to re-engrave the cemetery’s 17,000 

headstones. 

The Cabanatuan Memorial in the Philippines was erected by the World War II 

survivors of the Bataan Death March and the Cabanatuan Prisoner of War camp. 

It is located at the site of the camp and honors those Americans and Filipinos who 

died during their internment. ABMC accepted responsibility for its operation and 

maintenance in 1989. The memorial, however, has never measured up to ABMC 

standards. Restoration is required to raise its standard to a level commensurate to 

the sacrifice it represents. 

The Commission also operates and maintains the following sites in the Pacific region: the Guadalcanal Memorial in the Solomon Islands, the Saipan Monument in 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Papua Marker in New Guinea. Although not 

to the extent of Cabanatuan, the Guadalcanal Memorial and Saipan Monument also 

are in need of restoration work. 

The Commission has no plans at this time to create new memorials or monuments. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(25) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

WITNESS 

JUDGE BRUCE E. KASOLD 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I call the committee back to order. Our 

next panel is the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ 

Claims. The budget request for fiscal year 2011 is $90.1 million, of 

which $2.5 million is for the pro bono program. The request is an 

increase of $63 million, awfully large increase, but the reason for 

that is we have funding in the budget request for a one-time appropriation associated with GSA expenses for building their veterans’ 

courthouse, which right now we do not have. 

I want to say for the record that I want to express our thanks 

as a committee to Judge Greene, who has been a chief judge of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims for many, many years. 

I thought Judge Greene might be here. Since he is not, though, we 

want to thank him in his absence. 

VOICE. He is here. We are going to go find him. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let him know we are thankful to him for his service. 

And also, Judge Kasold, is that the—— 

Judge KASOLD. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. By way of background, Judge Kasold is a 

retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and thank you for that service—the service in the air defense, artillery, and Judge Advocate’s 

General Corps. He earned a B.S. degree from the U.S. Military 

Academy. 

And Judge Greene, in your absence we were just singing your 

praises. 

Mr. GREENE. Just wanted you to go right along—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will stop at this moment and thank you again 

for your many years of service to our nation’s veterans. And when 

is your final day? 

So this will be our last budget cycle working with you. On behalf 

of all of us and the veterans all across this country, thank you for 

your distinguished and dedicated service to our veterans. 

Well, it has been our privilege and you will have left a legacy of 

moving forward—Veterans’ Courthouse, so wherever you are when 

that courthouse is finished—— 

Mr. GREENE. I will be around. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I know you will be there. 

Judge Kasold also holds a LLM from Georgetown University and 

an LLM equivalent from the Judge Advocate General Legal Center 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

and School. He has served as chief counsel for the secretary of the 

Senate and the Senate sergeant in arms. 

Judge, everybody has a speed bump in the—— 

[Laughter.] 

We forgave Secretary Cleland for his service in the Senate, and 

yours as well. But thank you. Seriously, thank you for that service 

as well. 

He has served as the chief counsel of the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration and has been in private practice. 

We welcome you both back to the committee and we will certainly submit for the record any written testimony you have. 

But I would like to recognize you, Judge. Are you—— 

Judge KASOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Going to make the presentation 

today? I would like to recognize you for any opening—— 

Judge KASOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Wamp—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, let me say before you—— 

Judge KASOLD. Okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Make the comments let me recognize 

Zach to see if—— 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE E. KASOLD

Judge KASOLD. First I would also like to thank yourself for indulging me to speak on behalf of the chief, who is still our chief, 

and thank the chief for letting me speak and get to know you as 

members of the committee since it is the fiscal year 2011 budget 

and I will be responsible for implementing it, and I have been very 

involved in putting it together. 

I see seven key points and I will drive off of the first one primarily, which is that the court has been in existence now for 20 

years—celebrated its 20th year of operating this past fall. During 

that time period we have seen an increase in the number of cases 

to where the past 3 years we have averaged over 4,000 cases a 

year—appeals coming to the court. And the chief and the board of 

judges have focused on that with the assistance from the committee 

and funding and personnel, and that drives the follow-on comments 

that I have. So, six key points stemming from this are: 

First, the chief has implemented an aggressive mediation program through our central legal service staff and that program handles all the cases that come through, but about 70 percent of our 

cases have attorneys by the time they get through the briefing 

process, and those go to mediation with the central legal staff. Fifty 

percent of those cases are being remanded with the agreement of 

the parties. They are being resolved, and most of those are remands to the board with the agreement of the parties. 

That is a tremendous number of cases being resolved at a faster 

pace than going through the entire process. We would like to add 

one attorney, and that is in our budget request, to keep that program going. 

Second, for the past several years the chief has recalled all of our 

senior judges with the exception of one who is—Judge Steinberg 

has had some medical issues. And with Chief Judge Greene soon 

moving into senior status and recall status we will have six judges 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

that will be available for recall. We anticipate that that process 

will be continued for the foreseeable future and anticipate that we 

will have one or two judges onboard throughout the year. We are 

asking for one additional secretary to handle the recall judges 

when they are in that status. 

And then third, continuing to look at how all of our actions get 

processed and examining the other federal circuits, we noticed that 

one of the largest—the largest circuit has appointed a commissioner to assist in the processing of all the myriad of actions that 

take place with regard to the appeals. We have requested funding 

to appoint a commissioner to see how that works within our court, 

and we think it will be very beneficial to, the processing of these 

appeals. 

Fourth, we have the courthouse, which has been mentioned. And 

as you know, the call for a courthouse has really risen from veterans groups and from Congress. We totally support having a permanent symbol of justice for our veterans, and a building that reflects the respect that is due to the veterans for the sacrifices that 

they have given to our nation. A courthouse is associated with, as 

we understand it, all the other federal courts. We obviously totally 

support that and we have moved that forward with the $7 million 

that Congress gave us. The plans are being reviewed right now for 

a piece of property over by the ball field, actually, to determine 

whether or not the courthouse can fit. Our funding is associated 

with making that happen, assuming the plans come back and support it. 

Fifth, the pro bono consortium that you already mentioned, sir, is $2.5 million, and this really just is passed through. 

And then last, if you take a look at our overall operating budget 

it is fairly flat. I know we have a big number here but the operating number is fairly flat. The three additional people add some 

but we have had some expenses that we won’t be incurring again, 

and the real increase is associated with the courthouse that we put 

funding in for. 

And so, those are my comments, supplemented by my statement, 

and any questions that you might have. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Bruce E. Kasold follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 56870A.010
29 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 56870A.011
30 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 56870A.012
31 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 56870A.013
32 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 56870A.014
33 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 56870A.015
34 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 56870A.016
35 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 56870A.017
36 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Let us begin questions. 

Mr. Wamp. 

COURTHOUSE COSTS

Mr. WAMP. Well, just on the topic of the courthouse, what is the 

estimated total cost of the courthouse? 

Judge KASOLD. Well, there are two aspects to it, sir. One is the 

construction, which, we understand is about $50 million to complete. And the other $12 million is an additional piece of property. 

If I can show you the piece of property that we are looking at— 

this is for the piece of property; this much of it is what GSA currently owns; this is a parking lot and the Metro station is right 

here. 

So, for security reasons, because that is a private lot, and for access by veterans crossing the street, there is funding in there to get 

that lot. We don’t know if that can even be done: obviously, it is 

privately-owned, but that is the additional request. Those figures 

are supported, which I believe the Appropriations Committee has, 

or we can get to you if you want. 

Mr. WAMP. The only thing I would say, because I haven’t served 

in ranking position on multiple subcommittees, and actually Debbie 

Wasserman Schultz and I were in charge of finishing the Capitol 

Visitor Center—construction in this city is like no other, and I 

would just encourage you to have everything tightened down on the 

front end. The 5,000 change orders between two prime contractors 

that we had to go through in this city, the problems that you find 

when you get underground, a $50 million budget grow to a $100 

million budget simply by not addressing issues on the front end 

and the delays—even, the ability to have workers available to you 

in this city. 

Everything is difficult and I really—I encourage—you to try to go 

through a private process. You can’t do that in a courthouse because you don’t want the private sector owning the courthouse, but 

wherever the federal government can use private contracting and 

have a build-to-suit, which in real estate we used to call a ‘‘fatallease-back,’’ we need to do that, even in this city. It is just too difficult for the government to procure construction in this city at any 

competitive costs. And we saw it. The Capitol Visitor Center—they 

malign it as a project that got completely out of control, but inherently there are these problems if you build in this city. 

The site is next to the Metro stop, it is close to the National Stadium—— 

Judge KASOLD. Yes, sir. It is right across the street from the 

Metro stop. 

Mr. WAMP. Which is a great location proximity-wise, et cetera, et 

cetera. I am for you, I am just warning you. I have been doing this 

a while around here and it is not like it was 50 years ago, where 

you could actually build in this city. It is hard to do or you better 

have it all tied down on the front end. 

And with that I will yield back. 

Judge KASOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is a good point, sir. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

I am wondering who GSA ought to work with or the court ought 

to work with, in terms of lessons learned. There is no use making 

the—going through the same problems that, you know—— 

Mr. WAMP. Even if they spent 2 hours and went and picked the 

brain of the Architect of the Capitol from start to finish, because 

both Hampman and Steven Ayres could give you some quick pointers on how to begin the process of staging construction, because 

there were a lot of lessons learned. We had the problem once you 

got underground here, because this is a site around the Capitol 

that was kind of riddled with infrastructure problems and had a 

lot of history. That was a part of it, and then after September the 

11th there were a lot of changes made. 

Again, all the change orders became the huge burden of trying 

to close the project out and it cost us a ton of money. And then you 

have litigation. I was on the subcommittee when we did the botanical gardens and it was hard to close the project out in this city 

because everybody wants to litigate. So just know all of that going 

in—eyes wide open. You may have a budget and if you don’t have 

everything addressed on the front end, that budget can explode on 

you and the city is watching. 

Judge KASOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is your present timetable? 

Mr. GREENE. That timetable, if everything went according to— 

from this day forward you are looking at—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will ask that same question, Judge, next year. 

Judge KASOLD. I will bring the documents with us. We have the 

current group of architects on board who are just putting together 

the preliminary timing for their report, determining whether this 

piece of property can support the building that is necessary for the 

court. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please emphasize to them—and I am glad Zach 

mentioned this—please emphasize to them, we want them to be 

honest and straightforward. We know there are unpredictables. 

When you are digging underground under the U.S. Capitol and the 

history of this area, you know, things I guess you could never imagine you will come across, but, you know, we don’t want them to, 

you know, oversimplify this or be too optimistic. We want realistic 

numbers and realistic timetables and not see this project double or 

triple in its cost. 

Mr. GREENE. The one beauty is that there are buildings on either 

side that have been erected recently—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. GREENE. GSA warehouse that has a basement already, so 

that is a signal that maybe you can go a little deeper—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. GREENE [continuing]. And so hopefully—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. No questions. 

CASELOAD INCREASE

Mr. EDWARDS. I just have one question in terms of caseload. You 

said you are averaging about 4,000 cases a year? Over the last 5 

years or so how much has that caseload increased? 

Judge KASOLD. Sir, it has been generally—and I will have to 

refer to the chief further after focusing on them—it has been genVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

erally straightlined from about 2,500 on up to the 4,000, and then 

it seems to, the last 3 years, been a little bit over 4,000. So we are 

not really sure what the impact is going to be down the road and 

beyond. And as you know, we have two additional judges already 

authorized—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Judge KASOLD [continuing]. And hopefully the President will replace—appoint somebody when Chief Judge Greene retires. 

One of the things that we are trying to figure out is how the 

Court is going to be impacted by the claims processed and decided 

by V.A. We are an appellate court. As veterans become more aware 

of their rights—and any stigma that might have been associated in 

the past seems to have been gone—they will apply for benefits very 

soon after they leave service. When you apply very soon after you 

leave service the service connection issue is fairly straightforward. 

I mean, it either is or it isn’t, as opposed to cases that come in 10 

or 15 or 20 years later and now you have an issue and a dispute 

and a review of the facts, et cetera. 

So while they are having an 800,000 explosion of cases down at 

V.A. the board is still somewhere in the 40,000 arena and we have, 

the last 3 years—4,200. So how that is going to impact—what is 

going to happen when they get more administrative judges down 

below—we really don’t know. Our hope is that claims will be remanned back to the regional office and taken care of and decided 

at V.A. 

But we are certainly taking the effort to handle the caseload as 

it exists, and with the two additional judges, if they are appointed, 

any additional increase should be handled by that, and then we 

will have to see because their two positions are temporary. They 

can replace Judge Greene, but myself and Judge Hagel would not 

be replaced if the two recently authorized judges are appointed because the increase in judges is a temporary appointment. And that 

might be appropriate. We might find out that this is the level we 

can live with, but we are certainly trying to prepare. 

AVERAGE LENGTH OF CASES

Mr. EDWARDS. What is the approximate average time wait between the time a case is filed for the court and the time it is adjudicated? 

Judge KASOLD. We keep cases on our books through our adjudication and the federal circuit’s adjudication. If a person appealed 

to the federal circuit, which they have a right to do (although their 

review at the federal circuit is only on legal issues), that is all kept 

on our books, and the full time on that is fairly long—400-some odd 

days—I have it here—344 days. But as we examined this over the 

past year in particular we kind of broke it down. For example, our 

central legal staff processing has a 60 to 90 day window on the mediation process. 

We did find some delay time between that and getting cases to 

the judges, and the chief judge has focused on that and the additional attorney will assist on that to get that down to roughly a 30- 

to 40-day process. It was at around 90. 

We are also noticing that cases that go to judges generally are 

being decided within 60 days, so once it gets to the judge it is genVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

erally decided within 60 days. The exceptions will be those that go 

to panel, which require—generally speaking, oral argument and 

then discussion between judges, as you know, trying to get—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Judge KASOLD [continuing]. Get it resolved. So those two areas 

taking care of some of the CLS time are the ones that we can control. We also have significant delays by both parties, but the heaviest delays coming from the secretary, with regards to motions for 

extension of time. And we have talked internally about what we 

might do on that. 

One of the things that we are looking at and probably getting 

ready to implement is having the attorney identify, not only in a 

particular case but in the last 3 to 6 months, how many requests 

for extension have you asked for, and getting each supervisor of 

every attorney on the case to identify the number of extensions requested. So you might have 100 from the first attorney, 200 from 

the supervising, and 500 from the overall supervising attorney, and 

that is information that, when they look at it just personally is 

going to have an impact, and then impact the Secretary himself. 

In fairness, we understand that the Secretary is hiring more people to work on that and they are aware of it. The chief has spoken 

with the head of Group 7 down at V.A. who are the attorneys that 

represent the Secretary before us, and, there is only human practicality of how much you can handle, but that is what we are working on there. In the federal circuit we have no control over that 

time but it is one of the time periods that I think we are going to 

identify out so that people understand that this court is working 

with the cases that we have as best we can. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Over the last 5 years have the trend lines been 

for longer waiting times, stable, or shorter— 

Judge KASOLD. They have gone longer the last 3 years also. They 

were in the 300–350 range from 2001 to 2006 and in the 400 

range—went back down in 2009 to 344. The 2007 and 2008 ranges 

jumped up—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. With your—— 

Judge KASOLD. Actually, this past year we are back down to the 

average. [Note: Later clarified that because the Court is now separately reporting the time a case is on appeal to the Federal Circuit.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. If Congress approves the budget as requested by 

the administration for 2011 do you expect those numbers to stay 

where they are or go down or continue to go up, in terms of waiting 

time? 

Judge KASOLD. I would expect we could certainly maintain and 

we would hope that it would go down. If you have a commissioner 

you can take on certain responsibilities currently that judges are 

taking on, and that the clerk can’t, and when that happens you 

usually have a better processing time, although we are moving to 

take that down too—with continued effort at the CLS level after 

mediation is done—to try and get things moved out there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

I have no additional questions. 

Judge, thank you very much. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

And Judge Greene, thank you. Thank you again, since this will 

be your last time before our committee. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Farr follow:] 

Question 1: Legal Assistance for Vets.—For FY 11 you ask for $2.5 million for the 

Veterans’ Consortium Pro Bono Program, which is an increase of $700,000 over the 

FY 10 request. You also stated that the caseload at the Court has essentially doubled in the last few years. As the number of cases at the Court continues to climb, 

how can we make sure that adequate Pro Bono services are being fulfilled? If you 

were to get the full amount you are requesting, how many Veterans would be 

served? Please describe the kinds of Pro Bono cases your office handles and the 

length of disposition? 

Answer. Since 1992 the Court’s appropriation has included funding for the Legal 

Services Corporation (LCS) to develop and administer the Veterans Consortium Pro 

Bono Program (Pro Bono Program). The LCS develops the budget for the Pro Bono 

Program and submits it for inclusion as part of the Court’s budget request. Funds 

appropriated for the Pro Bono Program immediately are transferred to LCS for administration of the Pro Bono Program. Because this question pertains to the budget 

and operations of the Pro Bono Program, we have forwarded this inquiry to the Executive Board of the program and their response is attached. See Attachment. 

Question 2: Recalled Retired Judges.—Your budget calls for an additional full time 

employee to staff the ‘‘Recalled Retired Judges.’’ This suggests that there are not 

enough judges to adequately handle the existing—and rising—caseload. Why aren’t 

you asking for positions for more full time judges? 

Answer. On retirement, our judges may elect to continue to serve for a minimum 

of 90 days each year, on an as needed basis, at the call of the Chief Judge. To date, 

all of our ‘‘retiring’’ judges have elected to be subject to recall. All but one of these 

judges have been recalled for service over the past several years (the exception 

being for medical reasons), such that the Court has had the equivalent of from 1 

to 1.5 full-time judges to assist in adjudication of appeals and related matters. 

We currently are authorized two additional judges. If those positions are filled, 

that may reduce the need to recall our senior judges, but that will depend on the 

ebb and flow of our caseload, and on how many matters require decision by a judge. 

Currently, non-judicial mediation efforts are resulting in about 1,500 appeals per 

year being resolved without a judge’s review, and if funding for the requested Appellate Commissioner position is provided, many EAJA cases and most petitions likely 

can be decided by the Commissioner, perhaps relieving the need for additional 

judges even as our caseload might increase (although a significant increase will require additional judges). 

Until such time as new judges are appointed, and for the first year or so after 

their appointment (as they acclimate to the new position), we anticipate the continued need for service by our senior judges. It should be noted that currently we provide administrative support to our senior judges from our existing staff. Our request 

for an additional full-time employee is premised on our projected need and intent 

to have senior judges serving essentially throughout the year, at least until a year 

or so after new judges are appointed. 

Should the appointment of two new judges (and the appointment of a judge to fill 

Chief Judge Greene’s position when he retires in November of this year) ultimately 

reduce the need for recalling our senior judges, we certainly would reassign the new 

position being created to provide administrative assistance to our senior judges, or 

eliminate the position entirely, as the circumstances warrant. 

As for additional judges beyond the nine authorized, at this time, we are not sure 

to what degree our caseload will be impacted by the growth in claims at VA. Many 

of the appeals involve claims filed years after a veteran leaves service. Anecdotally, 

it appears that more veterans now are becoming aware of their potential right to 

benefits and are applying for them upon leaving service or soon thereafter. In these 

cases, it is likely that the key issue of service connection of a disability will be more 

easily and clearly resolved, such that the growth of cases at VA will be of a magnitude greater than the growth in appeals to the Court. After approximately a decade during which the number of appeals to the Court hovered consistently around 

2,500 per year, in 2005 the Court experienced a jump and received over 3,400 appeals. Since then the Court has received between 3,700 and 4,700 appeals per year, 

with 2009 being our biggest year ever with 4,725 appeals filed. 

We are continuously assessing our needs and developing ways to more efficiently 

process the appeals and other matters before the Court, while ensuring that judicial 

matters are resolved by a judge. We have not requested additional judges at this 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 

time because we have two additional positions authorized, and it seemed appropriate to first see if their appointment will reduce the need for consistent recall of 

our senior judges to provide timely, judicial review of appeals and related matters. 

Response to Question #1, provided by the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. 

Question.—Legal Assistance for Vets—For FY 11 you ask for $2.5 million for the 

Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, which is an increase of $700,000 over the 

FY 10 request. You also stated that the caseload at the Court has essentially doubled in the last few years. As the number of cases at the Court continues to climb, 

how can we make sure that adequate Pro Bono services are being fulfilled? 

Answer: The Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program (‘‘Program’’) transmits its 

annual budget request to the President and Congress through the Court, but otherwise operates independently to accomplish its mission of recruiting, training and 

providing qualified counsel to Appellants at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (‘‘Court’’. We routinely monitor the work output of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (‘‘BVA’’) and the number of cases filed annually at the Court. We agree that 

the number of cases at the Court will continue to climb for the foreseeable future. 

In FY09, the board of directors of the Program made several decisions (concurred 

in by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC)) that will be implemented in FY10 and 

FY11 that are designed to ensure that the Program is in the best position to meet 

the anticipated demand for pro bono legal services at the Court and that those services will continue to be of the same high quality provided by the Program to our 

Nation’s veterans over the past 17 years. These decisions include: (1) amending the 

Program’s bylaws to add up to four additional independent directors and to take action to fill two of these new positions as soon as practicable; (2) hiring an Executive 

Director who shall be vested with the necessary authority to manage the day-to-day 

operations of the Program; (3) moving from the current atypical arrangement whereby two of the four founding constituent organizations (NVLSP and PVA) serve as 

the employers, rather than the Program, for all full-time employees performing work 

for the Program to a more typical organizational structure that will have the Program become the employer for all full-time employees resulting in much needed consistency in the areas of personnel policy, management and performance evaluation; 

and, (4) obtaining all other services needed through arms-length contracts with 

service providers. 

We believe these decisions will enable the Program to build upon past accomplishments, result in improved organizational capacity and performance, and justify the 

request for the funding increase in FY11 over FY10. 

As for the quality of the services provided by the Program, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) periodically conducts a review of program operations. They did so in 

the summer of 2009, and their report (LSC Office of Program Performance, Program 

Quality Report of June 23–25, 2009) states: ‘‘It should be emphasized that the Consortium has consistently achieved its core mission of ensuring that pro se appellants 

receive effective representation before the Court.’’ [LSC Report, at 5.] To ensure that 

we can continue to assist veterans before the Court, we request that the Congress 

continue to provide adequate funding to make that expectation a continuing reality 

for America’s veterans. 

Question. If you were able to get the full amount you are requesting, how many 

Veterans would be served? 

Answer: The Program has seen a steady increase in recent years in the number 

of cases being evaluated, as well as those being referred to Program counsel. In CY 

2009 we evaluated almost 850 cases. However, the impact systemically is significantly greater, even if it cannot be precisely quantified. While we evaluated cases 

before the Veterans Court, we also had Program counsel, in a number of cases, continue to assist those veterans, upon Court remand, at the BVA or at the various 

VA Regional Offices. Counsel also took appeals in Program cases to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Several of the cases accepted by the program resulted in precedential decisions from the Court, which can have a systemic effect 

and can impact many other veterans claims or appeals as well. Currently, we have 

a case involving equitable tolling, where counsel has filed a petition for certiorari 

before the Supreme Court. A favorable decision could impact hundreds of other veterans’ appeals. In addition, we provided training to hundreds of volunteer lawyers, 

and these lawyers in turn are able to provide assistance or advice to veterans in 

their communities, in addition to the volunteer work being done on a Program case. 

Finally, our Case Evaluation component receives hundreds of email or telephone inquiries from veterans annually, and while most of them do not have cases pending 

before the Court, we nevertheless attempt to provide useful suggestions or general 

information to those veterans on the issues posited in their inquiries. So a simple 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

‘‘# of cases evaluated’’ does not begin to address the ever-widening scope of the Program’s impact upon veterans’ legal issues. 

Question. Please describe the kinds of Pro Bono cases your office handles and the 

length of disposition? 

Answer. The BVA Chairman’s Report lists the various kinds of appeals decided 

by the BVA [Chairman’s Report, at 20]. They include the following kinds of appeals, 

virtually all of which are issues which have been appealed to the Court and which 

the program has been asked to review: Disability Compensation, Pension, Survivors’ 

Benefits, Burial Benefits, Education, Insurance, Loan Guaranty, Medical, Vocational 

Rehabilitation, and various jurisdictional issues (timeliness of action by the veterans 

at the agency level, timeliness of filing of a Notice of Appeal, etc.). The Program 

has also been involved in issues impacting attorney fee litigation under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, and subject-specific litigation involving complicated legal 

issues such as radiation and asbestos exposure, exposure to toxic chemicals (including Agent Orange from the Vietnam era), PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), 

and unexplained illnesses from the Persian Gulf War. 

There can be many delays in the progress of a case through the Court. The length 

of disposition can vary according to the complexity of the issue(s) and whether the 

case can be quickly remanded to the BVA for an obvious error, or whether the case 

must be fully briefed and presented to one or more judges of the Court for a decision. A remand case can be disposed of in a matter of several months (and most 

of the Court’s favorable actions on behalf of veterans are remands to the agency), 

whereas a fully briefed case, even without oral argument, can easily take a year or 

more to resolve. Many delays are simply a function of the number of pending cases 

and the availability of VA General Counsel staff and Court staff to process the appeals. 

The Pro Bono Program appreciates the opportunity to provide this information to 

the Committee, and we stand ready to provide such additional information as the 

Committee may need or desire. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

WITNESS 

JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL 

WORKS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Continuing with this morning’s hearing, we will now take testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budget request of $38.1 million for the Department of the Army, specifically 

for Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldier’s and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. 

We want to welcome you, Secretary Darcy, to our subcommittee. 

It is great to have you here. 

Ms. Darcy is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

and will testify on behalf of the cemeteries. And she is accompanied 

by someone who this committee knows well, has been before our 

committee on a number of occasions, the son of a former superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, Mr. Jack Metzler. 

Mr. Metzler, we are glad to have you here. Welcome back. 

By way of background, Ms. Darcy assumed her duties as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on August 11, 2009, 

and thank you for taking on that responsibility. Prior to this assignment she was the senior environmental advisor to the Senate 

Finance Committee. 

Members, this is three in a row—three for three on Senate staffers and members. 

Thank you for that service. Even though we like to kid about the 

other side of the Capitol we know that they, too, are important. 

She was the senior environmental advisor to the Senate Finance 

Committee responsible for environment, conservation, and energy 

issues. She is a graduate of Boston College and earned a Master 

of Science degree in resource development from Michigan State 

University. 

Secretary Darcy, your full written statement will be submitted 

for the record. We welcome you once again to the committee today 

and would like to recognize you for any opening comments you care 

to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO-ELLEN DARCY

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I 

really appreciate the opportunity—this is my first opportunity to 

testify before this subcommittee and I am happy to be here to testify in support of the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget for the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

Army’s cemeterial expenses program, which includes Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National 

Cemetery. 

With me today, you already introduced Jack who is our longserving superintendent of the cemetery. Also I am accompanied by 

Ms. Claudia Thornbloom, who is my deputy assistant for management and budget, and Mr. Alan Gregory, who is the chief financial 

officer for the Arlington National Cemetery. 

You said you will take my full statement for the record, and I just want to start out by saying the budget for 2011 is $38.1 million, which is $1.75 million less than the 2010 appropriation of 

$39.85 million. The 2011 budget will enable us to maintain the 

standards expected of these two national shrines. 

There are two items in the budget of particular significance that 

I would like to highlight for the subcommittee. The first is, within 

the budget we include $7 million. That $7 million is either to continue construction of the Millennium Project or to construct Phase 

V of the Columbarium Project. Our preference would be to use the 

funds for the Millennium Project, which will enable us to distribute 

the 25 to 30 daily funerals across a broader area of the cemetery, 

thus providing each funeral the dignity and the privacy that it deserves. 

Construction of the Millennium Project has been on hold since 

August while alternative designs were considered. A new design 

has been developed that significantly reduces the environmental 

impact on previously undeveloped areas of the cemetery. The new 

design accepts a very modest reduction in the number of in-ground 

burial sites but increases the number of niches for cremated remains. 

Mr. Chairman, in January you asked that the new design be 

viewed by the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capitol 

Planning Commission. Those reviews are being pursued. As soon as 

the reviews are completed, we will share the results with you. Depending upon the outcome of those reviews and the final decision 

on the project design, the budget amount of $7 million will be applied either, again, to continuation of the Millennium Project or to 

the construction of Phase V of the Columbarium Project. 

The Millennium Project, as I said, remains the most important 

project for the cemetery because it will extend the useful life of the 

cemetery for in-ground burials and it will relieve the overcrowding 

for the funerals, and it will provide additional niche capacity. All 

three of those things could be accomplished with the Millennium 

Project. 

The second project I would like to highlight is the new master 

plan for the cemetery that is needed to evaluate a full array of options related to the management of the cemetery in the future, including but not limited to capital development, land management, 

burial eligibility, and the consideration of another possible burial 

site. We appreciate the subcommittee’s support in providing $1 million included in the 2010 budget to initiate the new master plan. 

The 2011 budget includes an additional $1 million to continue the 

development of this master plan. 

In the initial step in developing the master plan, we are going 

to schedule what we are calling a facilitated visioning session with 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

all the interested stakeholders to seek their input on the master 

plan. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the 2011 budget is adequate to 

maintain the existing infrastructure, to provide services to the visiting public, to continue capital improvements needed to accommodate future burials, and preserve the dignity, the serenity, and the 

traditions of these great cemeteries. With that I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Jo-Ellen Darcy follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 56870A.018
47 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 56870A.019
48 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 56870A.020
49 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 56870A.021
50 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 56870A.022
51 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 56870A.023
52 

Mr. EDWARDS. Secretary Darcy, thank you very much. 

Zach, would you like to start? 

Mr. WAMP. Well, ironically all three of us will get you this afternoon at the—— 

Ms. DARCY. You know what? I knew that. 

LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS FOR ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, where you have got your hands full with the Corps of 

Engineers. So we all share both these subcommittees and see that 

this is a very important piece of your work but he is probably the 

one that actually, hands-on, has these responsibilities. 

I am just interested because, like many of us, we have been to 

funerals at Arlington for our fallen from our home states during 

this era of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am 

just interested about the long-term prognosis of Arlington and how 

we, as members of this subcommittee, can best support you. 

Like, what are you—she laid it out, but in terms of your priorities for just kind of bread and butter preservation, long-term viability, land—what is your prognosis right now for Arlington as we 

go forward based on this persistent conflict and, frankly, more men 

and women in uniform falling, still by the day? 

Mr. METZLER. With the master plan of 1998 we have identified 

the expansion capabilities of the cemetery—and we still think some 

of those are viable options. 

So with those items in mind that will give us grave space to the 

year 2060 for new burials. Now, along with grave space we are also 

building additional Columbarium space. So with each one of these 

projects we are assessing the need for Columbarium as they are 

just as important for the public as in ground burial. 

TRENDS IN BURIAL AND CREMATION

Mr. WAMP. All right. Are there any trends in terms of veterans 

on how the families choose for them to be interned versus 20 or 30 

years ago? Are more and more people using—is it still traditional 

burial with a casket or are there any changes that we can expect? 

I know in the national cemeteries in my hometown right now, 

which they have extended the life to probably 2040 right now, that 

the Columbarium has had a big impact. That is kind of the new 

direction. 

Mr. METZLER. Cremation has really been on the rise. We are 

watching that very closely. At present, about 65 percent of our total 

burials are for cremated remains. Now, that doesn’t mean all 65 

percent of those go into the Columbarium; we are still putting quite 

a few in the ground. 

But what the trend seems to be right now, if mom or dad passed 

away 15 or 20 years ago and the surviving spouse passes away 

today, more and more of those individuals are being cremated. The 

family is waiting for a convenient time for the burial and then coming to Arlington with mom or dad, the second parent, being buried 

as cremated remains. 

At the same time, our eligibility is such that any veteran with 

active duty service ending with a discharge is entitled to have their 

cremated remains placed into our columbariums at Arlington. So 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
53 

we are seeing that popularity continue to be taken advantage of by 

the veterans. But certainly traditional ground burial is what we do 

every day at Arlington. 

Mr. WAMP. And the spouses’ rights on their internment, like in 

other national cemeteries, is that also true at Arlington? Is it treated the same in terms of the spouse and the stacked burial? 

Mr. METZLER. Arlington treats it the same, so whoever passes 

away first in a traditional burial would go at seven feet and the 

surviving spouse would go on top at five feet. It does not matter 

who predeceases whom. As long as the servicemember is eligible 

for ground burial the spouse is automatically entitled, as well. 

Mr. WAMP. And you are following your father in this life commitment to service? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, my father was there from 1951 to 1972 and 

I came to Arlington in 1991. I worked in the Veterans’ Administration prior to that for 17 years in their National Cemetery Administration. 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, but isn’t that really special for family to be able 

to continue—— 

Mr. METZLER. It is a real honor for me to be there, and it is a 

very special commitment I have. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, I want to thank you for that, and not taking 

anything away from you, Madam Secretary, because I understand 

it is a part of your portfolio, but this is a special situation, and I 

want to honor your service. 

Mr. METZLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Steve. 

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question about historic interpretation: Arlington is not just 

hallowed ground, it is also historic ground. It has historic significance, and my question is whether your funding enables you to do 

everything that you want to do with respect to historic interpretation so that when people arrive there they have a full perspective 

on the significance of the facility? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, one of the things that we are doing right 

now, sir, is we have enhanced our visitor services at our dedicated 

visitor center at the entrance to the cemetery. Within that visitor 

center we are bringing more and more interpretive items in there. 

As an example, right now we have the Fallen Heroes display of 

servicemembers who were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; their 

photos are being displayed inside—that were provided to us from 

an artist. 

At the same time, as historical events come along they are featured in our visitor center. We have the ability to give anyone, 7 

days a week, the location of the gravesite inside the cemetery. We 

have developed a Web site and Facebook Page. Those types of 

items are appearing more and more on our Web site and our 

Facebook pages. It has become very popular with the public to ask 

questions and to make inquiries on different historical issues of the 

cemetery. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Is there, at the visitor center—and forgive me, I 

haven’t been there in several years, actually—is there a historic 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
54 

narrative at the visitor center? Is there something that tells the 

story of the cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. We have a tape from HBO that was done on the 

cemetery a number of years ago, and it runs continuously. On the 

top of the hour it stops. And, if you don’t want to walk up to see 

the changing of the guard, you can view it from inside the visitor 

center on a closed circuit TV. 

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER CRACKS

Mr. ISRAEL. And can you go into more detail on the cracks that 

have appeared at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir. The block of marble that covers the Tomb 

of the Unknown Soldier came to Arlington around the 1930s. 

Around the 1960s, cracks were starting to be discovered there. 

They have continued to grow; they have continued to expand as the 

weather freezes and thaws, and they were re-grouted, or fixed, if 

you will, the first time in the late 1980s. 

Since that time we have studied them a little bit longer. We are 

ready to re-grout them again in the spring of this year. We will remove all the old grout, put in new grout. So we are monitoring 

that. We have also had a geologist do a study. We are looking for 

some additional diagnostic type of work on the marble that is available in the private sector to see what we can see inside the marble 

to see how these cracks are progressing as best as technology will 

allow us to do. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Israel. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I had another subcommittee—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We know there are multiple meetings right now. 

Thank—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. The Commissioner of the IRS. [Laughter.] 

AMPHITHEATER

Thank you, sir. I just had one question, and I am a little late, 

I missed your testimony. But I remember your predecessor there, 

they talked about the amphitheater there at Arlington, it was in 

need of some repair. That was kind of one of his priorities and I 

just wondered, did you touch on that? Or is that something that 

you are concerned about? Is that—trying to upgrade and modernize 

that? Anything regarding the amphitheater? 

Mr. METZLER. We did not talk about it in today’s testimony, but 

the amphitheater is a constant maintenance item. It is a building 

that was built between 1915 and 1920. It is an outdoor building. 

It is marble. The marble continues to show wear on it. 

We have had two major projects in the last 20 years at the amphitheater to address specific issues—leaking roofs—and we have 

identified some additional work as funds become available to continually replace marble that is worn. But the amphitheater itself 

right now: structurally it is in great shape and we can still conduct 

services there every year. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Are there any funds this year for any kind of 

renovations or fix-ups or whatever? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
55 

Mr. METZLER. We have not in this year, no. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is there any particular reason? 

Mr. METZLER. The priorities right now are pushing us toward the 

Millennium Project to expand the cemetery and the gravesite capability. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I got you. Okay. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Farr. 

WEST COAST AS EXPANSION OPTION

Mr. FARR. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

apologize for being late. I also had another appropriations committee at the same time. But I am very interested in this subject 

matter, and I appreciate having our first hearing on it. 

I visited our monument in the Philippines, which, you know, I 

wasn’t here for Secretary Cleland’s testimony but suggesting that 

Honolulu be a place to honor our armed service forces I might 

just—the Philippines is really incredible because it does have the 

whole depiction of all the war battles and essentially all the people—all the MIAs, all the people in each battle that was lost. It is 

an incredible—it is an incredible place but it is not on U.S. soil 

and—— 

But I think the West—I mean, I represent the largest military 

base ever closed, Fort Ord, California. And Fort Ord was a training 

base for all the Pacific theater battles—World War II, Korea, and 

Vietnam—and I am just throwing out that as you look at this feasibility for the Arlington National Cemetery. I mean, the growth— 

you are going to end up to a point of no return where you can’t buy 

any more land. And I guess that the columbarium capacity will be 

filled in 2052, that there are—you know, you grow it out. 

So one of the things I have suggested along the lines of Secretary 

Cleland is why not look at California, because we have land out 

there that is in federal ownership that is about 20,000 acres still, 

and BLM has a lot of it, but we also have a place set aside for our 

veteran cemetery. So we are hoping this year we get some—get further along. 

It had to be a state cemetery because we drew these crazy lines, 

and saying if you are within a 70-mile circle you can’t—and there 

is existing stations and existing cemeteries then you can’t build another one. 

And so what they did in California—if you think of the state it 

is a long state—the department went around and built these cemeteries through the San Joaquin Valley, and so that way you cover 

all the way from Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. But all the people 

live on the coastline, so I was trying to get the secretary to look 

at elliptical circles rather than round circles. And you could justify 

a national cemetery—I mean a veterans’ cemetery at Fort Ord. 

But nonetheless, my question is in your feasibility study would 

it be possible to look at other places other than surrounding Arlington—look to other geographical regions of—the majority of the veterans, I think, still, who fought in those campaigns live in the 

West. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
56 

Ms. DARCY. I am not sure if we are looking outside of the immediate Arlington footprint for additional capacity in the master plan. 

Mr. METZLER. I think our focus would be on the National Capitol 

Region for any expansion of Arlington Cemetery, if that is possible, 

and this is one of the items that the new master plan would address: What is the future of Arlington Cemetery beyond the year 

2060 when we build out? 

I think more in line with what you are saying, sir, would be the 

Department of Veterans Affairs mission to expand, and I know that 

they are actively doing that. They are looking for spaces, and I realize that they have the—— 

Mr. FARR. No. They are stuck in their mold, and they are not 

changing it, and Congress doesn’t seem to want to help them 

change it. But you at the Army have the responsibility for Arlington, right? 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. That is why you are here today. And you are looking 

at what do you do when you run out of capacity—I am just suggesting that, you know, perhaps there ought to be a West Coast Arlington, a West Coast Army big Arlington-type cemetery. 

Mr. METZLER. Well, I think when we do our master plan that 

will be part of the discussion in our master plan is, what is the future after 2060? And I think at this point there is nothing off the 

table. I think everything is on the table for discussion purposes. 

Mr. FARR. Well I would like to get it in the record, so I will do 

that whatever way I can through this committee or through—just 

that you have looked at the feasibility of that where you have federally-owned land as you will have to buy a lot of it, you know? So 

pass that on. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

TOTAL CEMETERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sam. 

Let me first thank you both for your work. You are overseeing 

what most of us would probably consider the most hallowed ground 

in the continental United States, and thank you for your responsibilities in that area. 

Let me ask you about the Total Cemetery Management System. 

This has been ongoing for a long time to try to automate the systems. Where are we in that process? How much longer before it is 

completed? 

Mr. METZLER. We have two pots of money, if you will, right now 

that we are working with. We have an amount of money from last 

year, 2010, and an amount of money that we are asking for in this 

year in fiscal year 2011 to continue the process. Now, at the same 

time several allegations have been made. The Army’s Inspector 

General Office has taken these on at the direction of the Secretary 

of the Army. They are looking into how we have done, what we are 

going to do, where we are going to be in the future, and I think 

until this investigation has concluded and we get the recommendations out of the I.G.’s office we are kind of on hold right now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do we have any idea of the timing of the I.G. report? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
57 

Mr. METZLER. They are wrapping it up right now and I would 

hope that in the next 60 to 90 days they would be making their 

presentation to the Secretary of the Army, and then from there we 

would get some additional guidelines about the cemetery, which 

would give us a direction to go at that point. 

MILLENNIUM PROJECT

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. Let me ask you about the Millennium Project. There is a temporary hold on building a new wall 

surrounding Arlington Cemetery. Secretary Geren shared with us 

a concern that, you know, there is a balance here and no one has 

the magic answer what that proper balance is between protecting 

the privacy of those families who go there to pay respects to their 

loved ones versus the fact that this is a national monument that 

all Americans are moved by, and just the concern that we not build 

a—basically a fortress wall, and that is an exaggeration, around 

Arlington Cemetery. 

I have met with Mr. Metzler and said, you know, it is not our 

subcommittee’s interest to put this project on hold forever. I think 

they are moving ahead and some of the changes that have been 

proposed—you are talking to the commission, I believe, or you are 

presenting that to the commission. 

But I, you know, I just urge you, if you get time, go out there 

and take a look at it. It is not our desire or role to be the architect 

of Arlington Cemetery; we don’t have those capabilities. But because this hallowed ground belongs to all Americans I would like 

our subcommittee to do some due diligence and be sure we are 

comfortable with where we are going with this. So if you get a 

chance to look at that, I would welcome that. 

So how long do you think the commission will review the plans 

before they would—— 

Mr. METZLER. I would hope that they would review them this 

next month, and then we would get a read-out within a couple 

weeks after their meeting. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. METZLER. And then we would have something, again, within 

I think about a 60-day period. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is the status of the executive order that the 

Secretary of the Army put in—Mr. Geren put in before he retired? 

Was that a 1-year hold on building additional walls around the 

cemetery, or what—do you recall what the time period was of his 

order? 

Mr. METZLER. I do not recall a specific time period with it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. Well, we will follow up, and I appreciate the time you have spent with us on that and look forward to 

working together to move that forward. 

Mr. METZLER. I mean, let me—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. Clarify one point. We will not do any 

construction without the Secretary of the Army’s concurrence, and 

of course, without your blessing here in the committee. So we are 

waiting for both those items to happen and we would certainly invite the members at any time if they want to come out to do a tour 

of the cemetery so we can show you what we are trying to do there. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
58 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I spoke to Mr. Israel before he left. He has 

a great interest in Arlington and our overseas cemeteries, so he 

may want to do the same as well. 

ROBERT L. HOWARD AND MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS

I have no additional questions. The only thing I might add for 

the record is on Monday at Arlington Cemetery, just as a reminder 

of how hallowed that ground is, a colonel—most Americans don’t 

know his name—Robert L. Howard—was an Army special ops sergeant; he retired as a colonel. But he did five tours of duty in Vietnam, was wounded 15 times, was nominated for three separate actions for the Medal of Honor, and because we do not anymore allow 

an individual to receive more than one Medal of Honor he received 

the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Silver Star, eight Purple Hearts. He died in my hometown where his 

daughter lived; he just spent the last month or 2 of his life there, 

but—— 

Mr. WAMP. What is his name? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Robert L. Howard. And we tried to let—I know 

some military newspapers have written stories recently about him, 

but America needs to hear this story. It is such an inspirational 

story. I think he was the most decorated living American, and some 

of the Army special ops soldiers that I know—the retirees that take 

such pride in Colonel Howard’s record—compared his U.S. medals 

with Audie Murphy’s, and said he actually earned more medals 

than Audie Murphy. But most Americans never heard of him. 

But you have—it is over 400 Medal of Honor recipients buried 

there. And one of the things I have talked to Mr. Metzler about, 

Madam Secretary—and again, it is not our role to micromanage, 

perhaps plant seeds of ideas, and then it is up to you to decide 

what works or not. But it just seems that one of the things that 

I think many people would be fascinated to get access to is information on the Medal of Honor recipients that are buried there. And 

just as our cemeteries overseas, as Secretary Cleland mentioned, 

are great statements of American service to the world, and it is an 

education process to have people go visit those overseas cemeteries, 

I think it would be interesting—how many people visit Arlington 

a year? 

Mr. METZLER. About 4 million a year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Four million a year. And I would like to follow up 

on that and see if there is a way we can work together to provide 

some information on Medal of Honor recipients. And I want to respect the culture of Arlington Cemetery, maybe a sense of—and I 

would respect it since it has been that culture that you don’t differentiate between one person and another, they are all heroes out 

there, but I think most Americans would pay special tribute to 

those who have earned the Medal of Honor. So we will follow up 

with you on that. 

I have no additional questions. 

Members, if you all don’t—— 

Thank you both. 

Madam Secretary, thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Jack. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
59 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Ranking Member Wamp 

follow:] 

Question. Once the crack on the Tomb is patched in April, how long do you anticipate before the crack may need to be fixed again? 

Answer. According to subject matter experts on marble repair, a successful repair 

may be expected to last 7 to 10 years, or as many as 12 years with proper maintenance. The last repair to the Tomb Monument was completed in October 1989 and 

lasted until approximately 2002 (i.e., 13 years) when signs of failure of the bond between the stone and mortar first began to appear. 

Question. What do you anticipate to be the lifespan of the Tomb once the crack 

is fixed? 

Answer. Re-grouting the cracks will not prevent them from continuing to lengthen 

and extend further into the stone over time, although it is not known how long, if 

ever, before the cracking might take to eventually affect the structural integrity and 

lifespan of the monument. A preliminary report on the structural integrity of the 

monument is currently under review. Also, as part of the upcoming repair, photogrammetry and remote sensing will be conducted to aid in monitoring the condition 

of the monument. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Farr follow:] 

CREATING AN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AT FORMER FORT ORD

Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) is a national treasure with historic military 

significance, and is considered by many to be the premier national veterans’ cemetery. More than four million people visit ANC each year, making it one of the most 

visited national cemeteries. 

You testified that ANC’s capacity for both interments and inurnments would be 

exhausted by 2060. 

Secretary Cleland’s testified that much of the focus of our military monuments 

and historic battle sites has been located in Western Europe. While this is understandable in some ways, Secretary Cleland also said that in the future, more emphasis should be placed on honoring the sacrifices our armed forces made in the Pacific region. 

Many deceased veterans of these wars in the Pacific are already buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Many living veterans of these wars currently live on the 

West Coast, and would appreciate a final resting place equal in prestige to Arlington 

National Cemetery but closer to home. 

An ideal site for this kind of cemetery on the West Coast would be at former Fort 

Ord, in my district in California. Putting a prestigious national cemetery at former 

Fort Ord not only honors the history of Fort Ord as a major staging ground for wars 

in the Pacific region, but also honors the sacrifices of the many veterans who called 

Fort Ord ‘‘home’’. 

For FY11, you are requesting $1 million create a new Master Plan to evaluate 

the long term plans for ANC. As the Army drafts this new master plan, I request 

that you include a West Coast Arlington National Cemetery at the former Fort Ord. 

Answer. This proposal appears to be a matter that falls under the purview of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Arlington National Cemetery is a unique Federal institution within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that is overseen by 

the Department of the Army. I am advised by OMB that the VA authorizing statute 

(38 U.S.C. § 2400) provides authority to create national cemeteries elsewhere within the United States. 

VA currently maintains eight national cemeteries for veterans in California, including the new Bakersfield National Cemetery, which opened in 2009. In addition, 

VA is scheduled to open a national cemetery (annex) at Miramar, California, in fall 

of 2010 to continue service provided by the existing national cemetery at Ft. 

Rosencrans. VA continues to consider establishment of new national cemeteries in 

the areas of greatest unmet burial need, under current VA authorities and policies. 

The Army has coordinated with VA on this matter and has agreed that, in the light 

of VA’s authority and ongoing program, it does not seem appropriate or desirable 

for the Army to become involved. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(61) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 

WITNESS 

TIMOTHY C. COX, COO 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Members, we have several votes that 

could be called any time now, so that is good news for the two of 

you, and we might have to cut this a bit short. But members, we 

don’t need a long introduction to Mr. Cox because he has testified 

very ably before our subcommittee on a number of occasions since 

he has been the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home since September of 2002. He is accompanied by Mr. 

Steven McManus, who is the Chief Financial Officer of the home. 

And Mr. Wamp, would you care to make any—— 

Mr. WAMP. No, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Comments? 

If not, why don’t we go directly into your opening comments, in 

case we do have votes called in the next few minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY COX

Mr. COX. Great. Well, as we have done in the past, Mr. Chairman, I will summarize for you since you have the testimony fully 

before you and give you highlights, then if you have time for questions, I would be happy to answer them at the end. 

First of all, thank you for having me again. I really am proud 

of presenting our 2011 budget to you all. And I also want to thank 

you for your support over the past years, especially in Gulfport, 

where you gave us generously funds to go back. I would like to report that facility will open in October 2010, and we are going to 

have opening ceremonies November 9th. I will certainly get to all 

your offices a formal invitation, but consider this an informal invitation to invite you down for our opening ceremonies. 

In D.C. we are modernizing one of our buildings, the Scott Dormitory, last year you approved and funded $5.6 million and $70 

million, respectively, in 2009 and 2010, and our total request for 

2011 is $71,200,000. 

Some highlights about our finances: We received our fifth annual 

unqualified audit opinion, and the trust fund balance has reached 

an all-time high of $177 million, an increase of $83 million since 

2003 when I came. Our commitment to exceptional service focuses 

on providing personalized service by implementing aging in place 

concepts and enlivening our military heritage—aging in place, I 

will talk at the end. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
62 

We had a very successful Freedom Day, September 22nd, that 

brought together all the new generations of military linking the 

Solders’ Home founder, General Scott, with President Lincoln on 

the 147th anniversary of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is really a great opportunity out there. 

With the advent of this administration’s charge to name high priority performance goals we have identified our prime concerns: 

health care, resident wellbeing, housing—Gulfport and Washington—and stewardship, our continued corporate effectiveness. 

Although we reflect a decrease in funding overall in our 2011 

budget because of reduced capital costs, the agency’s annual operating costs will increase by $7.2 million. That growth is associated 

with the 660,000 square foot facility in Gulfport, Mississippi and 

a continuation of growth, which started in 2010 with approximately 

$9 million to stand up a workforce and initiate base year contracts 

for full operations beginning 2010. 

2011 most likely will be the last year facility begins—last year 

of growth in our budget as the new facility begins full operations 

in Gulfport on 2010. The Director for Gulfport was hired and starts 

at the end of March. He is from Gainesville, Florida and has 30 

years in retirement housing experience and has served in the Air 

National Guard. 

As we stand up Gulfport we are transferring 52 full-time equivalents from the Washington campus. The Gulfport campus will grow 

by 81 FTEs, producing a net growth of 29 FTEs in 2011. Cost drivers for us are facilities, ground maintenance, custodians, dining 

services, subsistence, utilities, our Wellness Center, dental and optometry, nursing and transportation. 

Question? 

Mr. WAMP. No, I am remembering—— 

Mr. COX. Okay, good. Thank you. 

We expect our budget authority to stabilize in 2011 as resources, 

funding, and FTEs continue to shift from Washington to Gulfport. 

We are working on multiple efforts to reduce costs and stay within 

funding in the out years. We are talking about insurance coverage, 

looking at how Tricare benefits can be used for all of our residents, 

not just the retirees, and some 76 percent of our residents are retirees. 

Walter Reed will be closing, a lot of our military veterans use 

Walter Reed, so they will look at how we can coordinate that 

through using private hospitals, like Washington Hospital Center. 

We are talking with the Deputy Director at Tricare, Admiral 

Hunter, about those costs, which really would just be shifting costs 

from a trust fund to TMA and looking at that should be really a 

no-cost benefit to TMA to provide those services. 

We have also introduced Independent Living Plus to assist our 

residents with aging in place. So for instance, say a resident needs 

medication. In the past medication would be an activity of their 

daily living that may require you to go to Assisted Living, and now 

we are saying, ‘‘Why move them? It is just medication one, two, or 

three times a day. Much better to keep them as independent as 

possible and bring that service to them.’’ So really our Independent 

Plus program is like having a home care agency on our campus for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
63 

the residents. It reduces our cost but also gives a better service to 

the residents and keeps them as independent as possible. 

Infrastructure: New facility changes occurring will have a positive impact on the solvency of the trust fund, and we are looking 

at how we control those costs. One of the biggest costs are maintenance expenses in our Scott Building, and the Scott Project, which 

we are tearing down a building and constructing a building rightsized—you know, we have over 1,000 residents there now. When 

Gulfport residents leave that building will come down, we will 

build something that is about half the the square footage in the 

same footprint, lower visibility from the campus so it really creates 

a nice vista to see the Capitol and D.C. like it was at the time of 

Lincoln. So the Lincoln Cottage really likes that as a national 

monument, and our size will be then about 600 here as well as 

close to 600 in Gulfport. 

So cost drivers, for us, what we are monitoring: dining. Agency 

will be able to provide dining to all residents in one facility or a 

home-like environment in our higher levels of care—that would be 

assisted living and long-term care. Residents will no longer be required to use on-campus transportation services to visit their 

friends in long-term care. As you may recall, we spent about 

$200,000 just on a bus that goes an eighth of a mile down to our 

long-term care center, and it runs every hour from 8 a.m. until 5 

p.m. 

Operational space: We will not need as much utility and custodial support because we are reducing square footage by 386,000 

square feet, so this is building down to about half the size. 

Newer facilities will minimize maintenance requirements and the 

associated impact on the residents. Last year, you may remember, 

50 percent of all of our maintenance requests were in this building, 

Scott, alone, on our campus of 272 acres. 

When we are ready to open Gulfport in 2010—October 2010—we 

will begin to reduce the population—actually, the population will 

be reduced in Washington to 568. Natural cost savings: Residents 

age in place. So right away there will be no long-term care costs 

for a few years in Gulfport because assisted living and long-term 

care residents will be moved just on a case-by-case basis. 

The new facility down there obviously will have a warranty for 

a year and should be minimal cost. It is built to LEED certified silver, so we have some cost savings in that as well. 

Risks during the transition year, which are identified and we will 

continue to look at: facility maintenance in D.C., ground maintenance there, dining service, custodial, transportation, pharmacy, 

medical supplies, and their staffing. 

To let you know, we have included the residents in our Gulfport 

transition. The residents have a monthly Focus Group meeting 

where we present to them what we are doing, how we are doing 

it, and get their feedback. It has been very positive, and the plan 

we have to move back there has included all the residents’ input; 

they will be part of the process until we move as well. 

You know, we are not moving all at once. Last year I testified 

on the categories—I won’t go through them again—but we are trying to move about 20 a week so they have a good, positive experience down there. But the residents who live in D.C. and who are 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
64 

Gulfport residents that want to go back, we are responsible for 

moving them back, financially. 

Scott Building I have talked to you about, too. We also started 

monthly Focus Group meetings with them, so again, resident-focus 

on the Scott building, let them know where temporary services will 

be for dining, because it will be about an 18-month to 2-year process to tear down the facility and rebuild, so a lot of our services 

will have to be temporarily relocated, so they are part of that process, as well. I told you about the aging in place process. 

From 2003 to 2007 we aggressively developed a disciplined strategic plan that netted many gains—trust fund balance grew, as we 

talked about before; Scott Project is on the horizon; our operating 

costs and capital improvements taken out of the trust fund that is 

projected to diminish in 2010 to $149 million and in 2011 to $139 

million. However, we see in those out years that we will put that 

money back, so the $70 million that you all approved last year for 

us is coming out of the Trust Fund, didn’t come from appropriations. Part of the reason why we have been able to save all that 

money under our fiscal responsibility is to do just this, to be able 

to fund ourselves. 

In conclusion, our justification presents complete, reliable information that demonstrates our effort to hold both programs and financial systems to the highest standards of accountability. On behalf of AFRH we thank you, Congress, for your continued support 

of our master plan, our funding support as a result of Hurricane 

Katrina, and our rebuilding on the Scott campus. 

We hope the Congress agrees that the progress AFRH has made 

since 2002 has been remarkable and understands that continued 

funding is necessary for AFRH to continue serving those who so 

bravely served us. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Timothy Cox follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
65 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 56870A.024
66 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 56870A.025
67 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 56870A.026
68 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 56870A.027
69 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 56870A.028
70 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 56870A.029
71 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 56870A.030
72 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 56870A.031
73 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Cox, thank you very much. 

Mr. COX. You are welcome. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any additional comments? 

Mr. COX. No, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Wamp. 

GULFPORT FACILITY

Mr. WAMP. I was there at your facility in Gulfport, and it is completely finished and will open when? 

Mr. COX. October 2010. 

Mr. WAMP. And it is unbelievable. Have you been there? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I visited after the hurricane, but not since the construction—— 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. Now that it is finished I want to go. So 

it is going to end up being about half and half, half here, half 

there. 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

WAITING LIST

Mr. WAMP. And how long is the waiting list to become one of 

these 1,200 people that either live here or there? 

Mr. COX. Well right now, because they can only be admitted to 

Washington, it is close to a year because we are only admitting 

through June because we are tearing down that building and our 

other building is 100 percent occupied, so we don’t see the opportunity of anybody moving in. It might be one or two a month so 

it made our waiting list go past 9 months, closer to a year. 

CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION

Mr. EDWARDS. Piggybacking to—could you refresh us on the criteria? 

Mr. COX. Yes. The criteria are four, and each criterion stands on 

its own so a veteran only has to meet one. The first category is a 

retiree, 20 years of service, and that has an age limit attached to 

it, minimum 60, okay? All the others don’t have age category. Our 

average age is 80. 

Second category is you served in a theater of war and have a 

service-connected disability. Third category is you are 100 percent 

disabled and unable to earn a livelihood, and that is most likely because of a service-connected disability necessarily not a theater of 

war disability. The fourth category is a woman who served prior to 

1948. Obviously women can come in the other three categories too, 

and obviously that one prediminish the—most women come in as 

a retiree. 

Mr. WAMP. Your facility here is the one that has the nine-hole 

golf course attached to it? 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. WAMP. Is it still operational? 

Mr. COX. It is. 

Mr. WAMP. What kind of shape is it in? 

Mr. COX. It is in pretty good shape. 

Mr. WAMP. Really? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
74 

Mr. COX. Yes. We—— 

Mr. WAMP. How many acres did you say, 272? 

Mr. COX. Two-hundred seventy-two. 

Mr. WAMP. Two-hundred seventy-two acres. So that has got to be 

80 of it, is that it? 

Mr. COX. I think that actually occupies about 60 to 65. 

Mr. WAMP. Have you been there, Chet? 

Mr. EDWARDS. It has been probably 3 or 4 or 5 years, but it is 

pretty thrilling to go out there and see 80-year-old retirees either 

carrying their bags or pulling their bags going around that golf 

course. 

Mr. WAMP. I was kind of amazed. So none of that is going to be 

used in any of these campus reconfigurations? 

Mr. COX. No, not in the campus reconfiguration. But our master 

plan that was approved to develop revenue, which, as I testified 

last year, was just put on ice even though we have a plan that is 

approved, we haven’t put that forth. We didn’t go into final negotiations with the developer, and they went bankrupt and the market, 

obviously, right now is only conducive to a developer getting a good 

return for us, because that is the most important. So two holes are 

going to be relocated—— 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. Nine-hole—— 

Mr. COX. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. You are not going to do away with—— 

Mr. COX. And we are going to go do that this next fall, after the 

season, right? It is after the season so we will do that next fall but 

they will have nine holes open all the time. 

Mr. WAMP. So you go back and forth between these two places? 

Mr. COX. I do. Two times a month I go down to Gulfport. 

GULFPORT BARRIER ISLANDS

Mr. WAMP. Not that it directly impacts this, but I am interested—real close to your Gulfport facility was where everything 

was going to be rebuilt, all masonry with new rules coming off of 

the coast for the future in Gulfport. And there was a lot of talk 

about the barrier out in the ocean, because the barrier was all 

washed away. They were really concerned because of the surge, not 

necessarily building requirements like all masonry, et cetera, but 

all the casinos were floating. And then I think they changed the 

law where they are going to move them—— 

Mr. COX. They did. 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. Inside so that they don’t just get blown 

away with boats that are floating out there. Storm surge was the 

issue coming a mile inland because there was no barrier out there, 

and the old barrier reef was gone. 

And what did they do in Gulfport? Did they reconfigure or reconstruct part of the barrier, or is that a long-term plan, or did everybody just build with masonry and off the coast more? 

Mr. COX. We are at the same site, and the building is located 

pretty much where the old building was. We have built to hurricane 5 standards, and we have built up 15 feet as well, so the first 

floor is parking so it would just wash through. And many of the 

new buildings—I should say all the new buildings, really—that 

were built right before Katrina are like that and they survived fine. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
75 

You know, glass didn’t break. Again, our glass is all hurricane 

standard—hurricane 5 standard. 

My understanding is Gulfport would like to redo some of the barrier islands but funding—— 

Mr. WAMP. I am just interested—— 

Mr. MCMANUS. Katrina came in at 25 feet. We are at 31 feet now 

with the new facilities. 

Mr. WAMP. Thirty-one feet before you get above the parking lot? 

Mr. MCMANUS. We will have our first floor of activities at 31 

feet. 

Mr. EDWARDS. At 31 feet, right. So it is above the parking lot, 

correct. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

LESSONS LEARNED AT GULFPORT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just a couple of quick things: One, since you 

built Gulfport and now you are kind of doing the renovations, are 

there any big lessons you learned, you know, from kind of groundup at Gulfport that will impact the way you kind of redo the facility up here? 

Mr. COX. Absolutely. You know, fortunately for us a lot of the 

same staff has participated in it and some of the same residents 

too, and one of the things is, for instance, bathroom configuration. 

You know, because we have 90 percent men, if they have trouble 

a lot of times the bathroom—the commode is in the corner, you 

know, at the end of the room, and we have realized now it has to 

be toward the center and we use lanito bars, which are bars that 

you can use left or right of the commode. They stand back up and 

go against the back wall so they are out of the way if you don’t 

need that. 

But we have had quite a few lessons learned like that, which 

have been very helpful. They are very practical. 

GREENHOUSE RETIREMENT LIVING

Mr. CRENSHAW. How about, you know, up here you have the— 

is it called the greenhouse—the small houses where—— 

Mr. COX. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Are you doing some of that down at Gulfport as 

well? 

Mr. COX. We are. What we are doing is we are looking at really 

neighborhoods, so they have 12 rooms—all private rooms—that 

then have a living area, a dining area, and I think that is very important for them to be able to have. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COX. You are welcome. 

CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

You just asked about the criteria for admission—are they 

prioritized within those four categories or considered equally? 

Mr. COX. Right now, as you apply you get on the waiting list, so 

it is just first come, first serve to wait, so we don’t have a priority 

on those. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
76 

Mr. EDWARDS. So someone that is 100 percent disabled, for example, wouldn’t be bumped up? 

Mr. COX. At this point, no. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Has there ever been any discussion about putting 

weights to those priorities? 

Mr. COX. We have had discussion about that but because we 

would have to come back and legislate those changes we haven’t 

gone forward with that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Take a look at that. I don’t want to force you to 

set priorities within those four if you think it is inappropriate, but 

if you thought it was appropriate, you know, folks at the Congress, 

whether it is this committee or others, you know, we might take 

a look at that. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And in terms of Gulfport—I will tell you what, in 

terms of Gulfport you really answered the questions I had. 

I will just conclude by saying I want to thank you for your leadership. It seems year after year you have been very, very innovative in your management and looking for efficiencies. And I think 

we all believe in this day and age it is especially important to let 

taxpayers know, even when it is for such a good cause as the men 

and women you serve, that we are trying to spend their dollars 

wisely. So we thank you for that effort. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Maybe one final question, and I really appreciate 

and I salute you for your innovative management. A couple of 

years ago there was the issue about the homeless vets that had 

temporary space there, and there were some issues that came up. 

Remind me of the final resolution of that. 

Mr. COX. Final resolution was we worked with Community Partnership, which is a D.C. nonprofit that does coordinating efforts between housing vouchers and permanent placement for homeless 

vets, for veterans in transition, and we worked with them to place 

all of those persons in housing. D.C. council, first of all, passed 

through Marion Barry, giving all of those residents immediate 

housing vouchers—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. COX [continuing]. And then Community Partnership worked 

with us to be able to place all those people. They are all placed in 

the community. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you for that update. 

Mr. COX. You are welcome. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I have no other additional questions. 

If not, thank you, Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. You are welcome. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. And we will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Farr follow:] 

Question. What is the deciding factor for what the ‘‘right size’’ is at the Washington campus? 

Answer. There were many factors that determined the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (AFRH) ‘‘right size’’ model. The Gulfport facility served as a proven model and 

was rebuilt for the same population, approximately 600 residents. For many years 

the Washington facility had a much larger population which required greater infrastructure and staffing costs; tended to produce a much larger, more costly popuVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
77 

lation for higher levels of care; and limited the AFRH’s overall ability for financial 

growth. 

Question. How are you planning on handling the increase in demand you will experience as eligible ‘‘Baby Boomers’’ retire? 

Answer. The Home has set a course for financial solvency with new, right-sized 

facilities at both locations. However, with the new facilities not yet operational 

(AFRH-Gulfport reopens this year and AFRH-Washington will not be completed 

until 2013 with occupancy in 2014) and the Master Plan development at Washington still on hold, it is premature to speculate on future growth. We are mindful 

of the future challenges and will continue to review all possible options. 

Question. As your current residents ‘‘Age In Place,’’ do you anticipate this will impact your ability to accept new residents? 

Answer. No. Although we may see some change in the mortality rate, we do not 

expect a negative impact in our ability to accept new residents. However, we do believe the program will significantly enhance the resident’s quality of life through the 

aging process. 

Question. How long is the waiting list for space in the DC facility? 

Answer. Washington has a waiting list of 348 and Gulfport has a waiting list of 

910. As we open Gulfport in October 2010, these numbers will change significantly. 

[Question for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp follows:] 

Question. Last year when you testified before this committee you stated that you 

had proposals that the AFRH was working on through DoD regarding homeless veterans. As this subject is one of Secretary Shinseki’s core initiatives, are there any 

proposals you are working on now with either DoD or VA in helping address this 

issue? 

Answer. The AFRH won approval of a 77 acre mixed use development on its 

Washington, D.C. campus from the National Capital Planning Commission in July 

2008 after a multi-year planning process that included consultation with hundreds 

of stakeholders including District of Columbia officials, environmentalists, preservationists, and neighbors. The project was placed on hold after complications related 

to the changing economy arose with the selected developer. The AFRH Master Plan 

brings a commitment to socially responsible development on the Home grounds. We 

have carefully crafted a socially responsible development plan that will allow the 

developer to deliver the following socioeconomic benefits to neighboring communities, and the District Columbia through a selected developer(s). 

• Over 300 units of affordable private market income housing units dispersed 

throughout the residential units for residents with low and moderate income; 

• A goal of significant participation by small and disadvantaged business enterprises with a target of $112 million in projects; 

• Innovative apprenticeship programs to promote local job creation—well over 

25 percent of all construction related jobs going to apprentice and pre-apprentices (approximately 100 apprentices annually); 

• An estimated 5000 construction and permanent jobs created; 

• Over 60 percent of construction related subcontracts awarded to entities 

using registered apprenticeship programs; 

We are continuing to work with organizations like Help USA and Wounded Warrior Project to see how the Home can best promote these worthwhile programs 

through the AFRH Master Plan. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(79) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010. 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

WITNESS 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Good morning, everyone. I would like 

to welcome everyone to this hearing, the purpose of which is to review the administration’s budget request for the V.A. for fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012. 

Secretary Shinseki, I want to once again thank you and welcome 

you back before our subcommittee, as well as thanking all of the 

V.A. management leadership that is working with you, and that 

are here today. 

We are honored, Mr. Secretary, that you are here, because we 

are all grateful for your distinguished public service to our nation 

as an Army soldier, as chief of staff of the Army, and now as secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Members, I am going to forgo any lengthy opening statement, but 

I do want to make just one or two points. 

First, Mr. Secretary, I salute the administration’s budget request 

last year. It did not get a lot of attention in the press, but my understanding is that the president’s budget request for the V.A. was 

the largest single budget request by any president over the last 

three decades. And that money, obviously, is needed and deserved 

by our veterans, and I salute the president for making that request. And I know you are a major part of putting that budget request together, and I salute you for that. 

I also want to thank you and the administration for your leadership on the advanced funding for appropriations, something that 

was a singularly top priority for virtually all of our major veterans 

service organizations. That is now the law of the land, and it would 

not have happened without the administration, without Chairman 

Obey, who played a key role, and without our ranking member, Mr. 

Wamp, and the bipartisan support we had for that effort. 

I think that is a great step forward in allowing us to spend taxpayers’ dollars more efficiently and effectively for our veterans. 

My final point before recognizing Mr. Wamp for any opening 

comments he would care to make is that, as we look at this year’s 

budget, I think it is important to look at it in the context of what 

we have done over the past three years for veterans. The increase 

in funding for medical care and benefits has been unprecedented, 

to my knowledge, in the history of the V.A. And I think this subcommittee and the full committee can be very proud of its work, 

because the end result will be more veterans will receive better 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
80 

care and benefits that they have earned through their distinguished service to our country. 

With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp for any opening 

comments he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to open by 

thanking you for your excellent leadership of this subcommittee. 

This is one of those rare cases where, in a full bipartisan and cooperative way, we do the work of our nation, and especially the important responsibilities that we carry out to our nation’s veterans 

and investing in our military construction needs around the world. 

I want to thank the secretary. I think the President of the 

United States showed great judgment in asking you to serve. And 

then you showed once again your great dedication to our country 

by agreeing to serve at this critical time. I think you bring a 

unique set of experiences, life experience and patriotism at the 

highest level to come and do this. I am just grateful for your service. 

I also want to say thanks to Undersecretary Muro for the work 

that he is doing and the responsiveness that he has demonstrated 

already to me and my office on important cemetery issues across 

the country, and say that Joan represents you very well in terms 

of the interface with our offices. 

I want to thank you for the time that you give the chairman and 

I individually, so that we can address these needs outside of the 

hearing context, so we can dig a little deeper and talk about the 

challenges that you face. We all have the public view, and then we 

have some questions that may dig a little deeper into that we need 

to ask. So I want to thank you for your courtesy and for Secretary 

Grams, as well. 

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Obey, for pushing so hard on 

our committee to make sure we have the resources that we need 

to meet these responsibilities. I want to say that the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, is expected to join us. And, of course, Bill Young, 

who is somewhat iconic here in the military and veterans arena 

will join us, as well. 

But there are many members that are at other hearings who 

wanted to stop by, get on the record, and then come here. So, I 

think we will see everyone come and go. 

But I just want to thank you and just say this in closing, as I 

said to you as we stood at your desk a moment ago. I was reminded 

of this year, Mr. Chairman, of why it is important for this subcommittee to exist separately from the Defense Appropriations 

Subcommittee. The military quality of life, which is our piece on 

the MILCON side, and V.A. health care—specifically mental 

health—is so intertwined, that it is important that we maintain 

this specific subcommittee’s focus and keep these two pieces together. 

Whether it is PTSD, the suicide rate, the overall mental health 

of our troops and our veterans, the interface is inseparable. And it 

is so important, I think—this is my last year here—for the committee to keep these together, because it has to be a seamless, cooperative effort going forward, especially on this mental health 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
81 

piece, because we are looking at the strain on the troops today with 

these ratios of deployment, which, in my view, are unsustainable. 

Then we look at the veterans coming home and the challenges that 

they face, and we have got to look at this. 

The military looks at the fight as one force. We have to look at 

these problems together, as well—not active versus veterans, but 

all as one continuum of care, I think. And it starts as soon as they 

serve, and it does not end until they die. It is important that we 

keep all that together. 

Again, I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the work, the 

courtesy, the respect. It is a privilege. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp, for your kind words, and 

even more importantly for your leadership. And your comments 

about the quality of life work of this committee are so well taken. 

I think it is one of the personally gratifying things about being on 

this subcommittee. 

There are not a lot of business lobbyists running around on Capitol Hill fighting for a military construction site, better day care 

centers for military troops whose loved ones are on their fourth 

tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, or better housing, and a whole 

continuum of care from the time they are on active duty, Guard or 

Reserves, to the V.A. 

And supporting that quality of life is the primary responsibility 

of this subcommittee. And I thank you for your leadership and all 

the members for their work on that. 

Chairman Dave Obey does not need an introduction as the full 

chair of the committee that meets in this room, but he deserves 

one. And I just want to very briefly say that the unprecedented 

progress we have made in the last three years in supporting financially and with new programs, health care and benefits and otherwise for our veterans, none of that progress would have occurred 

had it not been for the leadership of Chairman Obey. 

In many ways, top veterans leaders know what he has done. In 

many ways, he is the unsung hero of America’s veterans for what 

he has done. 

I can tell you first-hand, whether it was at the Budget Committee process, or meeting with Speaker Pelosi and following 

through on her commitment to make veterans a top priority, or 

whether it was his singularly important leadership role in making 

allocations for this subcommittee, Dave Obey was there every step 

of the way for America’s veterans. 

Chairman Obey, thank you for that leadership. And I now recognize you for any opening comments you care to make. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, a case of mistaken 

identity on your part. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Not at all. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Secretary, I have got something that is bothering 

me. It concerns a constituent in my district and something that 

happened to him. And let me put it in context. Mr. Edwards has 

started to do that. 

I cannot think of a portion of the budget which has received more 

favorable treatment over the last three years than has veterans 

health care. We have had a $23 billion, 60 percent increase to the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
82 

V.A.’s discretionary budget since the beginning of the 110th Congress, advance appropriations for three medical accounts to give 

the V.A. more funding assurance for prudent management, and a 

55 percent increase to the Veterans Health Administration. My understanding is that that has resulted in an additional 3,384 doctors, over 14,000 nurses, 145 community-based outpatient clinics 

and 92 veterans centers. 

An increase in the patient travel reimbursement to 41.5 cents 

per mile—a reimbursement that had been frozen at 11 cents since 

1979—8,300 more disability claims processors, resulting in a 31 

percent increase in claims processed from 774,000 claims in 2006, 

to 1,015,475 in 2010; the re-opening of Priority 8 disability enrollments for veterans with modest incomes; the historic establishment 

of a new G.I. Bill that will provide—again, as I understand it—$63 

billion in additional benefits over the next 10 years for tuition assistance, and educational material; housing assistance for the newest generation of veterans; a 28 percent increase in V.A. research 

since the beginning of the 110th Congress; an additional $250 million per year starting in fiscal 2009 for rural health initiative; more 

than doubling of the amount provided for homeless grants and per 

diem program from $63 million in 2006 to a current level of $150 

million. 

This subcommittee has led the way in providing all of that. And 

yet, if you are an individual veteran, if you do not get the benefit 

of those increases, all of that can be pretty meaningless at the 

ground level. 

I received, a short time ago, a letter from a woman in my district, which she sent to the president of the United States last 

week. It involved her husband, Philip Wettstein, who died on September 30, 2009. He was a Vietnam veteran. And if you will read 

this six-page letter which she has sent to the president and copied 

to me, you will see that this man went through hell before he died. 

I do not want to point an accusatory finger at anybody. We need 

to know what happened. And so, I would like to give your staff a 

copy of that letter. 

And I would ask you to review this situation with all of the diligence that your people can muster, because, while I do not know 

the specific facts, based on the chronology of events that she put 

in her letter, it would appear to me that her husband confronted 

a great deal of casualness, and certainly less than the minimum attention to what was happening to him. It just seems to me that 

there was a lack of attention to detail which caused this fellow 

some very serious and eventually fatal problems. 

So, end of speech. 

I have a great deal of regard for the V.A. I understand people 

can make mistakes. But this woman needs to have an opportunity 

to have her story listened to and responded to by the agency. 

Thank you. And I thank you for your service. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Obey, I assure that I will look into that 

personally with great diligence and get back to you, and provide 

you an answer to what happened. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you. 

I will have to be leaving. I have to attend to a matter on the 

floor, and I have to go to a funeral. So, I do not want you to think 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 

that it is something you said that caused me to leave. But I welcome you here anyway. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here and for 

all you have done for our veterans. 

Mr. Secretary, once again, it is good to have you back before our 

subcommittee, and your full testimony will be submitted for the 

record. I would like to recognize you now for any opening comments 

you would care to make, and then we will get into the questions 

and answers. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC K. SHINSEKI

Secretary SHINSEKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To you and to 

Ranking Member Wamp and Chairman Obey as he departs, and to 

other distinguished members of the committee as well, thank you 

for this opportunity to present the President’s 2011 budget and 

2012 advanced appropriations request, which you remarked earlier 

what a hallmark this is in funding for the Veterans Affairs Department. 

I am able to report to you that we had a good start in 2009. We 

have tremendous opportunity with a 2010 budget that represents 

the largest increase in 30 years, as proposed by President Obama, 

and the President’s continued strong support of veterans and veterans’ needs into 2011 and 2012. 

I appreciate the generosity of time shared with me by members 

of this subcommittee prior to the hearing and regret that I was not 

able weather-wise to get around to all of the members. But I always find those opportunities so helpful for providing insights that 

are invaluable to me. 

Let me also acknowledge the representatives from some of our 

veterans service organizations who are in attendance today. Again, 

their insights have been helpful to me as secretary in understanding and helping to meet obligations to all of our veterans 

throughout the generations. 

By way of introduction, let me just introduce some of the leadership who are here with me today. 

To my left is Todd Grams, our new Principal Deputy and Acting 

Secretary for Management. Also, here to my right, we have Mr. 

Mike Walcoff, the Acting Undersecretary for Benefits; Dr. Robert 

Petzel, our recently confirmed Undersecretary for Health; Steve 

Muro, who was mentioned earlier by Mr. Wamp, our Acting Undersecretary for Memorial Affairs; and Roger Baker, our long ball-hitting I.T.—Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology. 

And for those specific questions that need some detail, with the 

chairman’s permission, I would like to invite them to come up individually, and provide the additional detail the members of the subcommittee want. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for accepting my written testimony for the 

record. 

Let me just note that this subcommittee’s longstanding commitment to our nation’s veterans has always been unequivocal and unwavering. Such commitment, and the President’s own steadfast 

support of veterans, resulted in a 2010 budget that provides this 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
84 

department the resources to begin renewing itself in fundamental 

and comprehensive ways. 

We are well launched on that effort and determined to continue 

transforming well into 2011 and into 2012. 

For over a year now, we have promoted a new strategic framework organized around three governing principles. It is about 

transforming V.A. into being more people-centric—and you have 

heard me use these terms before—people-centric, results-oriented— 

a lot of promises are made; we get graded on the results—and finally, to be forward-looking. 

We know where we have come from. We have an idea where we 

have to go. 

This new strategic plan delivers on President Obama’s vision for 

V.A., and is in the final stages of review. Its strategic goals will improve the quality and increase access to care and benefits while optimizing value to veterans. It will also heighten readiness to protect our people—both our clients, our veterans, as well as our work 

force and our resources, every day and in times of crisis. That is 

a fundamental responsibility of any federal department, the protection of its space. 

It will enhance veteran satisfaction with our health, education, 

training, counseling, financial and burial benefits and services. And 

finally, a little bit to Mr. Obey’s comments—the plan invests in our 

human capital, both in their well-being, but more importantly, in 

their development as leaders to drive excellence in everything we 

do, from management, to I.T. systems, to support services. 

This goal is vital to mission performance if we are to attain what 

transformation intends for V.A., and that is to be a model for governance over the next four years. 

These goals will guide our people daily and focus them on producing the outcomes veterans expect and have earned through 

their service to the nation. 

To support our pursuit of these goals, the president’s budget pro- vides $125 billion in 2011—$60.3 billion in discretionary resources 

and $64.7 billion in mandatory funding. Our discretionary budget 

request represents an increase of $4.2 billion, 7.6 percent, over the 

president’s 2010 enacted budget. 

V.A.’s 2011 budget focuses primarily on three critical concerns 

that are of importance to veterans—at least, these are the things 

I hear about as I travel: better access to benefits and services, not 

just faster, but higher quality outcomes; reducing the disability 

claims backlog and wait times for receipt of earned benefits; and 

finally, ending the downward spiral that often enough results in 

veterans’ homelessness. 

Access. This budget provides the resources required to enhance 

access to our health care system and our national cemeteries. We 

will expand access to health care through the activation of new and 

improved facilities, by honoring the President’s commitment to veterans who were exposed to the toxic effects of Agent Orange 40 

years ago, by delivering on President Obama’s promise to provide 

health care eligibility to more Priority Group 8 veterans, and by 

making greater investments in tele-health to extend our delivery of 

care into the most remote communities, and where warranted, even 

into veterans’ homes. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
85 

And then finally, we will increase access to our national shrines 

by establishing five new cemeteries. 

The backlog. We are requesting an unprecedented 27 percent increase in funding for our Veterans Benefits Administration, primarily for staffing to address the growing increase in disability 

claims receipts, even as we continue to reengineer our processes 

and develop a paperless system, integrated with VLER, the Virtual 

Lifetime Electronic Record. 

Ending homelessness. We are also requesting a substantial investment in our homeless program as part of our plan to eliminate 

veterans’ homelessness over the next five years through an aggressive approach that is not just about beds, not just about providing 

beds, but includes housing, education, jobs and health care. It is 

about prevention as well as taking veterans that are homeless off 

the streets. 

In this effort, we partner with other departments—the Department of Housing and Urban Development probably our closest collaborator, but others, as well—with Labor, Education, HHS and 

the Small Business Administration, to put a full-court press on this 

problem. 

Taken together, these initiatives are intended to meet veterans’ 

expectations in each of these three mission-focused areas: increase 

access, reduce the backlog, end homelessness. 

We will achieve these objectives by developing innovative business processes and delivery systems that not only better serve veterans’ and families’ needs for the years to come, but which will also 

dramatically improve our own efficiency and help us control the 

cost of operations. 

While our budget and advanced appropriations requests provide 

the resources to continue our pursuit of the President’s two overarching goals for the department—one is to transform, and the second is to ensure veteran access to benefits and services—we still 

have much work to do. Our efforts are well begun, but there is still 

much more to be accomplished to meet our obligations to those who 

have defended the nation. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and for the unwavering support of all 

members of this committee. And I know there are going to be some 

committee changes here because of some announced departures. 

And I would just like to recognize the three that I am aware of. 

Mr. Wamp, as he departs, his leadership in expanding the 

CBOCs we have, and also yeoman work in the advance appropriations opportunity. I think this is a hallmark piece of legislation, 

certainly for this department. And thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. Berry, who has led the way in rural health and pharmacy 

benefits, again, my thanks and the thanks of veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs for your leadership and support in 

that area. 

And for Mr. Kennedy, who is not here at the moment, but his 

work in mental health, which has been a tremendous support for 

many of the programs we have been able to create. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Eric K. Shinseki follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
86 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 56870A.032
87 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 56870A.033
88 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 56870A.034
89 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 56870A.035
90 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 56870A.036
91 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 56870A.037
92 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 56870A.038
93 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 56870A.039
94 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 56870A.040
95 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 56870A.041
96 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 56870A.042
97 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 56870A.043
98 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 56870A.044
99 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your comments, and even more importantly for your leadership for the V.A. 

We know it is a labor of love, not just a job for you. 

Members, we are going to follow the 5-minute rule. 

And Mr. Secretary, I would just begin with one question after 

making a brief request. 

And my request is this. After 3 years of significantly increasing 

funding for the V.A., we know there are still unmet needs out 

there. Each of you deals with those unmet needs every day. 

I think it is vital to earn the trust of the American people, that 

we have not only done the right thing to increase funding for veterans, but that we are working hard every single day to see that 

every dollar that is being spent efficiently and effectively, and for 

the highest priorities. And I think that trust will be vital for us to 

have any opportunity to continue the kind of forward push we have 

been making for funding for the V.A. 

And so, I would urge each of the leaders here to work, as I know 

you must be trying to do. But I would want to emphasize the importance of it, to see that we use these dollars effectively and for 

direct care—not overhead, not just extra administrative costs, but 

for direct care and benefits for our veterans. 

CLAIMS BACKLOG

Mr. Secretary, my one question would be on the claims backlog 

issue. You referenced this briefly in your comments. We know it is 

an enormous challenge. 

It is frustrating that we started three years ago increasing funding for claims processors dramatically above budget request, and I 

think actually funded an increase potentially of 8,300 new claims 

processors. 

Could you summarize again just how we got here, and how do 

we get out? What have been the numbers in terms of increased 

claims coming in each year? What have been the numbers in terms 

of claims processed? And what is the endgame here? Is it going to 

get worse before it gets better? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, this is the one area that I 

spend a good bit of time on. And 2010 for me is dedicated to looking at this backlog issue. 

I spent time on it last year, but the 9/11 G.I. Bill came along and 

required a little bit of my attention. So, I am fully onto the claims 

process this year. 

Let me just say that last year we processed a record number of 

claims—977,000 claims were processed last year. And then, we received in return a million new claims. 

Now, this is a numbers game we have to get out ahead of and 

that is why our efforts this year are important in several areas. 

First of all, we have increased VBA’s budget by a record 27 percent to give them the wherewithal to deal with the number of 

claims that are coming in. With that they will be able to hire about 

4,000 additional claims processors. 

Right now, because the Veterans Benefits Administration is essentially a paper-bound organization, we are in desperate need of 

information technology tools, and we are developing them. So, for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
100 

the time being, the 4,000 allows us to accelerate, to keep up with 

this increased surge. 

Now, some would say there is something wrong with a million 

new claims coming in. My response is, I am not so sure, because 

we are making a big effort to outreach to veterans who have never 

used us, who do not know about us and there are sufficient examples of that when I travel. I see this as a response to a successful 

outreach program, that folks who have never applied for their benefits are suddenly beginning to do that. 

But it is still a numbers game. We have to get out ahead of it. 

For the time being, we have no information technology tools that 

will absorb that surge, so we have to do it the old-fashioned way, 

sort of brute force. We hire people and we train them, and there 

is a period during the training where they are not fully up to the 

level of performance that they will be. We have to invest in that 

train-up period. 

In time, we are able to address the numbers but at the same 

time, I.T. is a solution for us. 

We are doing four pilots. These pilots have been underway for a 

bit. The first pilot in Pittsburgh is intended to develop high-quality 

claims that have the potential for passing through the system one 

time with a good outcome for the veteran, that the veteran will be 

pleased with and then, if the veteran feels there is a re-addressal 

need, it is still appealed. The appellate process is still there. 

But this is a change for us. This is not handing the veteran a 

checklist of things to do and gather, and come back when your 

claim is complete. This is V.A. sitting down with the veteran, treating him as our client, much as you would preparing a legal brief, 

putting together the strongest argument to win that case. That is 

our claim at that point. 

The VSOs are invited to be involved. 

This is a change in the relationship. In time, I think this will 

have huge dividends in terms of advocacy being the culture that is 

accepted as V.A.’s way of doing business, as opposed to some of the 

adversarial circumstances we sometimes hear about. 

A second pilot in Little Rock, Arkansas, is about business process 

reengineering. When this high-quality claim arrives, who touches it 

first? How many people have to touch it before we get to a decision? What is the efficient arrangement of the work force and their 

tools to get to a high-quality decision quickly? 

Providence, Rhode Island, is a pilot on automated tools. What are 

the tools that are needed to automate these processes that I have 

just described? 

We made the automation piece separate. We did not want to necessarily just automate processes that have been troublesome for 

some time and just get lousy decisions faster. We wanted to get efficiency here, and then automate it, so we have this thrust and improvement. 

And finally the fourth pilot, which we think is next most important to the one in Pittsburgh, is to create the Virtual Regional Office of the future with new tools, a new working relationship with 

veterans and a reengineered business process. And then, how do 

we very quickly distribute those capabilities across the nation? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
101 

Today, of 57 R.O.s, I would venture to say there is a number one 

R.O. and a number 57 in terms of how they make their decisions. 

We do not necessarily want 57, but neither do we want one. 

What we want is some massing around 29 and 30, so that we 

have achieved a standard across the nation, so that veterans whose 

claims are adjudicated in San Diego have a sense that there is fairness in the system, and that the same kinds of adjudications are 

being done on the East Coast. This is important for us, because 

without the electronic capability, it is difficult to manage that. This 

way, we can see what our performance is, where our variances are, 

and we can begin to home in on a standard. 

So, we think there is good effort going to go into the backlog 

issue this year. But this is part of that larger discussion of transforming the Veterans Benefits Administration—good folks who 

come to work every day, who are paperbound, where, in the Health 

Administration we have probably the world’s best electronic health 

record. We have just got to bring our capabilities to get there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your focus on that. 

Let us know how we can work together. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the votes for the day, 

I just want you to know, I probably have three rounds as we go, 

with two questions each time. 

Following up on the backlog claims issue, obviously, 27 percent 

increase gets your attention. I appreciate your commitment to this. 

Short answer, please. With this increase, when this is funded, 

will we see a dramatic reduction in the backlog? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Wamp, you would have seen a dramatic 

decrease in backlog, if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs had not 

made, at the same time, a decision on Agent Orange last October 

that added three new diseases to the list of presumptions for Vietnam veterans. 

We added Parkinson’s, we added ischemic heart disease, and we 

added hairy cell B leukemia. That will add several hundred thousand cases. So, my sense is, there will be an increase in the inventory, total number of cases. 

With the pilots and with the 27 percent additional resources for 

VBA, there will still be some increase in backlog and some increase 

in processing time but we intend to shape and control that, such 

that by 2013, we are back to where we are today. And where we 

are today is, with the investments we have already made, we have 

taken processing time from 190 days to 161, headed to 125. 

We will be about back there in 2013, and headed to eliminating 

the backlog at that point. 

Mr. WAMP. And that is what the subcommittee needs to be aware 

of as we go forward. Plus, if you are successful eliminating, but certainly reducing the number of homeless veterans, that is 135,000 

potential new cases right there. 

So, you are going to have an increase even though the funding 

is ramped way up, because of the new benefits and the outreach 

to make sure that all the veterans that have access to the V.A. are 

coming. 

Now, you said 161 days, and that is what I have heard, as well. 

When will we have the 125-day assurance for a wait? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
102 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I will give you a target. It is 2015, Mr. 

Wamp. I will not put an assurance on that. Lots of things will happen between now and 2015. 

Mr. WAMP. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Others are watching today, not just those that are participating, 

because of our C–SPAN cameras. I was thinking heading into 

today, because of your life experience, what are the significant, big 

challenges for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in 2010 that we did 

not experience 30 years ago? 

What are the biggest differences between now and then? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Well, I can tell you what I am focused on 

this year, Mr. Wamp. It is taking this backlog and doing something 

about it. Even though I am not able to end it this year, I intend 

to put in place the systems and procedures that will give us that 

look at the end of the tunnel where we can see where we are headed. 

The second focus of mine is to remind—and it goes back to your 

opening comments—very little that we do in V.A. originates here. 

And so, it is, for me, important to build good, strong working relationships—but beyond relationships, good procedures with DOD, so 

that we are linked in the important ways—not operationally, but 

certainly in the way veterans are transitioned from active service, 

whether they are active Guard or Reserve members, transitioned 

from their active service into veteran status. 

We need to do that better. And the fact that we do not do that 

as well as we might contributes to the backlog problem, as well. 

But there are other issues here. There are ongoing, everyday exposures that occur with military service. I think we have to be better in synchronizing with DOD our relationship to recognize it 

early, do the right thing in terms of establishing a profile, a base 

line on health care, whether that takes blood or tissue samples, or 

some kind of physical that will allow us to understand where that 

individual’s health care exists at a given point. We will be treating 

that veteran well into the 70s and 80s years of age and that is a 

much longer span of time in which health care, continuity of care, 

prevention, all those things get to play, if we have a good base line. 

I would just offer that currently on our list of beneficiaries, the 

V.A. still has two children of Civil War veterans today that we care 

for. There are 151 beneficiaries from the Spanish-American War. 

That was two centuries ago. 

So, the decisions that are made operationally on behalf of the 

country have a long-term effect for these individuals. And V.A. is 

the organization that has to deal with it. 

VETERANS HISTORY PROJECT

Mr. WAMP. And I do not want to lead you, but having been involved in the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress, 

and having World War II, Korean veterans participate that never 

shared anything—I think all the way through the Vietnam era, our 

veterans were not encouraged enough to share their experiences 

and their mental challenges beyond their physical challenges. 

There was so much buried. 

We ask today’s veterans to come back and share what is going 

through their mind and their life, the challenges, and then meet 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
103 

those needs so that they can return to productivity and normalcy 

as much as possible. This is a new era to me. 

I see this every day, where this era is very different than the 

eras of our fighters in the past. I have been to funerals where they 

showed the World War II veterans visual testimony at the Library 

of Congress and the Veterans History Project, because their family 

had never heard it. 

They had never, ever heard it, and they did not show it until 

they had died, while today’s veterans are encouraged to come back 

and share this. This is the whole PTSD story. And I will get to that 

in the next round. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Salazar. 

NEW CEMETERIES

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And it is an honor to have you here today, Mr. Secretary. I just 

wanted to thank you for your consistent work on helping rural veterans, not only across Colorado, but across this country. And I also 

wanted to commend you on the change of policy where you can help 

rural veterans’ access to cemeteries. 

You mentioned about creating five new cemeteries this year. 

What are they? Which ones are they? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Let me get to my notes here, Mr. Salazar. 

The five new cemeteries, national cemeteries—east central Florida, Omaha, western NY, southern Colorado and Tallahassee. I was 

sure about one of them. I had to check on the other four. 

PHARMACEUTICALS

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, we appreciate your work for the southern 

Colorado veterans. 

Let me just ask you briefly, as we continue this debate on health 

care, yesterday, Mr. Berry and I and others actually introduced legislation that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices, maybe even using the 

V.A. as a model. We understand that the V.A.’s pharmaceutical 

drug prices are about half of what Medicare pays. And this is a 

good way to save the American taxpayer money. 

Do you and the Secretary of Health and Human Services work 

together? Maybe, do you give her any ideas, or can you give her 

any ideas as to how we can maybe make something like this work? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Congressman, I have not personally had the 

discussion with the Secretary of HHS, but I have had my people 

reach out to not just HHS, but to DOD as well, to demonstrate 

what we do, what we have been able to negotiate in terms of pharmaceutical prices, and offered where appropriate to put people on 

our system, but also to share what we have been able to achieve 

with other departments. 

So, my guess is it is in the department. I have not personally discussed it with Secretary Sebelius. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I would encourage you to offer advice to the secretary. You have a great model. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
104 

Let me just also ask you, in my district in Pueblo, Colorado, 

there are concerns about removal of a VSO from Pueblo. I guess 

he serves over 22,000 veterans. 

And do you have any information, or does anyone in your organization know of the Pueblo VSO being removed for—I do not know 

for what reason—or the office closed, I guess? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I am not aware of that issue, but I will be 

happy to provide you a response for the record. I will follow up. I 

am not aware of a VSO being closed. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

NATIONAL CEMETERIES—CHANGE IN POLICY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, 

welcome back to the committee. I know you have got a long and 

distinguished career of taking care of the men and women in uniform. And I want to thank you just for your dedication and time 

to all the problems that are being faced by your department, not 

just the big problems, but the little problems. And thank you for 

that. 

A couple of questions. First I want to ask you about, I saw in this 

year’s budget, you have got kind of some money for a change in policy that relates to national cemeteries. As I understand it now, I 

guess the old policy was, if there were 170,000 veterans within a 

75-mile radius, then they would be eligible for a national cemetery. 

You are going to change that to 80,000, which, as I understand it, 

is going to entitle an extra half-a-million veterans to be close to a 

national cemetery. 

And I can tell you first hand, in my community in Jacksonville, 

Florida, the closest cemetery when I was first elected was about 

200 miles away. A new cemetery was just opened last year. And 

I do not think many things in Congress that I have worked on have 

had as big an impact on me or the community that I represent as 

has this national cemetery. It is just magnificent. 

And the way they have done it, as you know, they can fast-track. 

And while it is going to be a 500-acre facility, right now there are 

about 20 acres. There are 15 ceremonies taking place every week. 

There were 1,000 headstones. 

So, I think an effort to make more national cemeteries available 

around the country is very, very laudable. I would love to help in 

any way I can. I know that the subcommittee would as well. 

I would like to ask you just how you came to this conclusion that 

you were going to lower that requirement to just 80,000 versus 

170,000. Is that going to require additional funds from time to 

time? And will that change the timeline as these are developed? 

Can you touch on those three issues? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Crenshaw, we arrived at a point with 

the old standard, we were above 90 percent satisfaction for that old 

standard. We also looked around and realized that most states had 

a standard, as well. And they came up to, in varying locations, up 

to that 80,000 mark. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
105 

There was a gap between our number and theirs and so, we decided to serve states and also serve veterans by moving our standard in the direction of providing additional burial capability. 

You are correct in the statement of the new standard, 75 miles 

of an 80,000 population. We intend to have a cemetery located in 

that population. 

It will take us a while to get to all of those, but five cemeteries 

next year is the first installment. And then we will see what the 

requirements are, because, as you know, veteran populations tend 

to move as well. And we need to sort of stay abreast of that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me just real quick. Are the five that are 

being built—or funded—this year, were they under the old 

170,000? Or are they part of that, the new guidelines of 80,000? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. They are under the new guideline. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Israel. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CLAIMS BACKLOG

Mr. Secretary, I am so pleased that the V.A. is under your leadership. And thank you for your service. 

I have a quick question. I need a quick clarification on the claims 

backlog, and then I want to talk about veterans’ homelessness in 

the time that I have. 

I keep hearing different figures as to the total volume of claims 

dating back to the oldest claim. Can you tell us, what is the total 

number of claims in the system right now? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. That varies from day to day, congressman, 

but I would say it runs around 400,000 to 450,000 claims in the 

whole inventory. 

Mr. ISRAEL. In the entire system. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Yes. 

Mr. ISRAEL. So, dating back to World War II, you know, World 

War II veterans who have put in claims. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I do not know how far back that estimate 

goes. Generally, the inventory for the last several years, at least, 

has been four—let me just broaden the aperture a little bit—someplace from 400,000 to 500,000. 

Mr. ISRAEL. That is fair enough. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Of that number, usually 150,000 to 170,000 

of them are backlogged. In other words, they are older than 125 

days. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Got it. Okay. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. As I said last year, we pushed out 977,000 

claims. So, with rare exception, the backlog usually is not the same 

set of claims. There may be some that are long-term issues where 

development of the claim is not complete. And so, usually there is 

turnover in the backlog. 

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you for that. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
106 

Let us turn to homeless veterans. Tonight, 131,000 veterans are 

going to go to sleep without a bed, without a roof, without a home. 

I consider this to be America’s national shame. And I know you do, 

as well, and I thank you for the focus that you have brought to this 

issue. 

You talked about the need for kind of a synergistic, holistic, integrated approach. It is not just the funding, it is the coordination 

and the collaboration that is vital. 

Can you give us some specifics, however, as to what kind of investments? You talked about new investments for homeless veterans in order to achieve the goal of eliminating homelessness 

among veterans within five years. 

Tell us specifically what you are proposing for this year and how 

you intend to use those funds. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. This is a complex problem, congressman, 

and I am sort of learning as I go. I think if this was simple good 

people would have solved it. 

I do think how our approach is different is, as you have indicated 

here, we do not look at this as finding 131,000 beds into which we 

can put people overnight. We have a prevention initiative, so that 

we are not adding to the 131,000, or backfilling the 131,000 as we 

are doing good work up front. 

So, in developing this plan, it has been a comprehensive effort. 

We held two summits this year, V.A.-initiated or co-sponsored. The 

first one was on homelessness, and the second one was on mental 

health, which we co-sponsored with DOD. We participated in a 

third conference with DOD on suicides, because all of these things 

sort of roll together. This year we put $3.5 billion into homelessness in 2010. I would 

offer that 85 percent of that money is medical services. It is dealing 

with substance abuse, depression, PTSD, TBI, suicide ideation and 

a whole raft of requirements that go along with that. And then out of this year’s money, about $500 million goes to the 

partners that we have out there on the ground, 400 to 500 of them, 

who are really the creative geniuses in dealing with homelessness. 

They know the veterans. They have dialogue with them. They can 

help us get them off the streets and then into safe shelter, which 

is what we work with them on. 

And then we have to invest in other ways. Education, I would 

offer that the G.I. Bill is a huge part of being able to address the 

needs of returning veterans today, and allowing them to have a 

constructive program rather than finding themselves looking for 

work or fighting to survive. 

So, a huge effort; 229,000 veterans have enrolled, and we are 

probably above 191,000 who are currently already on our payment 

plan where tuition, books and a living stipend is being provided to 

them. That is 229,000 veterans out of 565,000 veterans that are 

being educated by us in broad measure. 

Second to the Department of Education, we provide education 

benefits to the tune of $9 billion. So, that is a huge part of this. 

If there is an opportunity to improve on the G.I. Bill, it would 

be to provide for veterans a chance to have vocational training. Not 

every youngster wants to spend four years, necessarily, sitting in 

a college seat, and they are tremendously talented and tremenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
107 

dously dedicated to the work they do. Having an option to go vocational training would be a good adjustment here. 

And then jobs. I mean, it is the ultimate requirement for us to 

provide good jobs. In V.A. we have a Veterans First program, 

where we seek to hire veterans, and contract with small businesses, and veteran-owned small businesses as part of our contracting mechanism. 

We received about $1 billion last year in the Recovery Act. We 

competed it, 99 percent of that, 98 percent of that and we got a 20 

percent increase in our buying power, because we got competitive 

rates. Better than 80 percent of those contracts went to veteranowned small businesses—important for us, because veteran-owned 

small businesses tend to hire other veterans, so that is the churn 

on jobs. 

And then, finally, it is ensuring that there is a piece of this that 

figures for us, when 40,000 veterans come out of prison every year. 

And in order not to find them ending up on the streets, we need 

programs that reach into those facilities and ensure we have a good 

transition for them as well. 

Many of them, the violent ones, are where they need to be but 

many of them ended up there, because of misdemeanors that led 

to a series of events that found them behind bars. And we are 

working to address those issues, as well. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Israel. 

Members, let me just give you a quick floor update. We have 

three votes scheduled on the floor right now. We have seven minutes left in the first vote, but there have only been 16, now 17 

members out of 435 who have voted. So, if you will trust me, I will 

watch this. And when we get to the point we need to leave, we will 

be sure we recess in time to get to the floor, so we do not miss that 

vote. 

But it is certainly an honor to have Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the full committee, former chairman of the full committee, 

who, as we all know, and as you know, Mr. Secretary, has spent 

a distinguished lifetime of service and support of our service men 

and women and our veterans. 

Mr. Lewis, I would like to recognize you for any opening comments or questions you would like to offer. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Edwards, for 

recognizing me. I must say, I was pleased to walk in just as my 

colleague, Mr. Israel, was beginning to ask questions about homeless veterans and what we may or may not be doing in connection 

with all of that. 

If this subcommittee could commit itself to the direction that our 

secretary would take us relative to homeless veterans, I believe we 

can strike a major chord towards turning around a horrendous 

problem. 

The homelessness problem began, I believe, many years ago in 

California, where we passed legislation that was designed to say 

too many of our citizens, because of illness and otherwise, are finding themselves in mental hospitals. And we had a tendency back 

then to just want to throw the key away. We put them in a mental 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
108 

hospital, and that is taken care of. Society does not have to worry 

anymore. 

We then passed legislation to make it harder to put people in institutions. And hand-in-hand with that was supposed to be a clinical process whereby those people—a very significant percentage 

being veterans—those people were supposed to go to clinics, get 

meds, et cetera. There was never the follow up that would allow 

us to make sure the meds were taken, and the like. 

We would have a potential model here to deal with veterans who 

make up such a high percentage of this population. Patrick Kennedy and I have begun to talk about this issue, as well. And I 

would hope that the subcommittee would try to come together and 

focus, help the secretary focus on getting a handle on this. 

It is a great opportunity for us, and we could make a real difference. So, other than that commentary, Mr. Secretary, I am 

proud to have you be my friend, and I am very anxious to work 

with you. 

Thank you. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Lewis, let me just say thank you for emphasizing the importance of our responsibility in addressing the homelessness issue. I think it saddens all of us that there is even one 

homeless veteran anywhere in any community in this country. And 

what you saw in California, I think we saw to some degree in 

Texas, as well. 

And I really look forward to working with you and the members 

of this committee to see if we can make a major push in solving 

that problem. Thank you for your emphasis on that. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could add. I think you know 

that, while our colleague Patrick Kennedy has suggested he is not 

going to run for re-election, there is no doubt he has a commitment 

to this arena. And there is a great contribution that can be made 

over these next several months with his assistance. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And you just made one by emphasizing this ought 

to be a high priority. And I will follow up on that, and we will work 

on that. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, if I could—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary SHINSEKI [continuing]. Just take just a moment here 

and just thank Congressman Lewis for the observation. 

I just want to offer, here is what I wrestle with every day. That 

is, I have two images of young people who serve, men and women 

who serve or have served in uniform. The one we are all familiar 

with, and that is, every year 60 percent—I think around 60 percent—of our high school graduates go on to college, junior college, 

university, some higher form of education. 

Of the remaining 40 percent, a good many of them go into vocational training, some directly into the work force. A very small percent join the less than 1 percent of men and women wearing this 

country’s uniforms. 

And of that 1 percent, I am intimately familiar—I spent 38 years 

with them. They go through all the preparations, whether you call 

it basic training or boot camp. They prepare for joining high performing organizations that are well led, that are missioned. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
109 

And from the moment they join, they are trusted members of 

that organization. There is no apprentice period for them. If the 

unit deploys, they go, whether it is 2 months or 2 weeks. And they 

go off and they are given the toughest, most difficult, most demanding, sometimes impossible missions. And they do that without 

fail—better than we can expect. 

A second image I will offer to you is the one that I am troubled 

with, and it is the one that Congressman Lewis raises. And it is 

a very much smaller population. But veterans are disproportionately amongst our homeless, amongst our depressed, amongst our 

substance abusers, amongst our jobless. And I offer, these are the 

same kids in both of those two images. There is no difference between them. 

And we have to figure out—and that is what V.A. intends to do, 

how to keep the youngsters in image one continuing to be the high 

performers that they are, and to reach into image two and begin 

to solve some of those problems, so that over time we are not dealing with this. 

The same youngsters. It is not about them. It is about us. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and we look forward to 

working with you on that important challenge. 

Mr. Wamp, let me ask you. We show 1 minute and 30 seconds 

left. Seventy-eight people have voted. Should we recognize Mr. 

Berry? Or do you want to recess and go vote and come back? 

Mr. WAMP. You should ask Mr. Berry that question, not me. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. 

Mr. Berry. 

If members feel they need to go to cast a vote, I would be happy 

to stay here with you, Mr. Berry, for you to ask your question. Or 

we can wait till after the vote. It is your call. 

All right. Well, then, let me just say, I would like to underscore 

what Secretary Shinseki said. Thank you for your tremendous leadership, particularly in health care, on this subcommittee. We will 

miss you in the years ahead. But our veterans will be the beneficiaries of your work on this subcommittee. 

SOUTHEAST ASIA

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

Mr. Secretary, I share the entire committee’s and the country’s 

appreciation of your distinguished service. And we thank you for 

what you do. 

My question is—and you and I have talked about this before. But 

you mentioned earlier in your testimony that I believe you had administratively broadened the presumptions where veterans would 

be covered for certain things that had not been presumed earlier. 

Is it possible to deal with the issue of the veterans that served 

in Southeast Asia, but cannot document that they were in Vietnam 

or Cambodia, or wherever it happened to be—is it possible to deal 

with that administratively? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Congressman, I am not sure that it is able 

to be dealt with administratively. I am researching that issue. 

The majority of folks that operated in Cambodia I am aware had 

presence in Vietnam at some point. And to qualify, it does not require any stipulated number of days or location, or where. So, what 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
110 

I need to do is narrow down the folks who may have only served 

in Cambodia, inserted by air, extracted by air, and find what that 

population is and get you a better answer. And if I might, I will 

provide that for the record. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry, thank you. 

Judge Carter, I want to give you the same opportunity we gave 

Mr. Berry. We have no time remaining, but there have only been 

125 members who have voted, so I would be happy to recognize you 

now. 

CLAIMS BACKLOG

Mr. CARTER. I will try to make it brief. And I have had a good 

visit with the secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, I enjoyed the visit very much. We talked about a 

lot of these questions. And the first question I talked about is backlog, and you and I discussed that. That is what I have here. 

But as a follow-up question to the backlog question, I am told 

that word is out among our veterans that if you are experiencing 

delay, with Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits, call your congressman, and 

you will be paid within three to five days. 

While we appreciate the prompt response to our inquiries, I can 

only assume that this practice pushes everyone else further behind. 

Unfortunately at this point, we have cases of veterans being told 

their claims take up to eight weeks, which leaves the veteran little 

alternative but to involve their congressman. 

I understand that this budget intends to help the problem. But 

in the near term, is there something the department can do to help 

veterans access their benefits in a timely manner and reduce Congress’ role in the process? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Carter, let me just say, 9/11 G.I. Bill, we 

started without any automated tools. We still do not have any automated tools. The first tools arrive 1 April, 1 July, November. And 

I will think there will be a fourth set of tools. We will be fully automated this year. 

Last year we began in August with zero veterans enrolled. We 

finished in December with 173,000 veterans in school being paid by 

us. A rocky start, we learned as we went. 

By comparison, this spring semester, 1 February, 131,000 checks 

were flowing to veterans—zero versus 131,000. At that point there 

were 153,000 veterans enrolled. We were paying 131,000 of them. 

We are knocking these claims down at about 7,000 a day. So, my 

sense is, the eight-week wait is an aberration, if it exists, or it may 

be old data. 

Today, there are 229,000 veterans enrolled, and we are paying 

190,000 plus of them—again, knocking down those claims at 7,000 

a day. So, within a matter of days we are able to address this. 

But for the 8-week wait, if they will get hold of me, I am happy 

to give it personal attention. 

HOMELESSNESS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate 

it. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
111 

And we discussed this a little bit, in addition to the issue of mental health. Having sat on the bench for 20 years and dealt with all 

these issues, the courts and the states—the courts forced the states 

to turn loose people—back in the 1960s and 1970s. And the whole 

country failed the mental health community by putting people on 

the streets that needed additional help, and we continue to do that 

today. 

It is a concept that was a freedom concept, but they did not have 

the backup to support these people once they are out on the street. 

And that is why we have so many confused, depressed and schizophrenic homeless people on the streets today, because we just 

failed as a country to take care of that problem. 

And each state has to bear some responsibility, and Texas bears 

quite a bit of their own. 

So, it is an issue. And if we started with veterans, it would be 

a big step to change a lot of criminality in this country. It really 

would, because then the states, we could possibly take and shame 

into taking care of their business, because they do not take care of 

it to this day. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Judge Carter. With your background 

as a judge dealing with mental health cases, you know, we would 

welcome your leadership. Maybe we will put together an ad hoc 

group of our subcommittee members to really focus like a laser on 

the homelessness issue. 

Mr. CARTER. Love to do it. Love to do it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be great. 

We will stand—we do have additional questions, Mr. Secretary, 

so we will stand recessed until the end of the third vote. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee back to 

order. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for bearing with us during those votes. 

And we would like to begin the second round with questions. 

Why don’t we begin by my recognizing Mr. Wamp? 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was enjoying a bite of 

Snickers from your district, I understand, with almonds in it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good product. 

MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. WAMP. We do no want to encourage that—not too much, but 

just enough. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your willingness to consider a program—and I know programs are always hard to even 

sort through when you have got a big agency like yours. 

But I had the privilege to get to know retired Marine Captain 

Carl David Hogsett, Jr., whose pen name is Silouan, because he 

wrote a book about his PTSD experience. It is compelling. 

In Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana, he is very well known now 

among the veteran community, because of the extraordinary depths 

of hell, so to speak, in his experience with PTSD and his recovery, 

and what he went through. He developed this entire program 

called The Ladder, and he speaks extensively now, because he is 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
112 

an author. Many veterans have read his travails, his story and his 

recovery. 

I think that is important, that as we add money and address this 

issue, as comprehensive as it is, that we get real, live veterans involved that have been through it, especially those that have dealt 

with it in the amazing way that he has dealt with it, in terms of 

restoring his life to a very productive level even though, as he told 

me, he was in a place where he did not want to be in a lit room. 

He wanted to be in a totally dark room where he could just completely withdraw from the world for days at a time. It was that bad 

with PTSD. 

So, this is compelling. And I have provided the materials, and 

understand that your staff is really looking at it. I think the more 

we can engage people like him, and not assume that staffers, as 

competent as they are, or people that have not been there can even 

fathom what these veterans are going through. 

And so, I raise that issue with gratitude that you are considering 

his work and others like him that could make mighty contributions 

to addressing this problem, because this problem, as you and I 

talked earlier today, is not just combat-related incidents, but it is 

non-combat. He actually was involved in a training crash where he 

was successfully ejected, but the co-pilot was ejected into a pole, 

which completely dismembered his body as he watched. 

These challenges are enormous, and even today, I read stories of 

females and sexual abuse and all the different contributions to 

PTSD. I just want you to address what we are doing to make sure, 

first, with this fresh story, that females have full access to PTSD 

benefit like males, and that we also give attention to non-combat 

incidents as well as combat incidents with PTSD, because this is 

a very broad issue now. 

And again, thank you for your commitment to this. But this is 

one on the mental health side that we really have to get to the bottom of, because a lot of our veterans are in a really bad way when 

they come home with PTSD. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Well, Congressman Wamp, I think you have 

put your finger on one of these issues that are generational. I can 

go back and pull an article out of the 1940s, and read about General Omar Bradley sitting at a testimony table like this as the secretary of then what is today Veterans Affairs, talking about the 

same issue here without using PTSD. It was a different name, different issues, but the similarities are striking. 

I think this is a generational issue. I was down in University of 

Southern Florida and spoke to some of the young veterans, asked 

how many of them are combat veterans. Most of the hands went 

up. 

In the dialogue I suggested to them that they are all carrying 

baggage, just like we all did. And there is a transition period that 

you have to go through coming from that hyper-vigilant, high precision, high risk, a lot of threat environment and work your way 

back down into what is the college campuses we all know. 

One of the things we are doing is, at the University of South 

Florida and Cleveland State and San Diego State we have pilot 

VetSuccess offices there with a V.A. employee with voc rehab skills. 

This office becomes sort of the organization around which the vetVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
113 

erans come in, and they get all kinds of assistance and linking in 

with the administration of the school. 

But on those tough days where they need more help, this is the 

conduit to get them into our V.A. hospital system where mental 

health professionals wait to provide them the help—just the help 

they need to get them through those tough days or two, so they can 

get back on their feet and do what we expect, and that is, graduate 

out of that institution. 

I would just offer that, in 2011 we have put in the mental health budget $5.2 billion. It is an 8.5 percent increase over the substantial monies we put in this big 2010 year. So, we continue to see 

mental health, which includes the PTSD and TBI, and depression 

and other things that result when treatment is not provided properly, early on, to deal with some of these issues. 

In research, we have increased mental health research, specifically, 15 percent from 2009 to 2011, over this 2-year period. We are 

continuing to increase our investments in mental health research. 

We have also initiated a comprehensive study of Vietnam era 

women veterans to explore the long-term effects of military service 

on mental as well as physical health. 

So, this whole aspect of mental health is important to us, and we 

are reaching out in a number of ways. 

Your comment about PTSD not necessarily being dependent on 

combat activity is an appropriate one. I have a similar experience 

of a youngster coming out of Bosnia, which was not a combat situation, but exposed to some of the horrible circumstances that had to 

do with the mass executions there. And he was part of the security 

force once those mass graves were discovered, securing a crime 

scene, and lived with that image and in that environment, from 

smell to the physical aspects of it for weeks. And there was impact. 

So, very clearly, stress is the key word here, not combat, posttraumatic stress syndrome. And the stress comes in many different 

experiences. 

Mr. WAMP. Just want to underscore in closing, the value, I think, 

as we try to reach out to these veterans of having someone who has 

actually been there is invaluable, versus the people who work for 

the V.A. who have not been in this condition. 

And that is why I hope you can continue to identify people like 

Captain Hogsett who have actually experienced PTSD in a way 

that becomes so real. I think veterans are much more inclined to 

share and open up and participate with people who have been 

there than they are with just the public at large, or even the professional staff at the V.A. 

So, thank you very much for your willingness to use people like 

Captain Hogsett—— 

Secretary SHINSEKI. We will reach out to—— 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. To achieve this objective. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, let me follow up on the mental 

health care issue, if I could follow Mr. Wamp’s comments and questions. 

Where are we in terms of research of and implementation of best 

practices on how to deal with sections that have PTSD and mental 

health care issues? Is their mental health system and our procedures pretty consistent from hospital to hospital? Or are we trying 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
114 

radically different approaches from one hospital or one VISN to another? Where are we in that process? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, I am going to call Dr. Petzel 

up and ask him for that level of comparison. I would just tell you 

that, in the last several years we have hired something on the 

order of 6,000—— 

Dr. PETZEL. Additional mental health professionals. 

Secretary SHINSEKI [continuing]. Additional mental health professionals we have added to the work force. 

So, we now have their presence in all of our hospitals. And at 

all of our CBOCs we also have the capability to deal in this arena. 

Because of the stigma associated with mental health, we have 

moved mental health into the primary care area, for the average, 

patient where they are seeing a primary care physician and having 

mental health—initial mental health discussions, as well. For the 

more serious cases, obviously, we have the formal program, mental 

health. 

Let me ask Dr. Petzel to talk about the hospital-to-hospital comparisons. Thank you. 

Dr. Petzel. 

Dr. PETZEL. Chairman Edwards, the V.A. has embarked on an 

attempt to standardize and systemize the treatment of PTSD. 

There are two therapies that have a good evidence base published 

in the last several years. And we have embarked on a program to 

train our mental health professionals who treat patients with 

PTSD in these two cognitive-related therapies. 

So, I think there is great progress being made in standardizing 

treatment and in making treatment available to veterans that is 

truly evidence-based. 

And the other part of that is we are doing a very effective job 

of consistently screening all of those people that are returning from 

Iraq and Afghanistan for PTSD. In 2009, we screened over 26,000 

veterans in the primary care setting, and that is growing every 

day. Right now, we have 397,000 veterans who are receiving care 

for PTSD within the V.A., and 69,000 of these are OEF–OIF veterans. 

So, I believe we are making great progress in standardizing both 

evaluation and therapy of patients with PTSD. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Do you think, Dr. Petzel, that we need to 

do a lot of research in this area? Or are you using money within 

the V.A. medical accounts to test out different approaches? 

Dr. PETZEL. We certainly do, Mr. Chairman, need to do a lot of 

research in this area. 

As the secretary mentioned, our budget in 2011 for mental 

health research is going to be $82 million. This represents 14 percent of the total research budget. And a large part of that is devoted to mental health research, PTSD research, some of the most 

important parts of which are these pre- and post-deployment studies. 

We now have several pre-deployment evaluations of cadres of soldiers about to go and are in the process of now evaluating these 

groups as they have come back. We are learning a lot about the 

incidents of mental illness that occur in combat veterans and about 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
115 

the things that are responsible during that combat experience for 

some of those issues. 

So, yes, we need to devote a lot of money, we are devoting a lot 

of money to both PTSD research and mental health research in 

general. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Are you working with the National Institutes of 

Health or the National Institutes of Mental Health? Are they doing 

any research that has direct application to the V.A. and how we 

can help our veterans? 

Dr. PETZEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are grants coming from 

the National Institutes of Health that do look directly at these 

issues. It is not a large amount of money, but there is money from 

both the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes 

of Mental Health that is devoted to these types of problems. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you for that. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, we are also 

reaching beyond just V.A. I mentioned earlier, we have conducted 

a mental health summit with DOD this year to synchronize our activities, as well. And then, as an extension of that, we have also 

had a co-conference on suicides, as well you know, a more serious 

issue that we have to deal with. 

I would offer that V.A. has also stood up a suicide hotline that 

is nationally known. And it gets something on the order of 10,000 

calls a month. And a good many of those calls are people in crisis. 

And we intervene and interrupt what could be a very serious outcome. So, it is the whole spectrum of mental health that runs to 

the very serious cases. 

G.I. BILL

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you for that. 

Secretary Shinseki, let me ask about the scholarship program 

that I have the privilege of being involved in. Frankly, probably the 

most humbling and gratifying privilege I have had in my time here 

in Congress was the work to pass the John David Fry scholarship 

program to provide a full G.I. scholarship, as you know, to all military children who have lost a mother or father in military service 

since September 11th of 2001. 

Because we did not get that bill passed until the middle of last 

year, we agreed to work with the V.A. and not have that implemented at the very time you were trying to kick off the 21st Century G.I. Bill. It just would have slowed down the entire G.I. bill 

process. And we all know now how complicated that implementation has been. 

But since these children, who may have started school or been 

in college last year, they qualified for the benefits last year. But 

the policy was they would not get their first checks until August 

or September of this year. 

Can you give me some sense that the V.A. is really focusing on 

this? I can think of few people in this country that are more deserving of our nation’s support than children who have lost mothers or fathers in military service. And I know no one would agree 

with that more than you. 

But since they will have gone 1 year without receiving that college scholarship money, I just want to be comfortable that there is 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
116 

no additional delay beyond the implementation date of this fall. 

Any sense of confirmation there that we are going to get this started on time and get those checks out rapidly when the program 

kicks in? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I will call on Mr. Walcoff here in a second. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue I know you 

have given a lot of personal attention to and, in fact, carried this 

issue. We agree with you, and we are looking at the retroactive aspects of this. Let me get Mr. Walcoff here to provide a more detailed answer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Walcoff, for the record, will you please identify yourself, and then proceed? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I am Mike Walcoff. I am the Acting Undersecretary for Benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, I am able to tell you that we are on schedule for 

this. It is something we are very much aware of. We are working 

with the I.T. people and with all the supporting areas that have 

to be there for us to be able to process those claims. But we are 

on schedule to be able to implement as you said. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have any estimate as to how many children of military families actually were in college last year that 

would have qualified last year for this funding? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I do not know off the top of my head. I believe we 

have that information. I will have to get back to you on that. 

FUTURE VETERAN POPULATION

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay, good. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Secretary, one last question, then I will return back to 

Mr. Wamp. 

In the big picture of looking at V.A. health care budgets in the 

years forward, do I understand correctly that 2010 will mark the 

first year of an actual decline in the aggregate veterans population? 

Is that correct or not? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I missed the question. Decline—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. In 2010—we have been seeing an increase year 

after year in the total number of veterans in the United States. 

Someone had indicated that perhaps 2010 is the first year that 

number has leveled out. And because of the passing of our World 

War II veterans, many of our Korean War veterans and other veterans, the total veterans population is actually decreasing now. 

I do not know what—certainly, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars 

have had an impact on pushing those numbers up. But where are 

we demographically in terms of this year? Maybe more importantly 

than this year, where are we going over the next 5 to 10 years in 

the expectation of total number of American veterans? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I have seen the estimates that look out 20 

years. And the veteran population over 20 years, one estimate says 

that they will decrease by 47 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Over 20 years. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Over 20 years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Can you shorten that timeframe, say, over the 

next 5 years? What do the numbers look like? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
117 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I do not know when we hit that knee in the 

curve where it starts down. It may very well be 2010. But I would 

like to provide you a better answer for the record. 

What I would offer though is, even though the overall veteran 

population, 23 million today towards this 20-year decline, we are 

very aggressively outreaching to the veteran populations. And the 

fact that, as I indicated earlier, we process 977,000 claims and get 

a million new ones in return, suggests that whatever that larger 

population number is, we are still reaching out to veterans. 

And the 8.1 million veterans who are enrolled today, I do not 

think those numbers are going to go down. We will continue to see 

the success of our outreach programs, and our numbers, I think, 

are going to grow over the next several years. 

There is a knee in the curve. I just owe you a better answer 

when that happens. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So, while the overall numbers may be starting to 

trend down, then the number of veterans enrolled in the V.A. 

health care system you do not expect to be reduced. And I think 

you said in your opening comment the fact that veterans are living 

longer, as most Americans are, adds more expense per veteran 

than we might have had a decade or two decades ago. 

So, you do not see anything happening demographically in terms 

of the number of veterans that would dramatically reduce the need 

for funding for V.A. health care. Is that correct? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I would just point out the note I have been 

handed here, that the overall veteran population has actually been 

dropping for a couple of years now, and is expected to drop from 

roughly 23 million in 2010 to 21 million in 2015. But that is the 

larger population of veterans. 

My focus is the 8.1 million who are enrolled with us. Our outreach efforts are demonstrating we are being successful. And I am 

very happy with that. And so, I see that our enrollment numbers, 

there is going to be a different dynamic here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Secretary, looking across the concerns of the disabled American veterans, we have touched on many of their concerns that they shared with me today, but two that I wanted to 

raise in closing. 

I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, to finish here in five minutes and 

maybe even stick my head in the Energy and Water nuclear hearing across the hall, since I represent Oak Ridge. 

But one thing they raise that I want you to be sensitive to is 

that, when we increase dramatically funding, the feeling from certain veteran groups is that the money does not trickle down low 

enough to actually benefit them directly. And that is the bureaucracy that you inherited, which is a necessary part of delivering a 

big government program like V.A. benefits. 

But just be as sensitive as you can, and your staff, in making 

sure that there is an accountability function of the money getting 

to the veterans, particularly the disabled American veterans. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
118 

They also are concerned about CBOCs. You and I have talked in 

my office about how certain things, even with increased funding, 

are not happening, or cannot happen, or will not happen as fast as 

you would like to see. 

I come from one of those areas in Chattanooga, Tennessee, of 

somewhat degraded service because we are two hours by car from 

any inpatient facility. We have made great progress at our outpatient clinic in the past, and we are in line in 2012 for funding 

for a super CBOC, which is really needed. 

We are one of the highest service areas without a hospital immediately available, and the transport is difficult, dangerous, and 

mostly done by volunteer veterans in old vans. There was a wreck 

a few years ago, and people died. 

These super CBOCs are real important. And I just want you to 

speak to what you are doing to hurry the money into these programs to build these super CBOCs as quick as possible. I did not 

want to mess up your timeline or try to accelerate or expedite this. 

But I am very interested in these larger CBOCs and these investments in the outpatient clinic, so that you get as many functions 

of care to the veterans as possible, especially to avoid long travel 

to inpatient or overnight accommodations. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Well, Mr. Wamp, this is part of our effort of 

several decades now, to provide delivered health care to where veterans live. And you are familiar with our 153 hospitals and our 783 

CBOCs, and our Vet Centers and our outreach clinics and mobile 

clinics, even to find veterans who are living in very remote areas. 

Regarding the CBOC in Chattanooga, I believe is what you are 

talking about, we have the project being submitted in the FY 2012 

major construction cycle. It is part of our plan to do this, and I will 

look to ensure that this stays on track. 

Regarding the distribution of funds, we use something called the 

VERA model, which I think most are familiar with. It is the way 

we distribute, based on essentially veteran population. The model 

distributes 97 percent of the resources I receive in the health care 

budget. So, 97 percent is distributed out there. 

Now, there is always unevenness between the various VISNs, 

and that requires them to come back in. And we go through an adjustment process of up and down. The 3 percent that is held in reserve is intended to take care of the headquarters sort of operations. But the majority of that is to adjust what the VERA model 

has put out there. 

So, there is a process by which adjustments are underway. We 

have provided the monies out there. We are in the negotiation, if 

you will, with various VISNs who feel that they are a little bit 

short, and this may be the issue in this case. But there is some opportunity here to make right with them. 

Mr. WAMP. I just want to thank again the undersecretary for his 

willingness to work with the City of Chattanooga, that is already 

identifying properties that may be made available, and their efforts 

to hold that property until which time the V.A. could potentially 

expand the Chattanooga National Cemetery. It is a cooperative effort, and your undersecretary is really responsive, and I am grateful for that. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
119 

Mr. Chairman, if I might slip out and try to catch that Energy 

and Water meeting. Nothing against Mr. Farr, but he came in. And 

if that is okay, I will just leave you with it. 

And Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your service to our 

country and your presence today. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Thank you, congressman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp, you have my proxy on the Energy 

Committee, if you will go. Thank you for your time this morning. 

And I will commit to you that Mr. Farr and I will not do anything 

by unanimous consent that would undermine veterans care in Tennessee in your absence. 

Mr. Farr, the vice chairman of our committee is here, and I know 

you, as all members, have had multiple hearings this morning and 

this afternoon. But thank you for your leadership on this subcommittee. We have already had two or three rounds, so I would 

like to recognize you for whatever time you would like to have to 

talk to the secretary and ask any questions you might want to ask. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an 

honor to serve with you as vice-chair. I am so proud of your leadership in this and for veterans in this country. And it is indeed a 

pleasure always to have my general, my secretary, Mr. Shinseki, 

here for this hearing. 

It is interesting. One of the issues I am involved in is child nutrition. And the whole issue we are doing on child nutrition, the 

school feeding program, was started by Harry Truman in order to 

grow healthy kids, so they could qualify to get into the military. 

And we are back to that today, that an incredible percentage of 

American youth cannot qualify to be in the military because of obesity. 

I think that we are going to try to raise healthier children for 

healthier soldiers and healthier veterans. And I appreciate your 

leadership in it. 

You have discussed a lot of the questions about backlogs and how 

do we get people off the streets. We are doing a wonderful job of 

building in our communities locally—you know, paid for locally— 

homeless shelters. And we really have full services in those shelters, which are really helping people get back into recovery. 

EXTENDING CALL CENTER HOURS

But one of the things we have found is the veterans coming in 

to enroll in the universities and everything have had difficulty in 

communicating with the call center, because the call center is in 

different time zones. And I know I mentioned this to you when you 

were in my office. Have you considered extending the call center 

hours to accommodate the West Coast veterans? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Farr, this is something that we are 

working, and I will have you a better answer when we have implemented it. But it is a good point, that our call center services need 

to address the time differences in this large country of ours. We 

will do better at it. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you, because I do appreciate what you 

have done to clean up the administrative backlogs. And I think you 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
120 

are being very management wise in that, and I appreciate that 

leadership. 

CALIFORNIA STATE CEMETERIES

The other area which is really—it is one that the chairman is 

sick and tired of hearing about. I think the whole committee is. 

That is why they all left, because they know I would bring it up. 

But when Fort Ord closed, which was the largest military training base in the United States—in fact, to this day, it is the largest 

military base to ever close in the history of this country—28,000 

acres, there were about 33,000 people. And what we have tried to 

do is, with some of that land that the DOD owned and has transferred back to the community, is build a national cemetery. 

But we can’t on the Monterey Peninsula. That is where California government began, it is where the oldest presidio in the 

United States still operational exists. And so, you have this extensive history of military. And to this day, with the Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense Language Institute and a bunch 

of other service programs going on we still have a large military 

footprint, and we have been trying to convert this former base into 

a national cemetery. 

But because there is one over in the San Joaquin Valley, which 

is within 70 miles as the crow flies, we are not eligible, because it 

is a geographical restriction. 

You have the authority to look at this 70-mile radius and suggest 

that we squeeze it and make it, instead of a round circle, an elliptical circle, which would take in the entire coast of California, and 

from San Francisco. And certainly, that is where the people are. 

They want to come, because the cemetery in the San Joaquin Valley has no support services. 

I did a town hall meeting last night. And one of the questions 

come from a woman, who says, ‘‘My husband died 12 years ago. I 

have his ashes in my closet. And I am just wondering, can I bury 

him in Monterey? Because I don’t want to go over to Santa Nella.’’ 

And that is the thing that I hear over and over again. 

They tell us that we cannot build a national cemetery there until 

you have fully filled the one in existence. That is going to take a 

long, long time. 

This site is ready to go. We applied to have the plan B, the state 

option. But California, as you know, is not building cemeteries. I 

wish they were. I wish they were doing what your home state has 

nine, I think, state cemeteries. But California has chosen not to go 

that route, regardless of who the governor is. 

It is not a partisan issue. It is just they have decided that their 

priority is in the housing of soldiers in the retirement homes and 

the rest homes. And they will put their money—and a lot of that 

money is federal money—into that initiative, and not into maintaining state cemeteries. 

So, we have done a plan C, which was to try to raise the money 

locally for the state. It is having a lot of problems, because the 

economy is so flat. 

But I would really appreciate it if you could look at this. A lot 

of talk in Washington is about bending the curve. Could we bend 

that circle? That is what I want to know. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
121 

If we bend that circle, we qualify. And I would really appreciate 

your help on that. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Farr, I assure you, I will go and look at 

this, personally, very closely. I think we have briefed you on where 

we are. And I think you are aware that the encouragement was to 

have V.A. work with California to create a state cemetery, as you 

have indicated. That is probably not going to happen. 

So, let me go back, take a look at this, and see whether there 

is a solution we can come to that does not have a circle on it, and 

looks more like the elliptical that you suggest. 

Mr. FARR. We have got the property. We have got title to it. We 

have a master plan for the cemetery built to federal standards, the 

national standards. And we are shovel-ready. So, if we can just get 

authorization and some money, we can go. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Okay. Well, I will be on the ground there in 

Monterey next month, and I will—or this month—and I will make 

it a point to look at this. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sam. 

And let me just correct the record on one point. I will never get 

tired of hearing you fight for the veterans of your district and state. 

And my mentor in this public service business was a great World 

War II veteran named Olin E. Teague. And while he is not buried 

in a V.A. cemetery, he is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. 

And he was the most decorated World War II veteran to serve in 

the House during his era. And I know, before he died, how proud 

he was that he was going to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. And 

I know those same deep emotions exist among so many veterans 

when it comes to being buried in the sacred land of a V.A. cemetery. 

So, please keep up that fight. 

HOSPITALS

Mr. Secretary, I just want to finalize one last question. 

We have, as we talked about, given unprecedented increases over 

the last three years out of this subcommittee to the V.A. health 

care system. Anecdotally, I sometimes hear from individual hospitals, that while we were passing 10, 11, 12 percent per year VHA 

increases nationally, that the individual hospital’s allocations were 

only going up 1, 2, 3 or 4 percent. 

I know some of that answer, if that anecdotal information is correct, it may lie in the fact that we have V.A. programming money. 

But I would like to ask you or the VHA leadership if you have any 

information right now, either very specific or general, to tell me 

over the last two or three years, maybe compared to the total VHA 

increase, if it has been 10 or 12 percent? 

What have the individual hospitals on average been getting in 

their increased allocations? And if they are not getting 10 or 12 

percent to reflect the national increase, then where is that extra 

money going? 

And if you would like to follow up with greater detail in writing 

after this hearing is over, that would be certainly appreciated. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is an important question. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
122 

I think, for all of our leadership out there in the health care facilities, certainly at the VISN level, they are far more familiar with 

the VERA model than I am. But I would like to assure them that 

the VERA model is the start point, and then we negotiate after 

that. 

Ninety-seven percent of our resources are distributed. Three percent are retained at VHA level. 

The average VISN funding growth is 10 percent. The average 

growth across the VISNs is 10 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Over what period of time? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. This was for the year 2010—2009 to 2010, 

for this year’s budget. 

And so, out of that 10 percent average, you know, there is a portion of them that are above, and a portion of them who are below. 

And the lowest VISN comes in at a 5.3 percent increase, 2009 to 

2010. And I will be happy to give more detailed information. 

And some of the VISNs, or the VISNs that received a greater 

plus-up received it because of special things that were underway. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have that information, Mr. Secretary, on 

a hospital-by-hospital basis? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I am sure we can probably get it for 2010. 

I say we have distributed the monies for the VISNs. The VISNs are 

now doing the same thing we have done, and that is, array their 

cash to their hospitals. And they will go through the process of negotiating some VISN hold or reserve, as well. And at some point 

here, maybe about mid-year, we will have a lock on what those actual numbers are. And I would be happy to provide you then. 

We are still in the process of cash being adjusted across the system. The average VISN funding growth on VERA only was 5.7 percent. And so, that is sort of the break-out. 

Let me just—I may have answered—I may have provided more 

information than Dr. Petzel wanted me to provide. But let me see 

if he has anything to add here. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, as the secretary has pointed out, while the budget 

increase on average, or the average VERA distribution, say, in 

2010, was 10 percent that is an average. VERA distributes the 

money where the work has been. 

And so, if a network has been growing in terms of its work, it 

is going to be receiving probably more than that average. And if 

a network has been growing less than the average, then they are 

going to receive less than that 10 percent. 

The same thing would apply to a medical center. There are medical centers in our system whose work is not growing, whose work 

is actually declining. And they would be the medical centers that 

you might hear saying that we only got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 percent, when 

the national distribution, on average, was 10 percent. So, I think 

that the general answer to your question is that it is related to the 

work load of those individual medical centers. 

Now, the networks do not hold on to any money. They have a 

modest reserve. But all of the money that they get as part of the 

VERA distribution is distributed out to the medical centers. 

And it is also true, as you pointed out, that there is, besides 

VERA, program-specific money that comes to each medical center. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
123 

So, as an example, in 2010, 5.7 percent was the increase in VERA, 

but there was another almost 4 percent that was related to other 

program monies that got out to the medical centers. 

I think the general point is that the money goes to the medical 

centers, that it is not kept in Washington. It is not kept in the networks, because they have nothing to spend it on particularly, except to take care of veterans. And that the disparities that one sees 

in distribution at the medical centers is mostly related to the work. 

VERA DISTRIBUTIONS

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. And I think it makes sense that the V.A. 

has flexibility to send the money where the work is going on, and 

where the growth is. 

In fact, let me ask about that. If you have a VISN that is growing in the number of veterans receiving health care, do I understand there is a 2-year delay, or a 3-year delay in the funding 

model reflecting the increase in veterans population? 

Dr. PETZEL. The VERA distribution is based on historic data. 

And I would have to turn to Todd and Paul, but I think it is about 

18 months. Is that correct? 

And VERA is based on a rolling average of the work load prior 

to that. So, yes, there is a delay. And that requires a network to 

give some cognizance to that when they are distributing the money. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. But I would imagine that also creates challenges. 

If you are in an area of the country and you have a significant 

increase in veterans you are caring for, those are real costs being 

incurred. If you had a 5 percent increase in the number of veterans 

you were providing health care for, and yet, you do not get that 

funding for 18 months to 2 years, I guess, are they having to cut 

corners? Do they have reserve funds? Do they just have to stretch 

in whatever way they can to maintain their services? 

Dr. PETZEL. Mr. Chairman, there are several ways they would 

cope with that. 

In the network that I came from in my prior life, Network 23 in 

Minneapolis, we had a fund that we called ‘‘new work load.’’ We set 

aside money each year and would fund incrementally throughout 

the year each one of the medical centers for their new work load. 

And I know that there are a number of other networks that function in that fashion. There is a reserve in every network, and the 

opportunity for medical centers to come back and look at their reserve. 

I know that each network reviews monthly their work load and 

their funding, so that there are opportunities throughout the year 

to see that the funding is not adequate for the new work and for 

the opportunity to provide additional resources. 

I am not aware of, at this point in time, any network or facility 

that is having difficulties meeting their work load demands right 

now. We have enough money. It is a matter of getting it into the 

right places. 

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. EDWARDS. On the program money, you said that represented 

a pretty significant part of a VISN’s increase in funding. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
124 

Does that money, on average, come in the first quarter, second 

quarter? I have heard—again, this is anecdotal. So anecdotal feedback can be dangerous. I do not want to draw too many conclusions 

from that without looking at all the data. 

But does that money generally—and it is Congress that designates this, I think, more than the V.A. But does that program 

money come sometimes later in the year? And can you use that 

money as effectively as the formula money? 

For example, I wonder, if you get new program money for women’s health care, can you hire physicians? Can a hospital hire physicians on a long-term basis, not knowing if that program money 

will continue? Or is program money—how does that work? What 

are the pluses, minuses or challenges there? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, this year we received our appropriation in December and distributed it in early February. And 

a little bit of weather got in the way, but settling things out. That 

is the reason we are now a little bit late in our negotiation, but it 

is underway. 

And I think rightfully, VISN directors are a little concerned in 

getting their hands on their funds. It is out there now. The negotiation is underway. We are a little bit late in our usual cycle. 

For the new starts, it could be up to two years for a new start. 

But as Dr. Petzel indicates, there are internal procedures for dampening some of the impact until the VERA model, which is looking 

backwards can anticipate what those costs might mean in the future, 18 months to two years for that model to catch up with that 

new set of costs. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. And so, there are internal work-arounds 

that dampen that. It is something that VISN directors are concerned about. And Dr. Petzel, coming from being a VISN director, 

has great familiarity with that. And we need to be sensitive to 

making sure that VISN directors are heard. 

In April, probably the first time in this department, VISN directors are coming up to give a mid-year execution brief on the funds 

we have provided them, so that I can hear some of the same feedback that you are getting. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And certainly, the V.A. cannot be held responsible 

when Congress does not pass its appropriation bills on time. That 

is one reason I am glad we have the advanced appropriations now. 

On the program funding, it is always well-intentioned for highpriority causes. But is that more difficult to use efficiently versus 

formula money, because you are not sure, either VISN or an individual hospital is not sure whether it will receive that programming money beyond 1 year? 

How do you hire new doctors and nurses and make commitments 

with 1 year of program money, if you do not know—or is some of 

that program money basically, while it is not guaranteed for the future, it is predictable, and so, you can go on and make some longterm commitments? 

Is that, Dr. Petzel, in your experience as a VISN director, is that 

a challenge? 

Dr. PETZEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, generally speaking, program 

money comes in 2-year bundles—not always, but very often it does. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
125 

And 2 years gives you an opportunity to have VERA kick in, if you 

will, to help to fund that new initiative. 

So, I think sitting in this position now, one of the things that I 

want to do as much as I can do is ensure that there is 2-years’ 

worth of funding with most of these new initiatives. 

The rural health money, which Congress so generously gave us, 

is an excellent example. That is 2-year money. And we have rolled 

some of that into 2011 from—into 2010, rather, from 2009, because 

it was difficult to get it spent. 

But there will be enough money to ensure that work load is 

taken care of until VERA will kick in. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. 

Mr. Secretary, did you want to add to that, or not? 

Secretary SHINSEKI. I think Dr. Petzel answered the question. I 

was looking at some statistics here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Very good. 

Well, let me conclude by thanking you all for your time today, 

and especially for your leadership for the V.A. And while we 

anecdotally as members of Congress hear about individual cases 

where someone did not receive the care he or she deserved, my experience overwhelmingly is that our V.A. employees, whether it is 

in VHA, VBA or other divisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, are dedicated, hardworking employees that get up every day, 

trying to figure out how they can support our veterans. And that 

is why they are in the V.A. system. 

So, I want to not just thank you, I want to thank the 200,000 

plus V.A. employees that you represent for the hard work they do 

every day and the difference they are making in the lives of our 

veterans. 

And Mr. Secretary, if you would like to have the final word, we 

will adjourn. 

Secretary SHINSEKI. Just very simply to thank you once again, 

Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and your longstanding—and I 

know personally—longstanding support of our men and women in 

uniform, and in this new role, your commitment and dedication to 

those who have served, our veterans, and your insights into feedback that you receive. But it is not just that you receive as a member of Congress from Texas, but as the chairman of this committee 

feedback from all across the nation. And I appreciate that. 

And thanks for the very kind comments to the 300,000 employees 

of this great institution called the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

And when I look at the year that I have spent here, a little bit 

of what I have learned about this organization, it is described as 

the second-largest in federal government. That has some importance. 

But I think more importantly, it is the work force that comes to 

work every day, trying to do the right thing. They are responsible 

for, as I mentioned earlier, $9 billion of education benefits to 

565,000 veterans who are pursuing a dream, which I think is important for the country—for the veterans, to be sure—but important for the country. 

The work force in V.A. is the eighth-largest insurance entity in 

this country, $1.3 trillion of coverage for over seven million clients. 

It guarantees home loans to 1.3 million veterans to the tune of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
126 

$175 billion. And it has 96 percent success rate amongst those insured, a high response from them, but the lowest mortgage foreclosure rates of any financial institution in this country. 

And so, what this organization does in health care—153 hospitals 

and great research programs that are going to serve veterans for 

years to come. It is a terrific organization. But its ability to be effective is very much a product of what Congress permits. And we 

thank you for your partnership and your leadership in helping us 

meet those obligations to our veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is a privilege every day, Mr. Secretary. And, 

you know, we live in an age where the good stories do not often 

get told on the national level, so thank you for sharing some of the 

tremendous things that the V.A. is doing, even as we work together 

to face the challenges that are still out there. 

Thank you all for being here, and the subcommittee will stand 

adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the Record by Chairman Edwards follow:] 

Question 1. In the fiscal year 2010 bill we provided $48.2 billion as an advance 

appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for VA health programs. We were clear at the 

time that we expected you to provide an update in the February budget of changes 

that would be needed to that number because of increasing caseload, medical price 

inflation, etc. Yet your budget does not identify any changes to the advance. I can’t 

believe we were that accurate in our estimates. Can you please walk us through 

why you’re not proposing any changes to the 2011 advance appropriation? Answer. While the overall funding level of $48.183 billion for VA medical care did 

not change between the Advance Appropriations request and the FY 2011 Budget, 

there were numerous funding adjustments made at the activity level due to more 

recent administrative actions, or the availability of more current workload and funding data. 

For example, the FY 2011 Budget includes funding for new initiatives, not assumed in the Advance Appropriations request. The cost for these initiatives are covered under the overall medical care funding level through changes identified in: (1) 

Long Term Care (due to changes in 2009 actual workload and costs from the original estimates); (2) Ambulatory health care (savings which will be achieved due to 

a recently published regulation to lower VA’s contract payments to Dialysis providers); and (3) deferring lower-priority infrastructure improvements. The Department will be able to increase funding for infrastructure improvements as additional 

resources, which are anticipated but not reflected in the budget, become available 

(e.g.: carryover funding from FY 2010; a Government-wide initiative to reduce contract spending). 

Question 2. Your budget submission last year included funding for several programs that you identified as part of the Department’s transformation process. Your 

transformation review has been completed and its implementation is reflected in 

your readjustment of fiscal year 2010 funding and your request for fiscal year 2011 

programs. What major ideas came of your transformation review and how are those 

ideas reflected in the budget we are looking at this year? 

Answer. The Department has established six high priority performance goals that 

support transformation and are an integral part of the 2011 budget. A summary of 

each is provided below. 

The first high priority performance goal is Reducing the Claims Backlog. A major 

initiative to accomplish this goal is the development of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). This initiative will result in a paperless environment for 

Veteran claims processing and benefits delivery of compensation and pension, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment, insurance, and loan guaranty. 

VBMS will combine business process transformation and commercial-off-the-shelf information technology to process a Veteran’s claim electronically from submission to 

payment. VBMS goal is to improve service to Veterans by providing the capability 

to apply for, monitor and manage benefits online and substantially contribute to the 

overall efforts to reduce average days to complete compensation and pension rating 

claims. The 2011 budget includes $145.3 million in information and technology 

funds to support the ongoing development of a paperless claims processing system 

as well as $43.4 million in Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) funding to supVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
127 

port the business transformation strategy that must accompany effective technological change. 

The second high priority performance goal is to Eliminate Veteran Homelessness. 

VA’s plan to end homelessness among Veterans includes helping Veterans acquire 

safe housing, needed treatment services, opportunities to return to employment, and 

benefits assistance. These efforts are intended to end the cycle of homelessness by 

preventing Veterans and their families from entering homelessness. This coupled 

with VA’s philosophy of ‘‘no wrong door’’ means that all Veterans seeking to prevent 

or get out of homelessness are provided easy access to programs and services. VA 

has identified six strategies to achieve the goal of eliminating Veteran homelessness: outreach/education, treatment, prevention, housing/supportive services, income/employment/benefits and community partnerships. These six strategies encompass a wide continuum of interventions and services to end homelessness among 

Veterans. Homeless Veterans will benefit from the expansion of existing programs 

and treatment services, as well as the implementation of new programs focused on 

homelessness prevention and increased access to permanent housing with supportive services. VA’s budget includes $4.2 billion in 2011, including $3.4 billion of 

treatment costs, to prevent and reduce homelessness among Veterans. 

The third high priority performance goal is Automating the GI Bill Benefit System. The GI Bill initiative implements the business processes and automation to 

provide a client-centered approach to delivering the education benefits provided 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. This will allow VA to deliver educational benefits to 

all eligible service members, Veterans, and family members by (1) modernizing GI 

Bill processing and systems; (2) using GI Bill modernization as a model to migrate 

all educational programs onto an integrated, sustainable platform; and (3) 

proactively reaching out to ensure clients understand GI Bill benefits and are supported throughout the education enrollment process. The 2011 budget provides 

$44.1 million to complete the automated solution for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill 

claims and to begin the development of electronic systems to process claims associated with the other educational programs. 

The fourth high priority performance goal is Establishing a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. VLER is an interagency federal initiative, in collaboration with the 

private sector, to create a secure exchange for electronically sharing and proactively 

identifying the entire spectrum of health and benefits entitlements for our service 

members and Veterans, and their dependents. This virtual record will enhance the 

timely delivery of benefits and services to Veterans. VA has $52 million in IT funds 

in 2011 to continue VLER development and implementation. 

The fifth high priority performance goal is Improving Mental Health Care. This 

initiative encompasses five sub-goals; (a) consolidate VA’s mental health programs 

into a sustainable, patient-centered, national subsystem; (b) sustain processes to ensure ongoing recruitment and retention of mental health staff; (c) enhance VA’s capacity to deliver evidence-based psychosocial interventions; (d) use findings from the 

October 2009 VA–DoD Summit to inform planning, implementation, and operations 

using a public health model to enhance mental health services; (e) collaborate with 

the compensation and pension program to revise the disability rating schedule for 

mental health conditions, and to develop communications to minimize misunderstandings and tensions regarding the interactions between treatment for mental 

health conditions and ratings of disability. VA’s 2011 budget provides $5.2 billion 

for mental health. 

The sixth high priority performance goal is Deploying a Veterans Relationship 

Management System. This is designed to improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency 

in which information is exchanged between Veterans and VA, regardless of the communications method (phone, web, email, and social media). The focus will include 

modernization of voice telephone systems, unification of public contact representative desktops, implementation of identity and access management, development of 

cross VA knowledge management systems, implementation of customer relationship 

management systems, and integrating self-service capabilities with multiple communication channels. The 2011 budget provides $51.6 million in IT funding for this initiative and $3.8 million in VBA funding to support integration and implementation 

of the VRM components. 

In addition to the high priority performance goals the Department has identified 

the following key focus areas for transforming the VA into a 21st century organization. 

Expand health care eligibility and access for Veterans, including women and rural 

populations by eliminating disparities in access to care. VA will focus on the gaps 

for underserved populations, and on expanding their access so that every Veteran 

can get the care they need—at the right place and the right time. This includes outreach efforts to proactively identifying and communicate with Veterans who may be 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
128 

eligible for services, but may be unaware of the benefits or do not know how to enroll. 

Expand access to burial in VA national cemeteries by implementing a new policy 

that lowers the Veteran population threshold for establishing new national cemeteries from 170,000 to 80,000 Veterans living within 75 miles of a cemetery. This 

new policy will provide additional access to about 500,000 Veterans. 

Question 3. The budget request for Departmental Administration has an increase 

of over 16% compared to the fiscal year 2010 appropriation, and an increase of about 

8.5% in the number of full-time equivalent personnel. Since fiscal year 2009, the increases are 38% in funding and 27% in personnel for all of the offices in the General 

Administration account. What would justify such significant funding and personnel 

increases in administrative offices? 

Answer. The increases in the General Administration account are part of the Department’s overall effort to transform VA into a 21st Century organization. Many 

of the initiatives in this account will allow VA to improve services and transform 

the corporate management infrastructure through: • Increased investment in training and career development through a corporate 

level human capital initiative; 

• A significant realignment of the acquisition process through an enterprisewide facilities management system; 

• An effective financial management system to ensure accountability and transparency; 

• Increased level of oversight and audits to ensure efficiencies and savings; • Improved corporate analysis and evaluation to ensure programs are serving 

veterans as intended, providing maximum value; 

• Increased emphasis and investment on in VA’s ‘‘Green’’ programs; • Improved safety and enhanced infrastructure security nationwide by implementing the President’s HSPD–12 directive. In addition, $23.6 million in this account will be used for the President’s acquisition reform initiative that will increase the capacity and capability of VA’s acquisition workforce. This accounts for about 37 percent of the requested increase in 2011. 

Through this initiative VA will also develop an annual acquisition human capital 

plan that will be used in building VA’s budgets in 2012 and beyond. 

Question 4. Although it is not mentioned in your written testimony, the Presi- dent’s budget requests a supplemental of more than $13 billion for compensation for 

Agent Orange exposures that are now considered presumptively eligible because of 

your October decision. Your budget office estimates that these claims will increase 

VA costs by $38.8 billion over the next ten years for compensation and pensions. 

What do you project to be the additional cost of health care associated with the presumption decision? How many other conditions could you decide to make presumptively eligible, and what cost implications would they have? 

The FY 2011 Budget estimates $165 million in FY 2011 and $171 million in FY 

2012 for health care related to the new presumptions regarding Agent Orange. 

VA is also taking steps to make it easier for Veterans to obtain disability compensation for certain diseases associated with service in the Persian Gulf War or 

Afghanistan. Additional details are discussed in the response to question 5. 

Question 5. Aside from Vietnam War exposure to Agent Orange, do you have similar authority to make conditions presumptively eligible for disability compensation 

from exposures during other conflicts, such as the Gulf War? What exposures might 

justify such a designation? For example, we have heard that the VA and DoD are 

observing illnesses that may be linked to exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. We understand the Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses Task Force Report deals with 

this issue. What changes do you foresee as a result of that report? 

Answer. Similar to 38 U.S.C. § 1116, which provides authority to establish presumptive service connection as a result of Agent Orange exposure, 38 U.S.C. § 1118 

provides authority for VA to establish presumptions as a result of service in the 

Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. 

Regarding current environmental hazards, such as burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are studies and reviews ongoing for these issues (e.g., Institute of Medicine). VA will review these studies when completed and make recommendations to 

the Secretary on any policy changes that may be warranted by these studies. As 

a result of Task Force efforts, VBA has issued a comprehensive training package 

to regional offices to promote awareness, consistency, and fairness in handling disability claims from Veterans with service in the Gulf War and Southwest Asia. This 

training package includes a training letter issued to all Regional Offices, followed 

by a national training broadcast. 

In the near future, an additional training letter will be issued to regional offices. 

This training letter will cover other military environmental hazards, (e.g., burn pits, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
129 

sulfur fire, etc.) and how claims for disability compensation due to these hazards 

should be handled. The cumulative result of the VBA initiatives listed in the Task 

Force Report should be that VA will decide all disability claims generally resulting 

from service in Southwest Asia and from specific environmental hazard exposures 

in Iraq and Afghanistan more accurately and uniformly. 

Question 6. Your budget documents indicate that the Department intends to hire 

1,283 additional medical and medical support employees in fiscal year 2011, but 

then turn right around and decrease that staffing by 1,200 in fiscal year 2012. Is 

this really the way to go when you’re predicting that you will have more than 

150,000 additional unique patients, or a 2.5% increase, in 2012? 

Answer. The decrease of 1,200 full-time employees is the result of a gradual, natural reduction such as through retirement. The 2012 budget provides a balanced 

program of staffing and other non-payroll needs, which will allow VA to continue 

to provide Veterans with high quality of healthcare. 

Question 7. In a recent report from the Department’s Inspector General concern 

is voiced about finding space for new claims processing staff. The report states: ‘‘Officials from each of the three VAROs we visited reported that space constraints were 

either already an issue or will be after filling ARRA-funded positions. Because of 

space issues, VARO Milwaukee started a second shift to fully utilize ARRA-funded 

employees and also rented additional office space for new employees.’’ What provisions have you made to handle the space needs of the additional staffing requested 

in the FY 2011 budget? Do you foresee more Regional Offices using second shifts 

to address space issues, or will you be renting additional office space? Which offices 

are experiencing space problems? 

Answer. The majority of regional offices are either at or near capacity for additional hiring during core operating hours. VBA is assessing the availability of space 

to accommodate the additional employees. A short-term solution will involve shift 

work in existing facilities until additional space accommodations can be arranged. 

Hiring for second-shift operations will be considered at several regional offices to 

meet hiring needs. A detailed plan to accommodate the additional employees, including reconfiguring existing space and/or expanding into new space, is expected 

to be completed by the end of May 2010. 

Question 8. On February 18, 2010, the Department launched the ‘‘Veterans 

Health IT Innovation Initiative,’’ and employee-based competition to spur the Department’s transformation. The idea is that people on the ground closest to problems 

may have the best ideas to help solve those problems. Likewise, people working on 

similar problems in the private sector might have solutions that could work for VA. 

One of my concerns is that many times people from the private sector come to me 

with ideas that sound good, but I may not be qualified to judge them, so I need 

someplace to send them. Have you thought about expanding this competition to include ideas from the private sector as well as the employees of the Department? 

Answer. VA agrees the private sector can provide valuable ideas and solutions to 

support VA’s transformation efforts. Although the primary target for VHA and VBA 

innovation initiatives were the internal VA workforce, VA’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) has also engaged industry to solicit their ideas for innovation on the Department’s Strategic Priorities. 

As part of VA’s transformation, the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction (OALC) implemented a supplier relationship transformation initiative (SRTI) in 

August 2009. The SRTI recognizes VA’s supplier community is a critical partner to 

VA’s success in addressing the changing dynamic of providing services for Veterans 

in the 21st century. VA’s current business environment does not facilitate an easy 

or open exchange of information and ideas with the supplier community and key VA 

decisionmakers. In an effort it improve and establish transparency in the processes, 

as well as increase VA access to the industry best practices and innovation, VA embarked upon a transformation of the acquisition process under the staff cognizance 

of Veterans, VA suppliers, and management at all levels. As part of this effort, 

OALC has and will continue to host meetings and Webinars with its industry partners. A web portal is now operational whereby suppliers may provide input and suggestions for VA’s SRTI, as well as innovative ideas for implementing VA’s strategic 

initiatives. Through March 19, 2010, industry partners, suppliers, Veterans, and 

citizens have forwarded 70 recommendations to the web portal for consideration. In 

addition, 71 concept papers were submitted with specific proposals and recommendations toward initiative achievement. VA is reviewing and carefully considering each submission. 

Question 9. You recently announced that the VA will expand its evaluation tool, 

the Program Management and Accountability System (PMAS), to ALL information 

technology systems, beyond the 45 initially halted and reviewed last year. I must 

say the PMAS system seems like a badly needed, proactive approach to assure the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
130 

public that the VA is spending its IT dollars wisely. The IT Dashboard, which was 

developed by OMB as a sort of scorecard on agency IT efforts, indicates that the 

PMAS review may be overdue. The Dashboard scores 59 percent of the VA’s major 

IT projects as ‘‘red’’—of ‘‘significant concern.’’ Do you anticipate halting more of 

these projects for review and termination or redevelopment? 

Answer. PMAS gives project managers the tools to effectively manage their 

projects and avoid future project pauses or stops, but the continual, rigorous oversight of projects may uncover risks that result in a project being paused. VA will 

temporarily pause or completely stop, as appropriate, any IT project that is underperforming and does not meet VA’s business needs. 

Question 10. In the fiscal year 2010 budget submission for information technology, there was included $144 million for development of the paperless claims processing 

system for benefits. That budget request was approved by the Congress. However, 

your current estimate for the program indicates that you will spend only $63 million 

in fiscal year 2010. Can you explain what is happening with this program that 

would account for the 56% reduction in program execution expenditure in fiscal year 

2010? 

Answer. The VA FY2010 budget submission for the Paperless Initiative (now 

called the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS)) was based on an acquisition strategy that has since changed. Veterans Benefits Administration is now undergoing a business process transformation with respect to claims processing. Because the exact nature of the new business processes is not yet fully determined, 

and because the potential for new business processes is intertwined with innovative 

uses of information technology, VA has elected to (1) defer some of the proposed 

funding into FY2011, at which time additional business requirements will become 

sufficiently clear to move forward with the requisite software development, and (2) 

use an agile software development approach for VBMS. This agile approach allows 

VA to make progress in software development now for those business requirements 

that are clear, while allowing for evolution in additional business processes that will 

be incorporated rapidly into subsequent software development, using industry best 

practices. This agile approach to software development allows better resource alignment with emerging program requirements, better management of product delivery 

schedules, and better involvement of the technical, business, and customer community throughout the system development lifecycle. VA has not reduced its overall 

planned resource support for the re-engineering of claims processing nor for VBMS. 

Question 11. We’re pleased that you’re making a personal effort to meet with 

groups of Veterans to learn their needs and their impressions of VA services. I 

imagine you have heard often from Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans on one topic 

in particular—their contention that VA needs to support more research that is geographically specific to learn the source and medical impact of the environmental exposures that they face in wartime. How are you modifying the VA research portfolio 

to respond to these urgent requests? 

Answer. VA Research continues to enhance its responsiveness to Veterans and 

their health needs. More than 70 percent of VA researchers are active clinicians, 

making them the most keenly aware health care professionals of the unique health 

care issues our Veterans face. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF), VA’s research portfolio has adjusted to respond to 

the specific needs of those Veterans while still addressing the specific needs of the 

Veterans of past conflicts such as the Vietnam War and Gulf War. 

The cohorts of Vietnam War and Gulf War Veterans are by definition broadly associated with locations of military service for recent conflicts (Vietnam, Gulf War or 

Iraq, Afghanistan Theaters of Operation). VA has not historically had data to specifically identify exact locations of a military service member beyond where a unit 

was stationed within the Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc., nor is geographic data always available from Department of Defense (DoD) on specific exposures within-Theater. Improved collaboration between VA and DoD regarding precise geographic locations of military service and geographic air quality monitoring for potential exposures may help to more precisely define the cohorts if it is deemed beneficial to do 

so. The type of research that could potentially receive the greatest benefit from a 

more precise cohort would be long-term longitudinal studies to determine the common health outcomes of a specific group of Veterans. 

Epidemiologic studies can define cohorts in several ways. While distinctions based 

on being in a particular geographic location is one option, the nature of the research 

question being addressed plays a more critical role in how a cohort is defined. Research Studies that look at Veteran cohort groups do not preclude the possibility of 

also collecting data on geographic location. Defining a cohort strictly on geographic 

location may result in limitations to conclusions. For example, it may be difficult 

to verify whether an individual was in a particular location except by the individVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
131 

ual’s self-report alone. Further, since individuals can move in and out of a given location, the timeframe for being in the location and an ability to verify it also need 

to be given specific consideration. 

Epidemiologic studies should place a strong emphasis on defining the cohort being 

studied in order to provide meaningful results. The methodology for defining the cohort is usually driven by the research question being posed. 

Question 12. In the FY2008 budget submission detailed information was provided 

regarding the replacement hospital planned for New Orleans. That detailed information indicated a 200-bed hospital was planned, consisting of 775,000 square feet at 

a cost per square foot of $231.70. The FY2011 budget submission also includes detailed information on the planned hospital, in support of a higher cost. The current 

information is also for a 200-bed hospital, but the square footage is now listed as 

1,250,000, an increase of almost 62%. And the cost per square foot is now estimated 

at $380.03, an increase of 64%. In addition, the information included in the budget 

this year indicated that over 107,000 square feet of space will undergo renovation 

at a cost of about $21.5 million. 

Question a. Why has the size of the facility increased by 62%, when the number 

of beds will remain the same, at 200? 

Answer. The FY08 authorization request identified 775,000 square feet to be constructed. The FY11 budget submission listing of 1,250,000 square feet reflects the 

projected requirement for space to meet future needs. This increase in space is primarily contributable to two factors. First is a significant rise in the workload projection. The space program generated in 2007 was based on a projection of 409,000 annual outpatient visits. The current projection is 637,000 annual outpatient visits, a 

56% increase. Second, there have been changes to the space criteria for several departments, including a complete revision of the nursing home (community living 

center) design guide. There are 60 nursing home unit beds in this project. 

Question b. What is the reason for the very significant growth (64%) in the cost 

per square foot for new construction? 

Answer. The project cost is impacted by cost escalation due to schedule slippage— 

to date, the city of New Orleans still has not completed the land acquisition, originally scheduled to be complete in November 2009. The city proposed, and VA agreed 

to, an amended schedule to acquire the property by July 2010. Also, the massive 

size of this project, accompanied with the similar hospital project being constructed 

by the State of Louisiana on adjacent property, will require the import of skilled 

labor, requiring the construction firms to provide housing for a significant portion 

of the workforce. An additional design requirement impacting the project’s overall 

cost is providing a facility that can continue operations for seven days in the event 

of hurricane or flooding. In an effort to mitigate the cost impacts, VA is using a new 

delivery method for this project, bringing the constructor onboard while design is 

being completed. The constructor is providing input to the design process to help 

determine ways to reduce construction costs. 

Question c. Since this is a new facility, what is being renovated at a cost of $21.5 

million? 

Answer. The property being acquired for the project includes two historic structures. As part of the NHPA compliance process, in negotiating historic preservation 

mitigation actions, VA agreed to renovate these structures and incorporate them 

into the campus. 

Question 13. Please list the authorized political positions within the VA and identify if they are currently occupied. How does this number compare to fiscal year 

2009? 

Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is authorized to fill 15 positions 

by presidential appointment with Senate confirmation. The number of authorized 

positions was the same for FY2009, at which time 10 of these positions were occupied. The political positions are: 

Position title Fill status 

Secretary ....................................................................................................................................................... Occupied. 

Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................................................... Occupied. 

Under Secretary for Health ........................................................................................................................... Occupied. 

Under Secretary for Benefits ........................................................................................................................ Vacant. 

Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs .......................................................................................................... Vacant. 

General Counsel ........................................................................................................................................... Occupied. 

Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... Occupied. 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Governmental Affairs ........................................................................... Occupied. 

Assistant Secretary for Management ........................................................................................................... Vacant. 

Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology ................................................................................... Occupied. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
132 

Position title Fill status 

Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration .................................................................. Occupied. 

Assistant Secretary for Operations, Security and Preparedness ................................................................. Occupied. 

Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning ............................................................................................... Occupied. 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs ................................................................... Occupied. 

Chairman, Board of Veterans Appeals ........................................................................................................ Occupied. 

Question 14. Identify the distribution of GS grade level staff in the VBA, VHA, 

and NCA? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
GS grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

VHA ...................................................................... 116 477 1566 7686 29758 31259 16302 6723 13129 2355 20128 14007 8958 2213 60VBA ...................................................................... 0 0 88 893 1099 818 3686 72 2653 2317 2447 3245 1499 327 13NCA ...................................................................... 0 0 0 4 99 104 129 8 11 0 64 46 100 60 1

GRADE TOTAL ............................................. 116 477 1654 8583 30956 32181 20117 6803 15793 4672 22639 17298 10557 2600 76

a. Data Source COIN PAI 115 TBL B1/B2 12/31/2009. b. Full-time/part-time/intermittent employees. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
134 

Question 15. For the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, identify 

the percentage increase each VISN received compared to the overall appropriation. 

Then identify the percentage increase each hospital received within those VISNs. 

Describe briefly the guidelines each VISN followed to allocate the VA funding by 

hospital? 

Answer. The requested data by Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) and 

hospital for FY 2008 and FY 2009 are reflected in the below attached spreadsheet. 

Guidelines that VISNs must follow when allocating funds to VA Medical Centers 

are included in the annual Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) handbook provided annually to all members of Congress and are reproduced here for convenience. 

Network allocation systems must: 

• Be readily understandable and result in predictable allocations. 

• Support high quality health care delivery in the most appropriate setting. 

• Support integrated patient-centered operations. 

• Provide incentives to ensure continued delivery of appropriate Complex Care. 

• Support the goal of improving equitable access to care and ensure appropriate 

allocation of resources to facilities to meet that goal. 

• Provide adequate support for the VA’s research and education missions. 

• Be consistent with eligibility requirements and priorities. 

• Be consistent with the network’s strategic plans and initiatives. 

• Promote managerial flexibility, (e.g., minimize ‘‘earmarking’’ funds) and innovation. 

• Encourage increases in alternative revenue collections. 

Question 16. The FY11 budget submission for the Denver Medical Center project 

indicates that the size of the facility is being reduced 33% when compared to the 

material provided with the FY2009 budget submission, yet the pre-design development costs have increased by 200% and the ‘‘total other costs, utilities, etc.’’ cost 

category has a 50% increase. Likewise, the total cost of the project remains essentially unchanged despite the 33% decrease in size as measured by square footage. 

Please explain in detail the reason for the size decrease as well as the increases in 

pre-design development and ‘‘total other costs, utilities, etc.’’ categories. 

Answer. The reduction in space planned for the new facility is attributable to two 

reasons. First, as part of the planning process, it was recognized that some services 

were being provided to veterans who were traveling significant distances to Denver. 

The plan was revised to increase services in selected outlying areas through expanded outpatient clinic services, e.g. billings and Colorado Springs and in some 

cases the purchase of inpatient care in the communities. The second reason for the 

reduction was to lessen the total increase in cost that was occurring since the 

project was originally conceived. 

The increase in the ‘‘total other costs, utilities, etc.’’ cost category has increased 

because of the new requirement for renewable energy in the amount of $30 million 

that was included in the FY11 cost estimate. It was determined as the project design progressed that the site does not accommodate as many surface parking spaces 

as originally anticipated and therefore a greater percentage of the parking needs to 

be provided in a garage, which is more costly. In addition, we did not anticipate the 

extent of the off-site utility and infrastructure improvements needed to support a 

medical center at the new site. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp follow:] 

NEW STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Your testimony reports that the VA recently completed development of a new 

strategic framework, and that the new strategic plan that will be presented is currently in the final stages of review. 

Questions 

1. How many stages of review are there? 

2. Where is it in that review process? 

3. When will this new framework be presented? 

4. When will this Committee see this new strategic framework? 

5. Specifically, what is new about this framework that the VA is not currently 

doing? 

6. How is this framework different from the transformation that was so prevalent 

in your testimony last year? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
135 

Answer 

The Department’s new strategic framework is people-centric, results-driven, and 

forward-looking. The 5 year strategic plan for a large Department with three major 

service components is complex and requires careful and deliberate review. The review process includes collaboration with other federal agencies as well as careful internal and external review. The time it has taken to complete the review is testimony to its change. The plan is currently in the final review phase. As the plan 

is approved, the Department would be pleased to brief you and your staff on this 

plan. 

The strategies included in our plan will guide the VA workforce to ensure that 

the Department focuses on producing the outcomes Veterans expect and have 

earned through their service to our country. The framework of our Strategic Plan 

supports the Secretary’s vision to transform VA into a 21st century organization. 

VETERANS’ PERCEPTION OF THE VA 

Question 1. What is your perception of what Veterans expect from the VA? 

Answer. When the Secretary travels around the country the concerns he hears are 

important to Veterans are associated with these three themes: • better access to benefits and services; • reducing the disability claims backlog and wait times for receipt of earned 

benefits; and • ending the downward spiral that, often enough, results in Veteran homelessness. 

Question 2. Do you believe that Veterans expectations are in sync with the way 

the VA is delivering its programs? 

Answer. Taken together, VA initiatives are intended to meet Veterans’ expectations. 

This budget provides the resources required to enhance access to our health care 

system and our national cemeteries. VA will expand access to health care through 

the activation of new and improved facilities, by expanding care to Veterans who 

were exposed to the toxic effects of Agent Orange 40 years ago, by expanding eligibility to more Priority Group 8 Veterans, and by making greater investments in 

telehealth to extend our delivery of care into the most remote communities. Finally, 

VA will increase access to our national shrines by establishing five new cemeteries. 

VA is requesting an unprecedented 27 percent increase in funding for our Veterans Benefits Administration, primarily for staffing to address the growing increases in disability claims receipts, even as we continue to reengineer our processes 

and develop a paperless system that will be integrated with the development of the 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. 

The budget also requests a substantial investment in the homeless program over 

the next five years through an aggressive approach that is not just about beds but 

includes housing, education, jobs and health care. 

VA’s job is to serve Veterans by increasing their access to VA benefits and services, to provide them the highest quality of health care available, and to control 

costs to the best of our ability. Doing so will make VA a model of good governance. 

Question 3. Given the expectations that Veterans have, when will Veterans have 

easier access to benefits? 

Answer. The Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) Program is a business 

philosophy centered on client relationship management that leverages the latest in 

technology. VRM will provide internet and telephone capabilities with self-service 

options, increase VA’s awareness of our clients’ needs, and allow VA to react to 

them effectively. 

Through these enhanced channels of communication, our clients will be able to 

find and obtain consistent information about VA’s benefits and services, regardless 

of which access channel they choose. They will be able to conduct secured internet 

transactions seamlessly across multiple VA service lines, without repeating information. Our clients will be able to perform basic administrative services such as changing an address, reviewing the status of a claim, reporting changes in dependency, 

notices of death, and certification for educational and home loan purposes. 

As of April 4, 2010, Veterans are able to review their benefit payments and check 

the status of their claims using VA’s secure portal. VRM and e-Benefits will enhance 

VA’s communication and services to Veterans and their families during 2010 and 

in the coming years. 

VA partnered with SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

processing solution that utilizes rules-based, industry-standard technologies, for the 

delivery of education benefits. This is our long-term strategy for implementing the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill. The goal of the long-term solution is to automatically process as 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
136 

many claims as possible with minimal human intervention. Replacing the interim 

solution, which is supplemented by job aids, the long-term solution will automate 

many of the manual processes currently required to process a claim. For example, 

claims processors will no longer manually enter payments in a separate system after 

processing claims. Payments will be automatically sent to a payment system when 

users enter claims. By December 2010, users will process all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

within the long-term solution. 

VA’s plan is to improve claims processing by using a three-pronged approach involving improved business processes, expanded technology, and hiring staff to bridge 

the gap until we fully implement our long-range plan. We will explore process and 

policy simplification and contracted service support in addition to the traditional approach of hiring new employees to address this spike in demand. We expect these 

transformational approaches to begin yielding significant performance improvements in fiscal year 2012 and beyond; however, it is important to mitigate the impact of the increased workload until that time. 

REDUCING THE CLAIMS BACKLOG

Question. When a Veteran files a claim, are they told that it could take up to 161 

days to process their claim? 

Answer. VBA makes every effort to process each Veteran’s claim in the most expeditious manner. Some claims are more complex than others and require additional 

development to meet our legal obligations to assist Veterans in obtaining all available evidence. As a result, processing time varies by individual case. We therefore 

do not provide projected timeframes for completion of processing when a Veteran 

files a claim. 

DEPLOYING A VETERANS RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/VETERANS BENEFIT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (VBMS) 

Question 1. Will the system allow the VA to focus more on processing claims? 

Answer. The Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) Program will provide clients with self-service options for obtaining and submitting information related to 

their claims. As our clients migrate from telephone contact to web-based self-service, 

resources may shift from contact centers to the processing of claims. 

The capability to receive claims for benefit and services electronically will allow 

VA to leverage data and invoke rules-based technologies to automate the processing 

of these requests. VRM will serve as the client interface to populate the Veterans 

Benefits Management System (VBMS) and allow rules-based processing to occur. 

Question 2. What are the multiple methods that Veterans will be able to access 

the VA? 

Answer. Clients will be provided access and self-service options through telephone 

(interactive voice response) and the web (portal access, chat, and messaging services). Traditional means of access, such as in-person contact, will greatly be enhanced by a robust customer relationship management (CRM) system that will 

maintain data on clients and enable more personalized customer service. 

Question 3. Give us a sense of how this is going to benefit our Veterans? 

Answer. VRM will leverage technological advances to learn more about the needs 

and preferences of our clients and allow VA to become more proactive in serving 

them in an integrated fashion. VRM will provide on-demand access to comprehensive VA services and benefits through a multi-channel (web-based, interactive voice 

response, etc.) CRM approach. The initiative will provide: • Consistent information, anytime, anywhere: VA will increase access and efficiency by facilitating anytime, anywhere access to accurate and consistent information on benefits and services through one knowledge base. This knowledge base will 

facilitate the ability to capture, store, share, and search for information on general 

benefits and services across all VA organizations. • Unified approach to managing Veteran-specific knowledge: VA will maintain a 

shared record of all contacts between all VA organizations and our clients through 

state-of-the-art CRM to achieve better understanding of our clients’ needs to improve our ability to measure service quality, and provide personalized experiences 

and superior customer service. This data will be subject to rigorous client privacy 

and security protections. • Completely integrated service processes and systems: VA will provide a unified 

desktop approach with access to integrated information management between all 

VA organizations to ensure continuity of service and to better resolve issues. VA will 

integrate major VA organizations’ contact centers, allowing for a call received at one 

to be seamlessly resolved at another without losing the context of the issue. Veterans will receive care quicker and easier in VA medical centers, community-based 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
137 

outpatient clinics (CBOC), and other authorized fee-based care centers through the 

implementation of a standard beneficiary identification card. 

• Seamless client service access across channels: VA will ensure that all channels 

through which Veterans choose to access VA services are convenient, easy to use, 

and provide the same high level of quality service. VA will modernize our telephone 

services to enhance the experience of Veterans who together make 30 million phone 

calls to VA annually. VA will introduce identity and access management processes 

and systems to enhance our internet interactions and provide additional client service functionality. 

Question 4. What will be different with this system from what a Veteran can do 

now via a telephone call with the VA? 

Answer. VRM is business philosophy centered on client relationship management 

that leverages the latest in technology. VRM will provide internet and telephone capabilities with self-service options, increase VA’s awareness of our clients’ needs, 

and allow VA to react to them effectively. 

Through these enhanced channels of communication, our clients will be able to 

find and obtain consistent information about VA’s benefits and services, regardless 

of which access channel they choose. They will be able to conduct secured internet 

transactions seamlessly across multiple VA service lines, without repeating information. Our clients will be able to perform basic administrative services such as changing an address, reviewing the status of a claim, reporting changes in dependency, 

notices of death, and certification for educational and home loan purposes. 

Question 5. How confident are you that the Veterans Benefit Management System 

(VBMS) will be rolled out nationally by 2012? 

Answer. VA is developing VBMS to migrate from its paper-intensive claims process to an electronic process. Our strategy includes transformation of our business 

and operational processes as well as integration of commercial-off-the-shelf technology. Pilot sites are testing refined business strategies and new paperless processing processes. Additional pilots will be implemented in 2010 and 2011 as enhanced assimilations of both processes and technologies continue. We are confident 

nationwide roll-outs of expanded VBMS functionalities will occur during 2012. 

Question 6. What services will be available to veterans through the Virtual Regional Office? 

Answer. While the VRO is a simulation of paperless processing as a VBMS pilot, 

it does not directly serve Veterans. Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) is 

our external-facing, Veteran-centric program with numerous initiatives to include 

self-service capabilities through the e-Benefits web portal. As of April 4, 2010, Veterans are able to review their benefit payments and check the status of their claims 

using VA’s secure portal. VRM and e-Benefits will enhance VA’s communication and 

services to Veterans and their families during 2010 and in the coming years. 

The Virtual Regional Office (VRO) was a short-term demonstration environment 

which began in January 2010 and ended in April 2010. The purpose was to solicit 

user/employee feedback while reviewing simulations of electronic claims file processing. 

The goals of the VRO were to: 

• Provide a living specification to drive VBMS development; 

• Capture architecture, business rules, and infrastructure requirements; and 

• Identify barriers to transitioning to a paperless claims processing environment. 

At the conclusion of the VRO, a system specification document and the captured 

business requirements document were accomplished. VBA is currently in the acquisition process for the Pilot I software vendor, and updates to VETSNET are underway to support the Pilot 1 portion of the phased-development to deliver a production-ready system. Once a software vendor is selected and the VETSNET updates 

are complete, VBA will begin the pilot. 

VA TRANSFORMATION

Last year your testimony highlighted with some significance how the VA was 

transforming itself. 

Questions 

1. Why does it take so much time to yield transformational results? 

2. When the testimony says that these approaches will yield significant performance improvements, tell the Committee specifically what those performance improvements are and how will they be measured? 

Answer. Transformation of a Department as large and complex as VA is a lengthy 

process and while that is occurring, the Department still must continue to perform 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
138 

its mission and respond to changes in the environment, such as increases in claims, 

new presumptive disorders, and a new Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

These are some of the performance outcomes the Department intends to achieve 

through transformation that Veterans will see: • Reducing the claims backlog. • Eliminating Veteran homelessness. • Automating the GI Bill benefit system. • Establishing a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. • Improving mental health care. • Deploying a Veteran Relationship Management System. • Expand health care eligibility and access for Veterans, including women and 

rural populations. 

• Expanding access to burial in VA national cemeteries. 

The measurement and tracking of the major initiatives designed to accomplish 

these goals is done through a structured Operations Management Review (OMR) 

process. The OMR process tracks the progress of the major initiatives, and identifies 

interdependencies, and key issues that need to be resolved. Performance measures 

and project milestones are a key component of the OMR process. The OMR meetings 

are chaired by the Deputy Secretary and attendees include the principals associated 

with each major initiative under discussion. Progress on these initiatives will also 

be reported publicly in future Performance and Accountability Reports. 

ELIMINATING VETERAN HOMELESSNESS

Question 1. How does VA come up with the number of 131,000 homeless Veterans 

on any given night? 

Answer. VA’s 2009 Annual Community Homeless Assessment Local Education 

and Networking Groups (CHALENG) report provided the estimated number of Veterans who are homeless on any given night. The CHALENG estimate is derived 

from a Point-in-Time (PIT) count that occurs during the last week in January and 

includes HUD Continuum of Care estimates. 

Question 2. How much does the FY 2011 Federal Budget request include plans 

to increase the number and variety of housing options available to homeless Veterans? 

Answer. VA has requested a total of $799 million in targeted homeless assistance 

for a variety of programs that will help to prevent homelessness. Of the $799 million, $707 million of the FY 2011 budget request is targeted to programs that offer 

housing with services, including Housing and Urban Development—Veterans Affairs 

Supported Housing (HUD–VASH) where VA provides case management. This 

amount also includes prevention initiatives such as supported service grants for lowincome Veterans and families. VA will offer a variety of housing with services to 

address the needs of Veterans. The other $92 million goes to targeted homeless programs that may not have a specific residential component to them. 

Question 3. What specifically are those housing options and why are they not part 

of your portfolio to address homelessness now? 

Answer. Supportive service grants were authorized by Congress and expected to 

be provided in FY 2011. HUD–VASH case management is expanding as Congress 

adds 10,000 new vouchers. HUD is expected to announce sites for the at-risk of 

homelessness pilot this year and VA will provide support. All of these are new or 

expanded efforts that expand VA’s portfolio of services. 

Question 4. Does the VA have any data that shows any one of these housing programs working more effectively than others? 

Answer. VA Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) conducted a study 

on residential treatment for Homeless Veterans to assess 12-month post-discharge 

outcomes of VA funded residential services in programs including Domiciliary Care 

for the Homeless, Health Care for the Homeless, and Grant and Per Diem. The findings were that 80% of Veterans were appropriately housed one year after their discharge from each of these programs. 

Question 5. What is the correct estimate VA is using for the number of homeless 

Veterans in FY 2009? 

Answer. VA is using the recently updated estimate of 107,000 Veterans who were 

homeless on any given night in 2009. 

Question 6. Comparing the same two charts, one reflects 95,000 homeless Veterans in FY 2010; the second chart reflects 110,000 homeless Veterans in FY 2010. 

Which is correct? 

Answer. The chart that showed 110,000 homeless Veterans in FY 2010 was what 

VA estimated would be the one night point in time estimate for 2009. When VA 

completed its review the correct number was 107,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
139 

Question 7. The first chart shows the number of homeless Veterans falls to 65,000 

in the budget year and the second chart shows the number falling to 95,000 in the 

budget year. Which one is correct? 

Answer. The 65,000 was the estimate for FY 2011. That number will be verified 

and reported in FY 2012. 

Question 8. The chart on 51–7 shows the number of homeless Veterans fell from 

154,000 in 2007 to 131,000 in 2008 and then that number stayed steady into 2009. 

Please tell the Committee what accounted for that drop from 2007 to 2008? 

Answer. When the chart was created the estimate for the information needed to 

report the number of homeless Veterans in 2009 was not complete; that is the reason why the lower number was not available. 

From 2007 till 2009 VA significantly increased service for homeless Veterans. The 

single largest contribution to lower the number the awarding of more than 20,000 

housing choice vouchers by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This action to fund these vouchers helped to end homelessness for more than 

10,000 Veterans by placing them into a permanent housing unit with a dedicated 

VA case manager. This housing option is attracting many chronically homeless Veterans including women Veterans with children. Our plan to end homelessness includes significant enhancements focused on improving the treatment services VA 

provides to homeless Veterans and specifically homeless Veterans with serious mental illness (SMI). 

Beyond our plan to end homelessness, VA has significantly expanded mental 

health services in recent years to promote greater access to services and to ensure 

that Veterans receive evidence-based treatments that promote recovery. These efforts have enhanced VA’s ability to meet the needs of Veterans with SMI, many of 

whom are homeless and/or at risk for becoming homeless. VA has funded Mental 

Health Intensive Case Management—Rural Access Network Growth Enhancement 

(MHICM RANGE) teams and expanded existing Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) teams. VA has also implemented Psychosocial Rehabilitation and 

Recovery Centers (PRRC) to provide a therapeutic and supportive learning environment for Veterans with SMI. In its residential and mainstream mental health services, VA has sought to codify and implement best practices at mental health programs throughout the country, thereby strengthening efforts to successfully treat 

the chronically homeless who are more likely to struggle with SMI. National VA 

policies on suicide prevention and medication management have improved safety, 

while the new VA Uniform Mental Health Services Handbook has expanded access 

by mandating that all Veterans, wherever they obtain care in the Veterans Health 

Administration, have access to needed mental health services. 

HOMELESS INITIATIVE—IT ISSUES

Question 1. When will the National Homeless Registry be rolled out, either pilotwise or nationally? 

Answer. The target roll out date for the first phase of the Homeless registry is 

summer 2010. Within this first phase VA will have, for the most part, automated 

and integrated program information that addresses Veteran centric and program 

specific information and outcomes. 

Question 2. What are the next steps for VA once this information is collected? 

Answer. Once the first phase is fully operational VA plans to partner with other 

Federal agencies to develop the system to collect information regarding Veteran centric information and service utilization outside of VA. VA plans to utilize the information to produce reports that can be used by program staff and leadership for 

quality management purposes. Information obtained will also be utilized to identify 

and track long term efficiency and effectiveness outcomes of Veterans both inside 

and outside of VA so more efficient service models can be developed and tailored 

to meet the needs of special populations like OEF/OIF Veterans, Veterans with serious mental illness, dually diagnosed (psychiatric disorders and substance dependence) Veterans and women Veterans. 

AUTOMATING THE GI BILL BENEFITS SYSTEM

Question 1. How much is VA spending in FY ’10 on this automated solution? Answer. VA’s FY2010 IT appropriation includes $32.5M to support development of the automated solution. An additional $2.9M in prior year ARRA unobligated balances is also being applied this year. In addition, another $28.6M in a prior year 

obligation for a multi-year SPAWAR support contract has not been expended and 

is committed to supporting development efforts in FY2010. 

Question 2. Explain for the Committee exactly where the VA is in implementing 

this automated solution. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
140 

Answer. The first of four Chapter 33 releases was successfully deployed on March 

31, 2010. This release provided significant functionality although reduced from what 

was originally planned because, as VA subject matter experts worked with the 

SPAWAR team, it became clear that the amount of software remaining to be developed exceeded what could be done by the March 31, 2010, milestone requirement. 

By only releasing to a pilot group of claims processors, Release 1 also serves to discover any unknown defects so they can be corrected before the deployment to the 

entire VCE population in Release 2. 

Feedback from our end-users indicates that Release 1 of the Long-Term Solution 

offers ease of use and increased efficiency. Release 2, currently scheduled for June 

30, 2010, will serve as the foundation from which the VA will retire the Interim solution and move toward automating the Education benefits business process. The 

scope of Releases 3 and 4 currently scheduled for September 30, 2010 and December 

31, 2010 respectively, will contain interfaces to Education legacy systems in order 

to pre-populate data and automate payment. The final scope for these releases has 

not been set. 

There are a number of challenges to fully implementing the Long Term Solution. 

It is important to recognize the methodology we are using to deliver this system to 

our Benefits Administration partners is based on agile approach. It is based on making tradeoffs between schedule and functionality. We have fixed the schedule such 

that there is a release every 3 months. To accomplish this we adjust the delivered 

functionally to what can be done in three months. This is a significant change to 

how the VA has run IT development projects in the past. As a result, today, we can 

report that the system works, it is in limited production, and we are getting positive 

feedback from our customers. The Chapter 33 automated solution is being implemented at the Terremark Data Center in Culpepper, VA. 

Question 3. Your testimony says that the Post-9/11 automated solution will be implemented by December 2010. Given the rough start that this new program has endured, what level of confidence do you have Mr. Secretary that a solution will be 

in place by December? 

Answer. Based on the project schedule, VA has full confidence we will deliver the 

system functionality expected by December 2010. 

GI BENEFITS—IT ISSUES

Question 1. With the full system deployment of the automated GI benefits system 

expected in December 2010, does this mean all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims and payments will go through an automated system? 

Answer. The goal of the long-term solution is to automatically process as many 

claims as possible without human intervention. Replacing the interim solution, 

which is supplemented by job aids, the long-term solution will automate many of 

the manual processes currently required to process a claim. For example, users will 

no longer manually enter payments in a separate system after processing claims. 

Payments will be automatically sent to a payment system when users enter claims. 

By December 2010, users will process all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims within the longterm solution. 

IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Question 1. What is VA doing to decrease stigma to those who may want to seek 

mental health care but refuse to seek care because of the perceived stigma attached 

to it. 

Answer. VA is working with the Department of Defense to develop a DoD-VA Integrated Strategy for Mental Health to increase collaboration and joint programming with a focus on the care of Service members and Veterans returning from OEF 

and O1F. The goal is, as much as possible, to coordinate mental health services between the two Departments to develop a continuum of care that extends from the 

time of each Service members oath of service until the end of his or her life. Viewing 

VA services as part of an integrated system should reduce the stigma associated 

with help-seeking. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that VA has two interacting strategies for addressing mental health concerns for returning Veterans. Mental health services in 

VA Medical Centers and Clinics offer evidence-based mental health care as part of 

overall health care. In these settings, VA offers the Nation’s most comprehensive 

system of mental health services. However, it complements this system with another 

strategy, the delivery of problem-focused counseling for combat Veterans for problems with readjustment in Vet Centers. Together, these two strategies offer meaningful choices to Veterans about how to access care, and, together, they offer access 

to more individuals that either strategy alone. The Vet Center program, with its 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
141 

focus on problems, not diagnoses, and its emphasis on peer support, is attractive to 

many individuals who are concerned about the stigma of mental health services. 

However, once Veterans seek care, there are extensive collaborations to ensure that 

all of their needs are met. Following a ‘‘no wrong door’’ policy, there are extensive 

cross referrals between the two programs. The goal is to provide care to all Veterans 

who need it. 

Question 2. Are you seeing an increase in the number of Veterans seeking treatment for PTSD and other mental health issues? 

Answer. Yes, the numbers of Veterans seeking mental health services is increasing. Between FY 2006 to 2009, the number of Veterans who were treated for mental 

disorders increased from 1,183,839 to 1,737,566 unique Veterans. The number of 

Veterans treated for PTSD in this period increased from 271,976 to 397,252 individuals. 

Question 3. Is the increase in Veterans seeking mental health care commensurate 

with the increase in budget for these programs? 

Answer. Yes, the number of Veterans who are seeking VA mental health care is 

increasing and VA’s budget for mental health services also has increased. The increased budget primarily has been used to support increased staff so that mental 

health care can be provided at an appropriate level for the increased population of 

Veterans we serve. VHA’s total number of mental health staff has increased by 

5,075 over the last three years (2006–2009). This is an increase of over 1/3 in mental health staff. In the same time period, the number of Veterans seen for mental 

health concerns increased from 1,183,819 to 1,428,858, a 21% increase. The higher 

proportion of increase in staff reflects that staff not only is needed to see more Veterans, but to provide more intensive care. In addition, skills of VA staff are also increasing. For example, VA has more than 3,000 mental health providers in VA facilities and clinics trained in evidence-based psychotherapy for PTSD. 

VA/DOD ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD INTEROPERABILITY

While progress has been made in the development of interoperability between VA/ 

DOD medical records, GAO has stated that the IPO still lacks the capacity to be 

the single point of authority on electronic health records between the two departments. 

Question 1. When will the interagency Clinical Informatics Board be done identifying the IPO’s next set of objectives? It is my understanding that VA/DOD is sharing one-way data on separated service members and seriously ill and wounded patients, and sharing data bi-directionally in viewable and computable format on 

shared patients. 

Answer. The Interagency Clinical Informatics Board or ‘‘ICIB’’ does not identify 

IPO objectives. The ICIB identifies VA and DoD objectives to support joint electronic 

health data sharing needs. The objectives identified by the ICIB are subject to approval by the DoD/VA Health Executive Council (HEC). The ICIB has identified a 

set of FY 2010 health data sharing objectives known as ‘‘target capabilities’’ that 

were approved by the HEC in January 2010. 

The role of the IPO is to provide management oversight of the Departments’ activities to ensure the Departments meet the data sharing objectives identified by the 

ICIB. 

Question 2. How do these different levels of operability affect the general population of veterans using VA medical facilities/services? 

Answer. The Interagency Clinical Informatics Board (ICIB) has determined that 

a level of interoperability that permits VA and DoD providers to view each other’s 

data is sufficient to provide quality care at VA medical facilities and for VA services. 

For some types of data, such as allergy, pharmacy and laboratory data, the ICIB 

has determined that computable data would provide an enhanced level of care for 

Veterans by supporting automatic alerts and reminders in these domains. 

Question 3. When do you expect to have bi-directionally computable data for all 

veterans? 

Answer. VA and DoD share electronic health information based on the business 

requirements of those who use the information (i.e., clinicians, claims staff, etc.) to 

deliver care to Veterans (and Service members and their dependants) at VA and 

DoD facilities. VA and DoD clinicians, including the ICIB, have validated that not 

all information needs to be shared in computable format to support direct clinical 

care and claims adjudication. For example, VA and DoD are currently sharing allergy and pharmacy data in computable format because it enables automatic decision support for drug interactions and drug allergies when VA and DoD clinicians 

order medications for shared patients. Next, the ICIB has identified computable laboratory data as a target capability to better improve efficiency with which laboratory 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
142 

results support clinical decisions. Beyond these clinical domains, VA and DoD clinicians have expressed that viewable text data that is made available to them is sufficient for clinical care and activities related to disability claims. Based on currently 

identified business requirements, there are no plans to make all bidirectional data 

computable. 

DoD and VA currently have the ability to share computable pharmacy and allergy 

data on all veterans who are active dual consumers of both health care systems currently exist. To date, VA and DoD have activated this capability on over 57,000 patients. VA and DoD anticipate that computable laboratory data will be available for 

all Veterans who are active dual consumers in July 2011. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

The FY 2011 Budget Request for Departmental Administration (DA) is $463 Mil- lion, excluding the Office of Inspector General. This represents a $65.7 Million increase [+17%] above the FY 2010 funding level of $397.5 Million. Since FY 2009, 

DA has increased $127.4 Million or 38%. Total FTEs have increased by 260 [+9%] 

compared to FY 2010 and by 706 [+27%] compared to FY 2009. Some examples from 

FY 2009 v. FY 2011: 

Office of Secretary—51% 

Office of Management—29% 

Office of General Counsel—22% 

Office of Human Resources—23% 

Office of Policy and Planning—97% 

Office of Operations—84% 

Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs—137% 

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs—70% 

Question 1. For the record, please provide the FY 2011 pay cost increase amounts 

for each of these offices: 

Answer. The below amounts are the personnel compensation increases for each office between FY 2009 and FY 2011. These increases include pay raises, normal personnel benefits increases as well as payroll funding for increased FTE. 

Office of Secretary—35% 

Office of Management—21% 

Office of General Counsel—17% 

Office of Human Resources and Administration—19% 

Office of Office of Policy and Planning—89% 

Office of Operations, Security & Preparedness—46% 

Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs—26% 

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs—56% 

RURAL HEALTH INITIATIVE

Question 1. The Committee was told in May 2009, that the VA would be spending about $60 million of the $250 million for the Rural Health Initiative. How much did 

the VA spend in fiscal year 2009 on this initiative? Provide a list of projects that 

were funded in fiscal year 2009 to include funding amount awarded, by VISN and 

by location. Answer. In Fiscal Year 2009 VA allocated $213,170,766 of rural health initiative 

funding towards programs and initiatives for Veterans in rural and highly rural 

areas (see attachment 1). Additionally, $27 million of those allocated funds were obligated in FY09. Attachment 1 includes a list of projects funded in FY 2009. 

Question 2. How much of the fiscal year 2009 fund was allocated to the program 

office and what is the justification of the use of these funds? How much of the fiscal 

year 2010 funds were allocated to the program office, and what is the justification 

for the use of these funds? 

Answer. In FY09, Public Law 110-329 provided $250 million to support the implementation of programs and initiatives for Veterans residing in rural and highly 

rural areas. Additional funding of $24 million was allocated by the Department to 

support program office operations. In total the Office of Rural Health (ORH) manages $274 million. ORH utilized the additional $24 million for the support of: (8) 

full-time Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Rural Consultants, (3) regional Veterans Rural Resource Centers, the Veterans’ Rural Health Advisory Committee, funding of rural Outreach Clinics, (4) Rural Health Mobile Clinics and (2) 

management support contracts. In FY10 ORH will utilize the same approach towards program office funding as in FY09. 

Question 3. How much of the $250,000,000 that was appropriated in fiscal year 

2009 carry into fiscal year 2010? How much is available for this initiative in fiscal 

year 2010? What is the projected end-of-year balance for this initiative? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
143 

Answer. In FY2009, ORH received $250 million in two-year funding. At the end 

of FY09 VISN and Program Offices obligated $26,784,617 with $223,215,383 carried 

over into FY2010. $440,000,000 will be utilized as sustainment dollars for previously 

funded projects as well as available for new FY10 initiatives. ORH intends to obligate all funds by the end of FY10. 

Question 4. Does the VA have a spend plan for the fiscal year 2010 for the Rural 

Health Initiative? 

Answer. The FY10 ORH spend plan focuses on funding initiatives in: Purchased 

Care, New FY10 proposals, and Community Based Outpatient Clinics. The ORH 

spend plan is currently in the final review and approval process. 

Question 5. Provide a list of projects for which funds have been requested, but not 

awarded to, including amount requested by VISN. 

Answer. See attachment 2 for the list of projects for which funds were not awarded in FY09. 

The Office of Rural Health (ORH) received 161 individual proposals totaling 

$500,000,000 in requests. A rigorous review process was established, which included 

three single blind independent reviews of each proposal. Selection factors included: 

• Reviewer scores (mean of 3 reviews), 

• % rurality within VISN enrollees, 

• % VISN within national rural enrollees, 

• VISN action on initial fund distribution, 

• Allocation balance across 21 VISNs, 

• Diversity of project types, 

• Consistency with intent of P.L. 110-329, and 

• Consistency with ORH areas of focus/priorities. 

From this review process, initiatives totaling $215 million were identified for twoyear funding for both VISN and Program Office initiatives. VA was able to fund 

projects that had merit, met the appropriate criteria, and scored the highest. 

The VISNs and Program Offices whose projects were not funded were informed 

that they may receive additional consideration in the future, providing them with 

the opportunity to strengthen their proposals. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
144 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 here 56870A.045
145 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 here 56870A.046
146 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 here 56870A.047
147 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 here 56870A.048
148 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 here 56870A.049
149 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 here 56870A.050
150 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 here 56870A.051
(151) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010.

U.S. NAVY, U.S. MARINE CORPS BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 

GENERAL JAMES T. CONWAY, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

And I want to welcome once again to the subcommittee Admiral 

Roughead and General Conway. Thank you. Thank you both for 

your distinguished service to our country, and we are deeply grateful for your continued leadership in a very, very important time in 

our nation’s history. 

Our purpose of the hearing today is to review the 2011 budget 

request for the Marine Corps and Navy for military construction 

appropriations, as well as any related questions that we might 

have. As you both know—you have gone through this process many 

times—we have got multiple hearings going on, so there may be 

members coming in and coming out. We like an informal process 

for this subcommittee and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Before we get into that, I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw 

for any opening comments that he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just add a couple of things. 

You know, today I am here instead of Zach Wamp, our ranking 

member. He is attempting to serve the people of Tennessee in a different capacity, so he misses meetings from time to time, and I sit 

in his place as the ranking member. And he said that is fine, just 

do not get too used to it. [Laughter.] 

But it is a particular pleasure today because of who is testifying 

before us. Some of you all may know, from my home district in 

northeast Florida, in Jacksonville, is kind of known as a Navy 

town. We have got three military bases. We have got Naval Station 

Mayport. We have got NAS Jacksonville. We have got a big Marine 

facility called Blount Island that is becoming more and more important. 

So I want to welcome you all back. You are obviously not strangers to this committee. I thank you for your leadership. I do not 

think, frankly, that we would be meeting the challenges that the 

Navy and the Marines face were it not for you all’s leadership. And 

whether it is in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or whether it is fighting the 

pirates off the Somali coast or chasing down the drug guys and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
152 

catching them in the Caribbean or just offering the humanitarian 

aid that we are doing down in Haiti, I do not think it would be 

happening without your leadership. 

And one thing I would like to say, because I think a lot of people 

do not understand, when you think of Afghanistan or Iraq, you do 

not typically think about the Navy. You think about the Marines. 

You think about the Soldiers. And I think a lot of people would be 

surprised to learn that we have got over 7,000 Navy men and 

women that are on the ground in combat, which, again, the Marines and the Army do a great job, but thank the Navy for their 

involvement that, again, a lot of people would not realize. 

I just came back from Afghanistan and Pakistan this weekend. 

Congressman Dicks, who sits on our subcommittee, who is going to 

be the new chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, was leading a 

Congressional Delegation. And after we spent an hour with General McChrystal talking about Afghanistan, we went onto Pakistan 

and, lo and behold, the head of that operation is a Navy admiral, 

Vice Admiral Mike LeFever. 

So, again, it is really a joint effort. So thank you all for being 

here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the work you do to kind of get our 

work done on a timely basis and a bipartisan basis. And we want 

to help you all, as we listen to your testimony, just make sure that 

we can put you in a position to do the job that you need to do, 

number one, to take care of the men and women of the Marines, 

the Navy, and then, number two, help you be in a position to defend our country. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw, well said, and thank you for that. 

Before we begin the testimony, let me just apologize in advance. 

At 11 o’clock, there is a presentation in the rotunda where the 

Women Air Force Service Pilots, the WASPs of World War II, who 

gave this country such distinguished unselfish service, with virtually no military benefits in that war. They are being honored, 

and I have a constituent of mine—two, actually—that are members 

of the WASPs. 

So I may be slipping out, and Mr. Farr will continue if we still 

have any additional questions. I just want you to know the reason 

for my slipping out, if we are still continuing in the hearing. 

But let me just begin by saying that your full testimony will be 

submitted for the record, as you know, but I would like to recognize 

each of you now for any opening comments that you care to make, 

and we will get into the discussion. Thank you. 

Admiral. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Chairman Edwards, Representative Crenshaw, and distinguished members of the committee, it is my honor 

to appear before you again representing our dedicated Sailors, 

Navy civilians, and families. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

on our Navy shore infrastructure and its essential role in carrying 

out our Navy’s mission. 

Although we are a deployed force, our families thrive, our Sailors 

deploy, and our ships sail from our infrastructure ashore. This 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
153 

year’s military construction budget prioritizes Navy and joint mission readiness, ensuring nuclear weapons security, improving our 

bachelors quarters, and improving energy efficiency, while funding 

only our most critical needs for mission-essential facilities that are 

in the poorest conditions. 

As I described last year, high operational demands, rising manpower costs, and an aging fleet have come at the cost of shore readiness, putting future shore readiness, particularly the recapitalization of our facilities infrastructure, at high risk. 

We have refined our capital investment plan and aligned governance to target our ashore investments where they have greatest impact to our strategic and operational objectives, warfighting effectiveness, and family support. With your unwavering support, we 

have made essential progress and improvements in increased 

childcare spaces by 900, improvements to the Homeport Ashore 

program, and further ensured nuclear weapons security. 

In this Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), we have programmed 

funding for six bachelor housing projects that would eliminate our 

Homeport Ashore deficit by 2016. We also continue to experience 

positive results to public-private venture housing in which over a 

fifth of our families reside. Additionally, your tremendous support 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allowed us to fund 127 projects, including investment in hospitals, 

child development centers, and energy improvements that are stimulating employment and the economy in regions all over the country. 

As part of our guiding principles, we continue to eliminate and 

consolidate excess in underutilized infrastructure. While previous 

Base Realignment and Closures (BRACs) have reduced a large portion of our excess infrastructure, BRAC alone cannot achieve the 

infrastructure reductions and the strategic positions that address 

our needs and our resources. 

Our 2011 budget requests funds to reduce approximately 2 million square feet of the 40 million square feet our Navy has targeted 

for elimination. As the Navy continues to develop and acquire its 

future force and prepare for future challenges, we must ensure that 

our shore infrastructure is ready to support new ships, aircraft and 

systems, and resilient enough for a changing security environment. 

To this end, our budget includes funding for 30 projects. We 

thank you for your support to upgrade the carrier port of Mayport 

to be nuclear-capable and thereby strategically positioning our East 

Coast carrier fleet as we have done with our West Coast carrier 

fleet. 

With the 2011 budget, we will have the necessary resources to 

maintain the readiness of the Fleet, provide for the quality of life 

of our Sailors and their families, and prepare for the future. 

I thank you again for your time and for your continued support 

of our 600,000 Sailors, Navy civilians, and our families. Thank you, 

sir. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral Gary Roughead follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
154 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 here 56870A.052
155 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 here 56870A.053
156 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 here 56870A.054
157 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 here 56870A.055
158 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 here 56870A.056
159 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 here 56870A.057
160 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 here 56870A.058
161 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 here 56870A.059
162 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 here 56870A.060
163 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

General Conway. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES T. CONWAY

General CONWAY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to report to you on 

the posture of your Marine Corps. Our pledge as it has been over 

the years is to provide you a candid and honest assessment. 

Having recently returned from a trip to theater, I am pleased to 

report to you on the magnificent performance of our Marines and 

Sailors in combat. If you count the 4-year enlistment as a generation of Marines, we are now experiencing our third generation of 

great young patriots since our nation was provoked on 9/11. 

Our first generation broke trail, leading the strikes into Afghanistan and Iraq. The second generation quelled the once volatile 

province of Anbar. Today, while there are less than 130 Marines 

in Iraq, our third generation has more than 15,000 serving in Afghanistan. 

Your Marines are fighting a skilled and determined enemy, but 

with the Afghan security forces, they are once again proving that 

they are the strongest tribe in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand. 

Let me assure you from what the Sergeant Major and I witnessed firsthand, the highest morale in our corps resides in those 

units that are posted to Afghanistan. 

Our military construction accounts in the fiscal year 2011 budget 

and the FYDP are sufficient to help maintain the recent promise 

we have made to our young Marines and the great Sailors who support us, that they will have quality housing, living spaces while 

they are at home in between their deployments. 

One need only visit some of our major bases and stations to realize that we waited too long to begin that effort. Similarly, we believe that in wartime we must continue the heavy emphasis placed 

on education of our officers and our staff Non-Commissioned Officers. A strong reservoir of strategic and operational thinkers is a 

must on a sophisticated and joint battlefield. 

Therefore, a quality Marine Corps University with facilities to 

match our already world-class student body, faculty, and curriculum is a major priority. We trust we will receive your full support on our MILCON investments that will repay huge dividends 

in those years to come. 

Distinguished members of the committee, I must admit my own 

surprise that our corps of Marines and their families have remained so resilient over the years of conflict. They have been incredibly determined, loyal, and courageous in an effort to see those 

two wars to a successful close. 

Much of the credit goes to you in the Congress for providing 

them with the finest in terms of quarters, warrior care, quality of 

life for families, and compensation. The number-one question in the 

minds of our troops is always, ‘‘Is the country behind us?’’ The 

members of Congress have answered that question in spades, both 

by your apportionment of the nation’s precious resources and also 

through personal efforts on the part of many of you to visit troops 

in theater and our wounded at Bethesda and Walter Reed. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
164 

As a result of those things mentioned and the natural tendency 

of Marines to stick around for a fight, our recruitment and retention are both at all-time highs. I predict, for the second year in a 

row, we will close our re-enlistment opportunities for both the first 

term and the career force halfway through the fiscal year. Clearly, 

such a phenomenon would not be possible if Marines and their 

families were not happy in the service of their country. 

One day, this long war with terrorism and Islamic extremists 

will be over. Your Marine Corps will cease being a second land 

army and will gladly rejoin our Navy brothers aboard amphibious 

ships in order to protect America’s global presence and demonstrate American goodwill and, if need be, protect America’s vital 

interests. 

Until that day comes, however, your Corps will continue, as we 

say, to do windows. That is, we will continue to take aboard the 

indomitable youth of America and make them Marines, with the 

absolute conviction that as a result they will one day be better citizens. 

We will be trained and equally as prepared to route Taliban 

fighters in Marjah as we are to feed beleaguered Haitians outside 

Port-au-Prince. With your continued support and that of our loyal 

countrymen, we will do whatever the nation asks us to do and do 

it exceedingly well. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of James T. Conway follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
165 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 56870A.061
166 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 56870A.062
167 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 56870A.063
168 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 56870A.064
169 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 56870A.065
170 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 56870A.066
171 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 56870A.067
172 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 56870A.068
173 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 56870A.069
174 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 56870A.070
175 

MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT JOHN DAVID FRY

Mr. EDWARDS. General Conway, thank you. And as I listen to 

your testimony and think about the servicemen and women and 

their families that this committee is committed to supporting in a 

meaningful way, I cannot help but think about Marine Gunnery 

Sergeant John David Fry, who grew up in my district, and you 

know his story well. 

That is a father, three children under the age of 10, had virtually 

finished his service in Iraq, had his bags packed, 7 days from coming home, and a call came in from Anbar province that there were 

three IEDs in the road. And he went out and volunteered when he 

did not have to, to defuse those bombs. And the third one had a 

fourth one, unfortunately, hidden by the terrorists beneath it. And 

that went off and killed him. 

And this great Marine, who had saved so many lives, gave his 

life that day. And as you know, the scholarship for all military children who have lost parents now is named in his honor, rightfully 

so. But it is a reminder of what your leadership is about and the 

magnificent men and women that you have the privilege to lead. 

And, again, we thank you both for that. 

OKINAWA TO GUAM MOVE

Let me begin questions, if I could, regarding Guam and Okinawa. 

Obviously, there is a great deal of interest in where we are here, 

as there is across the Pacific. I believe we have Japanese media 

represented here today as a reflection of that interest. 

Could I ask you, where are we in terms of our negotiations in 

Okinawa? And where are we in terms of our plans to move forward 

in Guam? 

General CONWAY. Sir, I will be happy to start, sir. And, essentially, the new Japanese government has indicated to the highest 

levels of our government that they want to review the agreement 

that both governments previously had in place for the removal of 

10,000 Marines off of Okinawa onto Guam by 2014. 

And now we await word coming from that Japanese government. 

Their promise to us has been that they would give us a response 

by May of this year. 

In the meantime, I think the answer to your question, sir, is that 

we are on hold with a number of projects that were perhaps underway. I will say that both the monies the U.S. government and the 

Japanese government have put towards the efforts on Guam, $452 

million on our part and $498 million on the part of the Japanese 

government, are being applied to the infrastructure—to enhancements on island to allow 10,000 additional Marines to come into 

there. 

But in other areas, we are at a stop halt. And our understanding 

is—goes back to the original agreement, and that is a quote from 

the treaty says that significant developments with regard to the 

team of replacement facilities must be underway for us to begin our 

portion of the execution of the move. So that is—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Did the FY 2010 military construction budget take 

into account the status of the negotiations and discussions with the 

Japanese? Or will we perhaps need to adjust the military construcVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
176 

tion numbers as the year goes on before we get to final passage 

of—— 

General CONWAY [continuing]. I think certainly the monies that 

are being spent are being put against enhancements on the island 

to facilitate the move. Some on Guam would probably argue that 

those enhancements are needed whether or not we conduct a move, 

enhancement of the infrastructure, the wharf is made more capable, and those types of things. 

But I think the answer to your question is that there may be adjustments between governments after we begin negotiations again, 

after the Japanese government gives us a response in May, and 

that we would be wise to see what those final determinations are. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. It is very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

MAYPORT NAVAL SHIPYARD

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I have got some questions that kind of relate to my own district, as well as some broader questions, so I will—and I imagine 

Admiral Roughead probably would anticipate I might ask if you 

would mention the Mayport issue. And I would say this: I would 

thank him for his leadership, because it is a question that sometimes gets portrayed as a political question, but I think the bottom 

line is, it is what is in the best interest of America. What is the 

best interest of our national security? 

And I think that decision probably was one of the most wellthought-out, well-researched, well-reviewed decisions in terms of 

all of the assessments that were made, all the announcements that 

were made. Mr. Chairman, you may know that they spent 2.5 

years doing an Environmental Impact Study, and the Admiral, 

rather than making a recommendation right after that, had a strategic laydown of all the ships that we have before he made the 

final decision. 

And then the Record of Decision, which was 218 pages long, 

again, well-researched, well-thought-out, well-justified, that made 

that final decision. And it is really not anything new. We have always had two deepwater ports on the East Coast for our carriers. 

But when they were conventional, that made it easy. When they 

all became nuclear, then—Mayport to just be consistent. 

And as the Record of Decision pointed out, in addition there to 

having a backup maintenance facility on the East Coast, because 

on the West Coast we have three, but we would only have one now 

that we are all nuclear. 

So I think it was in the best interest of the country. And I appreciate your leadership there. I did not think it needed to be reviewed 

again, but, Mr. Chairman, you may know that, after the Record of 

Decision came down, it was not really a Record of Decision. It was 

a recommendation that the Department of Defense looked at again 

for a year. 

So I do not think anybody can say this has not been wellthought-out, well-reviewed, well-vetted, and so we are there. 

And so the question is, just as we implement that, it is going to 

be expensive. And the question becomes, when I saw the 5-year 

plan, I think in 2012 and 2013 and 2015, there are some projects 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
177 

listed. And I wondered a couple of things, kind of a two-part question. 

One, are those projects, are those the main ones that are going 

to be needed to be implemented that are in that 5-year plan? And 

if there are others, are they going to be added? 

And the second part of that is, the reason they are kind of 

phased in, is that primarily because of budget restraints? I know 

when they did San Diego, it was all in one lump sum, but I think 

in these difficult economic times, I imagine to a certain extent that 

they are phasing over 2012, 2013 and 2015 just based on budget 

restraints. 

So if you could comment on two—if those are the major items 

that need to be kind of taken place, and then, two, the question of 

whether it is an operational or more a budgetary restraint. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Crenshaw. 

And before I begin on that, I would like to thank you for recognizing the thousands of Sailors we have on the ground in Iraq and 

Afghanistan who have been there for years doing absolutely terrific 

work, and I appreciate your recognizing them. Thank you for that. 

As you pointed out, Mayport is something that—a decision that 

I did not take lightly. I think our process that we put ourselves 

through validated the importance of that strategic dispersal of enhancing the carrier port at Mayport to be nuclear-capable so that 

we have the dispersion, that we have the flexibility that we enjoy 

on the West Coast. 

Aircraft carriers are the only ships on the East Coast of the 

United States that I do not have an alternate port for to provide 

maintenance and support. Every other class in the United States 

Navy I can move to multiple ports on the East Coast to do repair 

and to have a place for them to go, should they be shut out of a 

particular port. So I believe it is in the strategic interest of the 

country that we have that. 

The plan that we put together, oftentimes the figures that we are 

using for military construction tend to grow in the discussion, but 

we are very confident in the cost of this plan. When I came forward 

with the plan, I knew that the numbers would be closely scrutinized. I am very comfortable with what we have laid out. 

But as you pointed out, in the Navy, we have a lot of competing 

demands in our budgets for ships, for airplanes, for supporting our 

people, for investing in new technologies. And so as we laid this in, 

even though it is a priority, we had to space it out over time. 

We have the money in the budget this year to do the planning 

so that we can have a good, efficient and effective investment strategy, so that we get the most out of the money that we are investing 

in, in this enhancement to Mayport. But we did spread the money 

out, because we had to. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Got you. Just one quick follow up, Mr. Chairman. I know that you mentioned the $2 million—or I think it is 

$2 million—that is in the 2011. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And that is for planning the design that is already—we already appropriated, I guess, about $76 million to start 

the dredging, which is just about ready to begin, and to upgrade 

one of the wharfs. That money is in the bank, and so, again, I 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
178 

thank the subcommittee for recognizing that, even short of the 

final decision. 

But there is money to be spent. But that—I would imagine that 

$2 million for planning and design is probably more critical than 

most planning and design, because when you have got a major 

project like this, that you want to be sure that you can do it, you 

know, as efficiently as possible and as safely as possible. So that 

money is in the budget now. 

And tell me how that—you know, how will that be used? What 

kind of process goes into that planning and design? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, what we will do is we know what the 

facilities are going to be required in order to enhance the capabilities of the port. But the planning money will be on the design of 

some of those projects, but also on how we phase the entire effort 

to make sure we get the most efficient expenditures. 

There is not—in my mind, there is not a lot of risk in the 

projects that we are calling for, and that is why I have such great 

confidence in the numbers, because, for example, in the case of the 

maintenance facility and the control facility, it basically replicates 

what we did in San Diego. 

The parking garage is nothing exotic or out of the ordinary. So 

this allows us to put in place the proper planning for the design 

and the phasing of the projects. And so we believe we have a good 

plan. We believe the numbers are good. And I appreciate your support in letting us go forward with this. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. And then just as a comment, I went 

out to San Diego and saw what they did there and, as you pointed 

out, I think, learned a great deal that the controlled industrial facility, which is one of the major projects, I think they learned a lot 

when they built that, that maybe you may not need to be that big. 

I mean, you know, once you do something, you kind of learn a 

lot from it. So I think that is why, when you look at those numbers, 

I think it is a lot less than people thought it might be. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw, thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

IMPACT OF DEPLOYMENT ON FAMILIES

Mr. BISHOP. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome. I have got a 

couple of questions—a couple of categories. The first one has to do 

with families and personnel. 

As you both know, deployments can cause children to become depressed, angry, and some studies are documenting that the Department of Defense has had—children have undergone significant outpatient counseling since 9/11. And of course, with the recent deployments over the past few years, dealing with the parents’ absence is pretty difficult, particularly for teenagers that are going 

through adolescence anyway, and those growing pains are pretty 

severe. 

What installations do you have available to provide initiatives for 

programs for teens and for children that are impacted by their family’s deployments or their family’s service? That is the first. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
179 

The other one has to do with installations and probably would 

fall on the commandant. And that is whether or not the budget request in your opinion is sufficient to provide for the maintenance, 

the reset, and the prepositioning function needs vis-a-vis the warehouses, the maintenance facilities, the buildings that will house 

those functions. 

General CONWAY. Sir, with regard to the children, first of all, our 

research shows exactly the same thing that you cite, that, you 

know, we were initially concerned about counseling for our Marines, those that may have seen some of the horrors of war and the 

effect that it could have on them as they return home. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is the common phraseology. 

And so we have gotten tremendous support from the Navy with 

regard to mental health specialists, psychologists, psychiatrists to 

help us identify and treat what—with the duration of what we 

have seen—and this is the first time we have seen an all-volunteer 

force of the size of what we have experienced in war over such a 

prolonged period. 

We are starting to see the impact on families. And I would say 

it is spouses, as well as children in some cases, but what we are 

seeing is where Marines are assigned to the operating forces for an 

extended period of time. Those children are growing up without one 

of their parents, normally only the father. 

It is showing in their grades. It is showing in their conduct at 

school. It is showing in just their general attitudes as they grow 

up. 

So we have acknowledged the need. As you know, of course, we 

get those health services from the United States Navy. And, again, 

I would not change a thing about the priority. We want that kind 

of capacity forward, first of all, to support Marines in conflict, but 

we also bear a responsibility to our families. 

And I think the Navy has responded adroitly to the need. They 

are attempting to, I think, recruit more into the Navy uniform. 

They are attempting to contract where that is not possible. We 

work through TRICARE, where, you know, immediate capacity at 

a hospital or a clinic is not available. 

It is a little bit disproportionate. It is easier, I think, for the 

Navy to contract someone to live in San Diego than it is in Havelock, North Carolina, where we have major bases and stations and 

Marines deployed. 

But we are working our way through it. And I think the first 

step in the problem-solving process is identifying the problem. We 

certainly have that. And at this point, we are working with the 

Navy and with, again, our natural TRICARE kinds of support 

mechanisms to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Sir, I really was—I understand that, and I appreciate what you are doing there and the initiative is great. But I 

was really concerned about initiatives that would require our committee to fund, for example, buildings on the installation, whether 

it is a gymnasium, a family center, or where you could have structured programs, whether you needed facilities constructed for that 

purpose. And that was really the nature of my question. 

General CONWAY. I appreciate that. And I was leaving that portion of it to my Navy brother, who, again, gives us those kinds of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
180 

capabilities. We do have a lot of things. I would simply add, from 

a family services perspective, that we think are helping to make 

that better, all kinds of family readiness initiatives that try to enhance the quality of life for our families at bases and stations while 

our Marines are deployed so that we are able to keep the children 

building, keep them in athletic programs, all those manner of 

things, absolutely. 

But, again, I will defer—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So your funding is sufficient for that? 

General CONWAY. I think so, sir. We have identified what we 

think we need in the budget. We have not seen, based on previous 

years’ experiences—and this has been with us now for a couple of 

years—where the enhanced family readiness kinds of bills do not 

provide for that. We have got $442 million against it in FY 2011 alone. So I think 

we have acknowledged the need, but I would say that I actually 

have more faith in the ability of the counselors to help us identify 

that. And, again, that gets to the Navy. 

With regard to—I will just answer quickly—warehousing for 

those types of things—you know, last year, we at the Blount Island 

facility tried to run that into the OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) account. The rules were such that it did not fit quite correctly in the minds of the people that determine such things. So 

this year, we put it in the baseline, $75 million, to enhance our 

warehousing, our parking garaging, maintenance, and mechanical 

facilities. 

So we do think that that is going to be enough phased in over 

time to keep us ahead of the triage that has to take place with our 

equipment. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that both at Barstow and at Albany? 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. And Blount Island? 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. All three facilities? 

General CONWAY. What happens is we do the triage at Blount Island, and then Barstow, and Albany are our maintenance facilities 

where that gear is then shipped or various echelons are prepared—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, sir. And we obviously take this 

very seriously, not just to support the Marine Corps, but also for 

our own families, because we have been a deploying force for centuries. 

And so we have made improvements and we have increased our 

capabilities at our family—Fleet Family Service Centers, adding 

counselors and, more importantly, tailoring to the type of activities 

that we are currently doing today. 

Mr. Crenshaw remarked on the number of individual deployers 

that we have, and those folks need a little bit of a different awareness and touch. But we have also put in place some more youth 

counselors. And since 2005, we have actually been able to increase 

the number of counseling sessions, some groups, some individuals, 

by 27,000 kids. So this is not an insignificant effort. 

We have also taken a good look at what skills we require, and 

we have increased the number of clinical psychologists and social 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
181 

workers that we are working to recruit, but, quite frankly, nationally they are in great demand, but we really have a good focus on 

them. 

And then for our child development centers, we are pleased that 

by 2012 we will meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

goals for that. So it is on our scope, and we pay a great deal of attention to it. 

Mr. BISHOP. With maintenance go out to—you have got a Kings 

Bay facility down on the Atlantic—on the coast of Georgia. It is a 

relatively new facility, but it is probably at the stage now where 

they have got to do some reviews in terms of maintenance, renovations, or replacements of buildings. 

Is that in your plan in this budget? Are there any plans for reviews of facilities there at Kings Bay? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Absolutely, sir. And you mentioned that 

Kings Bay is relatively new, but the last visit I had there, I was 

shocked at exactly how old Kings Bay is. I mean, time marches on, 

and we are a little older than we all think, I guess, but we are 

looking at that not simply by what may be required for renewal, 

but as you know, we place the highest priority on our nuclear 

weapons enterprise and making sure that we are making the right 

investments there at Kings Bay is also very important, too. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Let me ask you about housing and barracks. This is a standard 

question I like to ask each year, and that is, how many of the servicemen and women under your command are living in, according to 

Department of Defense (DOD) standards, inadequate housing? 

And let me say, in preface to your answer, that I salute the DoD 

for finally—at long last—standardizing a definition across services 

of inadequate housing. It was frustrating to me in years past that 

one definition—I think, Admiral, in the Navy was that if the Navy 

were to spend $50,000 fixing up a family home, then it is defined 

as adequate, whether or not that $50,000 was ever spent. That 

seemed to be a very inadequate definition of inadequate housing. 

If I am not mistaken, we have a more standard process, as Q1, 

2, 3, 4. Could I ask you to, first, just give us a brief overview for 

the record of what the definition of Q1, 2, 3 and 4 are and if you 

think this is a reasonable way to honestly figure out what the 

unmet needs are out there? 

And, secondly, could you then answer the question of how many, 

according to that definition, are living in inadequate barracks and 

how many are living in inadequate housing? And then we can go 

from there. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The definition essentially is a formula that 

takes into account the value of the property, the repairs that are 

required, and then put it through a formula, and then there are 

also—particularly if we get into some of our single Sailor issues, 

some square footage requirements, and it is all factored into that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. So I think the definition is a good one. I 

think it is—as you pointed out, it is a standard definition that we 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
182 

can all work from. And it is my hope that we can kind of stay with 

that one for a while—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Right. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD [continuing]. Because it is sometimes challenging. And in the case of our family housing, that is the situation 

that we found ourselves in, where we were down to about 60 homes 

that would have been in the inadequate category. Applying the new 

definition, it is slightly over 3,000 that we have. 

Many of those are overseas. Some will not be reused. Others will 

be refurbished, and then some will be replaced. But it will be by 

2017 before we can get to that. And so we are making the investments that require us to get there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, could I ask, is inadequate defined as Q3 

or Q4? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Three and four. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Either one? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Three and four—inadequate. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The goal is to get us to Q1 and Q2—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD [continuing]. Which we will be at in 2017 for 

our family housing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. For our Homeport Ashore, regrettably, we 

are not moving as quickly there. That will be 2016 before I get 

there. And then in my overall bachelor housing program, I will not 

clear Q4 until 2020, and that is even with investing $125 million 

a year in that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many are living in inadequate barracks, according to the new standard? 

[The information follows:] 

NAVY BARRACKS

Question. How many are living in inadequate barracks, according to the new 

standard? 

Answer. Based on March 2010 data, approximately 30,000 Sailors are living in 

Q3/Q4 buildings. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. What I would like to be able to do, sir, is 

get that number back to you, because we are constantly deploying. 

Sometimes they are back on the ship and then back in. So if I could 

give you a better qualification of that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I agree with you. We need a standard; we need 

to stick with it, so from year to year, we can honestly determine 

whether we are making progress or falling behind. And I am not 

here to criticize anyone. Tough decisions have to be made during 

a time of war to support our warfighters in harm’s way. 

But nevertheless, what we have seen is over the years—I think 

initially all housing was going to be adequate by fiscal year 2007, 

and that was moved to 2009, and now we are talking about 2020 

for barracks? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. That is for bachelor housing overall in the 

Navy, yes, sir, to get out of Q4. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do I understand in the Navy that, according to 

your testimony, 40 percent of the Navy barracks are not only deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
183 

fined as inadequate according to the new standard, but 40 percent 

are actually Q4, the very worst level? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You know, I just hope, Admiral, we can work together to find some way to push that up. That is another 10 years 

of inadequate housing. And Congress has to see you have the resources to do it. You cannot make those improvements without the 

appropriation. 

But I do hope we can get together on that. And if you could give 

us the numbers—because next year, I would like to ask the 

same—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Same question and see what kind of 

progress we are making. And while to some it may look as if we 

have gone backwards, I think this is a more honest approach. To 

have said there were 30 homes that were inadequate, it probably 

would not have passed the common sense test. Would you assume—would you stand behind the idea that the 3,000 homes 

being inadequate probably is a more realistic, straightforward 

statement? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. I think it is a good assessment, but 

I think the fact that, relative to, for example, the bachelor housing, 

that we are closing down on that much more quickly at less cost, 

I think, shows that we are not that far out of the bend on the family housing piece, because it is not going to require the significant 

investment that we have to have for the bachelor housing. 

So I think the number is good, but I think it is kind of pretty 

close to the limit that we could get to for a lesser investment to 

get them into Q1. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, that 3,000 homes for the families, what percent would that be? How many homes does the Navy have for 

its—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I would say that that is going to—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Ballpark number? Just—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Ballpark number, I would say that it—the 

total number of homes—I am trying to do some quick mental math 

here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Right. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Probably about 30,000—maybe about 

30,000—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. So maybe—in ballpark. And obviously, you can 

fine-tune that. But 10 percent—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Ten percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Whereas, you know, in barracks, it is 

40 percent at the—do you know what the number is, if you take 

Q4? And since Q3 is also defined as inadequate, do you know what 

that 40 percent would go to if you counted Q3 and Q4? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Not off the top of my head, sir. I will get 

those numbers back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

NAVY BARRACKS

Question. Since Q3 is also defined as inadequate, do you know what that 40% 

would go to if you counted Q3 & Q4? 

Answer. Approximately 70% of our barracks are rated Q3/Q4. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
184 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. And, again, you know, our goal is not 

to be critical of anyone but to say, during a time of war, we have 

got to find a way to get the resources to support the quality of life 

back home. Especially given what we are asking of our Sailors and 

Marines and their families. I know none of us would want a single 

one of those servicemen and women or their families living in inadequate housing. 

And I at least think we have a foundation for addressing this 

problem honestly now that we have a new definition. So I think 

that is a very good step forward. 

General Conway, do you have any—— 

General CONWAY. Sir, I would echo support for the Q system. It 

removes a lot of the subjectivity from the evaluations that we have 

to place on the quarters. And so we support it. 

In terms of our barracks, first of all, I would say to you, Mr. 

Chairman, that we are in the middle of a building boom with regard to our Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQs). We put ourselves 

in extremis because for decades we neglected those accounts in lieu 

of other priorities, operations, and maintenance, and training, and 

in those types of things. 

But along about 2005, we realized that we were in extremis, and 

so we budgeted for and have been receiving dependably over the 

last few years money to build out our BEQs. This year, we have 

13 projects and $631 million, for instance, put into—we still have 

about 2,000 billeting spaces in the barracks that we would consider 

inadequate and about 3,900 that we would call substandard, Q2, 

for all intents and purposes. That said—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Q2 would include—the 3,900 would include Q2. 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. That is right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The 2,000 would be Q3 or Q4? 

General CONWAY. Yes, sir. By that evaluation. But the good news 

is, based upon our building rate—and, again, the monies that we 

have budgeted against it through the rest of the FYDP—by 2014, 

we are going to be where we want to be in our barracks. 

Now, there has been a blip in that plan in that we were allowed 

to grow some 27,000 additional Marines, and it has caused us to 

go back and ask for more resources, but we have gotten those allocated, and we feel pretty good about it. 

In terms of family housing, I would simply say to you, sir, that 

the Public-Private Venture (PPV) has been a true windfall for us. 

It is a godsend, in that it has rapidly put our family housing into 

much better shape than I think we could have ever done through 

military construction accounts. 

We have invested over the last, I guess, 3 years now—really, 

since 2007—some $757 million, but that has brought forward over 

$3.3 billion in terms of tangibles that we can provide to our—to our 

families. 

We still have about 3,400 sets that we would say are Q2 that we 

have got to take off that quality standard. But, once again, 2014 

is kind of a magic year for us, because based upon what we are 

doing with those—with those PPV accounts, we are going to see 

ourselves in pretty good shape by then. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
185 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you note the numbers 3,400 for Q2—technically, Q2 is not defined as inadequate, but not at the highest 

level—— 

General CONWAY. Substandard is what we—yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any number—what the number is, if you just 

count Q3 and Q4? 

General CONWAY. Well, sir, I am going to have to do some math, 

too. I do not know that. I will have to get that back to you, in terms 

of the actual breakdown of the Q4 system. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. How many barracks are inadequate? (Q3 & Q4) How many family housing units are inadequate? (Q3 & Q4) 

Answer. The Marine Corps has 3,900 (7%) substandard bachelor housing spaces 

(Q3)* and 2,000 (3%) inadequate bachelor housing spaces (Q4).** There is one substandard family housing unit (Q3)* and one inadequate (Q4).** 

*Units considered substandard (Q3)—condition such that they can be fixed with 

O&M. 

**Inadequate (Q4)—condition such that they can only be replaced with MILCON. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. That would be fine. Thank you. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question about the 

Littoral Combat Ships. There was—the USS FREEDOM was in 

Mayport for about 10 days before it deployed down to Southern 

Command, and there was quite a buzz. You know, it seems to be 

just the future of the Navy. It kind of revolutionized a lot of missions that you have. 

And as I understand it, on the West Coast, they will be 

homeported at San Diego. And so my question is about what is 

going to happen on the East Coast, two or three questions. 

One, when will they be expected to kind of arrive on the East 

Coast? Are you considering any bases on the East Coast? Do you 

have a preferred base? What are kind of the criteria that you use? 

And then I know you were making the final decision about kind 

of the final ship that will be made this year. How long will it be 

before you decide about the homeport? And this is—I know it is 

kind of in the future a little bit, but what kind of military construction projects might we be looking at? So kind of just overall about 

the LCS and how and where and when they fit on the East Coast. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sir, thank you. And the LCS 1 FREEDOM, 

we deployed it 2 years early to begin to learn the lessons that I 

think would allow us to answer some of these infrastructure questions even better than we could have estimated without that deployment. 

The plan that we have is initially to have LCSs in San Diego and 

then, in 2016, we begin the movement to the East Coast. And 

where we are right now is that Mayport is the primary site that 

we are looking at because it really is the replacement for the FFG 

7 class, which Mayport enjoys a pretty significant population of 

those. 

And, also, I think that, as we are finding out with FREEDOM, 

it is very optimized for the types of operations down in the southern hemisphere littoral areas. In fact, in the first couple of weeks 

of its deployment, it seized over half a ton of cocaine. There was 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
186 

a go-fast that tried to go faster than an LCS, and it did not kind 

of work out that way, so we are quite pleased with that. 

But I think the types of infrastructure that we will need, the pier 

infrastructure is fine. Depending on what class we choose, there 

may be some unique features with one over the other. And I have 

to be very careful what I say about the two types right now, because we are in request for proposals on that. 

But, clearly, there will be need for facilities that provide for the 

simulators, because with a multiple crewed concept, the crews that 

are not actually embarked in their ships are going to have to be 

training on the types of systems that the ship has. 

And so it would be things like that, some—the maintenance facilities that are in Mayport can be modified to deal with the types 

of equipment that would be coming on and off. So not that much, 

but probably in the simulator areas where there would have to be 

some either new construction or renovations and modifications to 

existing buildings that could take some of these simulation—or capabilities in, so mainly training facilities. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just have one 

more question. I know that with an 11 o’clock deadline, if I could 

ask that question—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. 

BLOUNT ISLAND

Mr. CRENSHAW. And it really—General Conway, just it is about Blount Island. I think there is $55 million for some MILCON 

projects. And as you know, Blount Island has—it was described by 

one of your predecessors as a national treasure, and I think since 

2003, with Operation Iraqi Freedom, with the prepositioning ships, 

it is busting at the seams. It has been, you know, just a great, 

great facility. 

And I just—maybe you could just comment on—because I think 

the materiel that is gone, you know, to Iraq initially was—most all 

of it went through Blount Island. We were just in Ramstein this— 

on the way to Afghanistan and because of the—kind of their 

hurrying up, they were about 25 planes a day taking off, you know, 

in Germany, it is a little quicker than a ship. 

So they are doing a lot of that with the surge there. But I imagine still there are an awful lot of things going through Blount Island. And so comment on how you—these new projects are going 

to kind of enhance the ability to do the things that are doing so 

well at Blount Island. 

General CONWAY. Sir, the biggest thing is throughput. And the 

fact that, based upon what we have right now, in terms of storage 

facilities, in terms of ramp space, in terms of just parking areas, 

we can only put so much in there at one time. 

You are right about the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) 

ships. It is where we come in for our maintenance rehab and standdown of our ships. We have recently put all 3 squadrons through 

there and have brought that national capacity, that national reserve capacity, if you will, up to an average of about 94 percent 

readiness in those squadrons. 

That, at the same time, we are bringing back gear from Iraq and 

to some lesser degree from Afghanistan for triage. So you can see 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
187 

there is a huge volume, as your comments indicated, that has to 

go almost exclusively through Blount Island. And we look at it as 

sort of the narrow neck of the hour glass, that we can expand that 

and make it more complete is going to facilitate what then has to 

be done at places like Albany and Barstow. 

So it is really important to us. I understand, again, the rules to 

say that it is not necessarily exclusively related to Iraq or Afghanistan, therefore, it cannot be counted in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). But it was certainly important to us enough that 

when that was rejected, we put it in the baseline this year to get 

it accomplished. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

I assume you would not be disappointed if, in order to honor the 

World War II WASPs, we did not keep you until noon and finish 

by 11:00. Other members come in. But I do want to just take a couple more minutes on the housing issue, if I could. 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

First, it is the nature of this process to always focus on the 

unmet challenges ahead, because we all want to solve problems 

and help our servicemen and women and their families. I do think 

it is worth taking just a moment to salute what has been a real 

partnership accomplishment. This subcommittee worked with DOD 

on the public-private family housing program that, General 

Conway, you mentioned. 

This was not easily done to get the bureaucracy to do something 

differently. I know I worked for about 8 years on this, along with 

others. There were all fronts of opposition who said you cannot do 

it differently. And now I think 90 percent, 95 percent of our family 

housing is coming through that public-private partnership program. 

Admiral, speaking for the Navy, is that program on the family 

housing side working well? And we want to continue to monitor it, 

that it was not just successful in the first couple of years when new 

homes were built, but where you have seen maintenance and the 

upkeep and reinvestment in the those homes. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. PPV has fundamentally changed the quality 

of life of our people. They, our Sailors, live better today in Navy 

housing, which is PPV, private predominantly, than they ever 

have. And we continue to see the satisfaction on the part of our 

families increasing. We are satisfied with the partners that we 

have and how they are approaching the task. 

We have also in the Navy been very pleased with the single Sailor PPVs that we have in place in San Diego and in Norfolk, extraordinary facilities. And even though we did not exercise our 

third option, because of the demands that it places on my manpower account, I really do believe that for the services to have the 

flexibility that should circumstances allow to have authorization, to 

be able to engage in single PPVs, I think that would just put another tool in our kitbag to better take care of our Sailors. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, you foresaw my next question, because I was 

going to ask if we could take this public-private partnership conVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
188 

cept that the Navy—and I do not think the other services have— 

that you have actually tested out. And I assume it would work in 

some sites, not work in other sites. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But this realistic challenge you face of not having 

adequate barracks for all of our Sailors until 2020 really bothers 

me and concerns me. And, again, the Congress needs to be a partner in solving this problem, if we want to be constructive about it. 

And so maybe we need to look at alternative financing. I think 

that is really what drove me to believe that we had to go to a new 

form of funding, military family housing, in the last decade, because I was looking at the numbers, and the numbers projected out 

for a decade or two were just going to get worse and worse on military family housing. And we have had to try something new. 

And maybe we use this 2020 problem, 40 percent Q4 number as 

an impetus to try to be bold and look at some new ways of doing 

it. You would need additional authorization? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. What happens with PPV is that the cost is 

borne in my manpower account, because I have to pay the housing 

allowances out of that. And as you know, in joining the retention 

and the fiscal environment that we are in, that account, if this is 

pressurized, our manpower accounts are the most pressurized, and 

you have to make payroll. 

But having the flexibility to use that option in places where it 

makes sense at times when we can absorb that in a manpower account, I think would give us much more flexibility. I think it would 

be good for the partnerships that really have benefited the quality 

of life for our families. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, good, thank you. And I hope we can continue to maybe focus on the issue of Navy barracks. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. That is right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Again, 2020 is the farthest out projection I have 

heard in all my years on the subcommittee of trying to get this 

number down to zero, and let’s find a way for us to work with you 

and be supportive of your efforts on that. 

Mr. Farr, I tantalized them with the possibility of maybe finishing up early, but I am going to go to the WASP ceremony. And 

I would like to turn the gavel over to you, and certainly take whatever time you would like if you need to address questions. I have 

had my questions addressed. 

Mr. Crenshaw, I do not know if you have additional questions or 

not, but so the gavel is yours, the questions are yours. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I will not ask for any unanimous consent— 

Mr. EDWARDS. You could do a lot in this subcommittee by unanimous consent. 

Mr. FARR. When I am the only one here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So thank you. As I leave, let me thank you again, 

both of you, for your leadership for our country. We look forward 

to working together with you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you for everything you do. 

Mr. FARR [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
189 

STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

And I want to thank both of you for incredible service to our 

country and real leadership. The questions I want to get into are 

essentially some things I have had discussions with Admiral 

Mullen about. 

Frankly, I think in your careers one of the most significant 

things that has happened to DoD, is this whole concept of reconciliation and stabilization as a part of your mission. 

And so the questions that I have, you know that I represent the 

Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, which both services obviously are heavily engaged in sending officers there. What that 

school set up was a center for stability, security, transition and reconstruction. 

But there has never really been a commitment to that, because 

it is kind of segued into the Foreign Area Officer (FAO) training 

that is there. At the Naval Postgraduate School, they have a joint 

FAO skills sustainment program. 

Essentially, Mr. Crenshaw, DoD is gearing up to answer that 

question, ‘‘We can get in, but how do we get out?’’ By stabilizing 

the situation through essentially a lot of community development 

and things like that, but it is much deeper than that. 

Since that programs has been established there, I am wondering 

if you are going to formalize it, either getting FAOs to take some 

courses in stabilization, reconstruction, or to create a sub-specialty 

code designated for stabilization, reconstruction, for career positions. What the Army has done in developing FAOs, I think the 

Navy and the other services need to do a better job using the Army 

model. 

But the problem is that, even with that, when you get a degree, 

a master’s degree in stabilization security, which is different than 

the FAO, you do not have any—there is no rank for it. There is no 

position assignment, a job classification. 

And I guess that is what I am asking is, are you interested in 

creating a sub-specialty code or designation for stabilization in career positions? And with that, certainly encourage Navy and Marine officers to earn a security studies master’s degree in stabilization and reconstruction, and put the funding into it. 

We have a lot of interest in it, but we have not followed through 

on the details. And that is my question, what does it take to follow 

through on those details? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, thank you, Mr. Farr. It has been my 

pleasure in the time since I have been the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to make some fundamental changes that I think have 

benefited—the Postgraduate School, creating the naval activity, 

bringing its resourcing up to the level of the other educational institutions within the Navy, and then making sure that there are 

some significant projects that we address every year to really bring 

the Postgraduate School to the stature that I believe it deserves 

globally, not just in the United States. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I thank you for your support in making a 

lot of this happen. I think on the issue of security and stabilization, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
190 

it really does encompass all the services and how we fit into that, 

it really is a joint endeavor, if you will. 

But that said, with regard to the specialization of something in 

security and stabilization, we as a Navy use our general purpose 

force wherever it may be to go out and be part of security force assistance, theater security cooperation. 

So even our young men and women on our ships—for example, 

we have the Africa Partnership Station off the coast of Africa, 

which is—I can say it is engaged in that very type of activity, but 

at the same time, those young men and women have to swing and 

be able to support the Marine Corps in forcible entry operations. 

So we use our forces very, very flexibly. It is oftentimes the men 

and women of our amphibious ships that respond to the natural 

disasters such as Haiti or Indonesia. And I even have a team down 

in Chile right now working with our Chilean friends. So—— 

Mr. FARR. Thank you for that. You are more capable first responder needs than the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). And I appreciate that. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Well, I am proud of what our Sailors do, sir. 

But so what we seek are people who can respond and do this globally. And that really applies to the entire Navy, not unlike—I was 

recently in Afghanistan, and one of our provincial reconstruction 

team commanders, the Navy commands 6 of the 12 teams that are 

in Afghanistan, met with them on a very cold mountain in Afghanistan, and he was a nuclear submarine commanding officer. He was 

having the time of his life. So it is really the utility—— 

Mr. FARR. But you have specialized with FAOs? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We do. We have aggressively—and FAOs 

are a very high priority for me, because of my background and 

what I have done in my life and how I grew up. And we have a 

program that we are growing the FAO force. We are, for the first 

time, we have made it possible for a foreign area officer to rise to 

flag rank, which I think will be significant for that community to 

realize that there is a career path that can take them all the way 

to the top. 

And so our FAOs, I think, can benefit from participation in 

courses and curricula that home in on those types of activities. 

Mr. FARR. There is more. I think you understand that there is 

more to this new concept of trying to work in the stability and reconstruction. How do you stabilize and how do you sustain stability? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Exactly. 

Mr. FARR. That is more than just the traditional FAO training. 

This is a lot of other foreign aid-type work. The military command 

is the only system that is in total command. You know, that is why 

you are so good at being the capable responder. 

And I really believe that the directive that Secretary Gates 

issued, 3000.05, for the military be trained to be culturally aware 

and linguistically capable of responding anywhere in the world, 

that we are going to have officers, personnel that can do this, and 

now that you have created these curriculums to do it, but yet we 

have not put any emphasis into trying to get people trained in 

those specialties. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
191 

Here the program is set up at the Naval Postgraduate School, 

good place to set it up. It could have been done anyplace, but that 

was a good place to do it, because of all the language capabilities 

in Monterey, with the DLI, Defense Language Institute. 

I am just concerned that we have created the framework, but we 

have not put any directives in or money to support that framework. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. But I also think that it really spans all of 

the services. And I could even make a case that it goes beyond the 

military and the benefits that would accrue to personnel in the 

State Department, USAID—— 

Mr. FARR. Yes, well, the State Department has created a new 

program on stability and reconstruction, but it is a difficult crossover. We have people in Afghanistan now, and these are career 

USAID or State Department personnel who say, ‘‘Yes, I would like 

to go to Afghanistan, and here is my specialty. I am an AG specialist. I think I could help you there.’’ 

So they go to a training program. And with other folks who have 

indicated they would like to go. And how many, Debbie, in Afghanistan, 60 or 70? 

But nonetheless, they are not carrying any weapons. You have 

heard the NGOs a little bit concerned of how much of this school 

building and community development is going to be done by military officers, which is not their mission. 

But I think there is always going to be unstable places and we 

need to have dual capabilities. We ought to be able to train our officers to know the languages and the culture so that they can help 

stabilize it. 

General CONWAY. Sir, I certainly agree with your premise, and 

the Marine Corps since 2001, 2003, have certainly realized that we 

have got to do a better job understanding the culture, respecting 

the pride, being able to speak the language, to a point where we 

have integrated into our own school systems. 

And although I am aware of the one at Monterey, we have got 

something that is similar to it at Quantico, with virtually all of our 

schools, because we see that what you are describing is a natural 

part of counterinsurgency response. And those requirements for 

stabilization and security are taking place at the same time. You 

may have a kinetic conflict going just a few kilometers away. It 

gets back to General Krulak’s sort of three-block-war kind of design. 

And so we have incorporated it. We tried to take advantage, I 

think, of schools everywhere that give us that capacity, language 

in addition to some level of specialization. 

But I would offer that, you know, we say as a Marine Corps we 

do windows. We do whatever the nation asks us to do. We do not 

consider stabilization, security into nation-building necessarily a 

Marine Corps mission, and yet we have been asked to do that a 

good bit of the time, both in Iraq and arguably in Afghanistan, realizing that we have tried to broadly base our people in the concepts and designs and the successful models that we have seen employed to the point that it becomes a part of the DNA of all of our 

conventional forces. 

Mr. FARR. But what I have learned from talking to the workshops that you have had at the Naval Postgraduate School, where 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
192 

you bring in all the actors, the international actors, from U.N. and 

State Department, USAID, and NGOs, the Red Cross, so on, what 

they tell us now is that the only two units that are in the street, 

the only people that are on the street with the natives are the military and the NGOs. 

We have our traditional embassy folks and our USAID folks 

locked up behind the walled city of the American embassy and not 

out there on the streets. Of course, you know, they get shot at on 

the streets. 

But I think that is the crossover that we know we are going to 

need. 

General CONWAY. We have what we call an Emerald Express exercise every year. It used to be in California, when General Zinni 

was out there, and now we do it at Quantico just to make it more 

accessible to NGOs, the interagency, governmental representatives, 

volunteer organizations of any sort, in addition to a large military 

involvement, both U.S. and our partners, that gets after exactly 

what you are talking about. 

And it is very successful. And there is a great deal of interchange 

over a period of a full week. We have presenters come in and talk 

to sort of the emergent issues. So I think, sir, we are—in agreement. It is just a matter of methodology and how we go about making it most effective. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I would appreciate it if you could look back at 

what you are doing to add some value to the training and to developing the knowledge career to make it sustainable. I think if you 

do not reward people for getting that specialty, it is an unmet need, 

yet the desire to go into S&R is strong. I have friends who served 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what they have come back and said, 

′′Now that I have lived overseas, I really get this cross-culturally. 

I wish I could go into a career that would allow me to continue 

that.′′ And I said, ′′Well, there is. There is this.′′ And they say, ′′Oh, 

that is real hard to get into the Naval Postgraduate School.′′ 

But the other thing from the officers that are there, they say, 

′′Why should I get a master’s degree here? There is no assignment 

for me afterwards.′′ 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I would say, sir, that there are opportunities 

to employ the knowledge and those skills in, I could argue, in the 

FAO community. I think it could be, as we have stood up our expeditionary combat command, there are groups, units within that 

combat command that can benefit from it, and would be valued for 

it. But I would also say that it goes beyond the Navy—— 

Mr. FARR. Yes, I—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD [continuing]. Really becomes a joint opportunity for men and women of all services and the interagency, as 

well. 

Mr. FARR. But you are in charge of the school that does the 

jointness, because the Naval Postgraduate is a joint, as the DLI is 

a joint training. You know, although it is operated by the Army, 

it is still joint training. And the Marines are the first ones that 

come to the DLI with any kind of new language. They are the ones 

that show up and say, ′′Teach us Dari or Pashtun.′′ 

I know this is an emerging issue. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Absolutely. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
193 

Mr. FARR. Stabilization and reconstruction is a new dialogue in 

Washington, is relatively new. And I am just hoping we can professionalize it. 

I am sorry to take up your time. Mr. Crenshaw, do you have 

any—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No. 

Mr. FARR. Well, if there are no further questions, We will follow 

up with some written material. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And I appreciate, again, your service and thank you 

for coming. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, sir. 

General CONWAY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FARR. Committee is adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record for Admiral Roughead, submitted by 

Chairman Edwards follow:] 

NAVY BARRACKS

Question. Why is the Homeport Ashore program targeted to El–E4 with less than 

four years experience? Is this a different target population than the original Homeport Ashore Program? 

Answer. The Homeport Ashore (HPA) initiative is targeted to single E1–E4 Sailors with less than four years experience because these junior Sailors are currently 

living aboard our ships and they are not authorized to receive Basic Allowance for 

Housing (BAH), which would give them the means to live in the local community. 

To improve quality of life for these Sailors, our goal is to provide them living quarters ashore at the Interim Assignment Policy (55 square feet per person) by 2016. 

El–E4 single Sailors are the same population we targeted in the original HPA program established in 2002. 

Question. How will the Homeport Ashore deficit be addressed through 2016, by 

year, location, spaces, and cost? 

Answer. Six MILCON projects are required to achieve our Homeport Ashore goal 

of providing single El–E4 Sailors with less than four years of experience with living 

quarters ashore at the Interim Assignment Standard ([90] 55-square feet per person) by 2016. Requested details on the six projects follows. 

Installation 

Estimated 

cost 

($K) 

Beds Budgeted FY Completed FY 

Naval Base San Diego, CA .................................................................... 75,342 772 2011 2013 

Naval Station Norfolk, VA ...................................................................... 84,260 1,238 2012 2014 

Naval Base Coronado, CA ...................................................................... 58,438 1,272 2013 2015 

Fleet Activity Sasebo, Japan .................................................................. 26,786 173 2013 2015 

Fleet Activity Yokosuka, Japan .............................................................. 47,312 661 2014 2016 

Naval Station Everett, WA ..................................................................... 47,038 189 2014 2016 

Question. When will the Navy develop a policy to go beyond the ′′interim′′ assignment policy? 

Answer. The Navy is developing a comprehensive plan to address all of our condition and capacity shortfalls and our barracks endstate. A senior Flag level review 

of the plan is scheduled for mid CY2010 and will influence future budget submissions. 

Question. How will the Navy prioritize inadequate barracks for replacement—for 

example, by ′′worst first′′? Will the replacement program be centrally managed, or 

will it be incumbent upon installation commanders to put their barracks priorities 

forward? 

Answer. We will prioritize our investment in inadequate barracks by eliminating 

barracks in the lowest state of readiness first. We will centrally manage our maintenance and modernization program. 

Question. Does the figure of $125 million annually refer to MILCON only, or does 

it include restoration and modernization funding as well? If it includes R&M, how 

much MILCON is anticipated to be required on an annualized basis? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
194 

Answer. The $125 million Navy annually programmed over the FYDP to reduce 

our number of inadequate barracks will be funded predominately by restoration and 

modernization funding. We will rely exclusively on restoration and modernization 

funding to reduce inadequate barracks in FY 2011 and FY 2012; the mix of 

MILCON and restoration and modernization funding required for FY 2013 and beyond is currently under development as part of POM–12. 

Question. You note in your testimony that Navy is taking risk in shore infrastructure. How are you balancing this risk among facility categories? Are there any categories in which you are taking particular risk? 

Answer. The Navy is balancing and prioritizing risk through a top-down, datadriven, capabilities-based Shore Investment Process that links shore investments to 

Navy and Joint warfighting requirements and Total Force Quality of Life and Quality of Service. In our FY 2011 budget request, we accepted particular risk in administration buildings, warehouse and logistics facilities, and common support infrastructure, such as roads. 

Question. The QDR makes numerous references to the need to increase the resil- iency of U.S. bases overseas. For example, the Air Force FYDP includes $275 million 

in unspecified ′′resilience′′ costs in Guam or any other overseas location. Does the 

Navy FYDP account for ′′resiliency′′ costs in Guam or any other overseas location. 

Answer. No. The Navy FYDP does not include any resiliency costs for overseas 

locations. 

[Questions for the Record for General Conway submitted by 

Chairman Edwards follow:] 

FUTENMA REPLACEMENT FACILTIY

Question. What, in your estimation, are the minimal operational requirements for 

theFutenma Replacement Facility (FRF)? 

Answer. For the FRF at Camp Schwab, the Marine Corps has determined that 

within the configuration of the current design, the operational allocation of the 1800 

meters (1190m runway with two 305m overruns) will allow for planned aircraft to 

operate safely and acceptably for routine daily flight operations. Impact on contingency operations would be mitigated by use of alternate airfields. 

Question. What are the optimal requirements? 

Answer. To realize the unconstrained operational capability of planned tilt-rotor 

operations from the FRF, the Marine Corps requires a runway that is 2146m 

(1536m with two 305m overruns) to safely land an MV–22 during a worst case single-engine emergency scenario (wet runway at maximum gross take-off weight). 

GROWING THE MARINE CORPS AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES

Question. The Marine Corps has relied on a significant amount of temporary facilities to bridge the gap between growing end strength and the establishment of 

permanent facilities to accommodate that growth. What is the Marine Corps plan 

for ending the use of these temporary facilities? 

Answer. To meet the Commandant’s aggressive growth plan, Marines may need 

to work and live in non-permanent facilities until construction of the new facilities 

is complete. Construction of new facilities will continue through 2015. Marines can 

expect to remain in temporary facilities for roughly 2–4 years from their 202K unit 

stand up date or until new construction/existing space becomes available. 

The Marine Corps has relied on a significant amount of temporary facilities to 

bridge the gap between growing end strength and the establishment of permanent 

facilities to accommodate that growth. What is the Marine Corps plan for ending 

the use of these temporary facilities? 

[Questions for the Record for Admiral Roughead submitted by 

Ranking Member Wamp follow:] 

TAKING RISK IN SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE

Question. Please elaborate in more detailed terms to the Committee the significance of the risk that the [MILCON] budget request places the Navy under, and 

how is the Navy addressing these risks as it develops its budget request for FY12? 

Answer. Our FY 2011 budget request accepts risk in shore infrastructure, particularly in the recapitalization of our facilities, to fund high operational demands, rising manpower costs, and critical maintenance for our ships and aircraft to reach 

their expected service life. As a result, we will experience additional maintenance, 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization requirements and continued reliance 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
195 

on old and less efficient energy systems. To address these risks in our FY 2012 

budget request, we continue to pursue a Shore Investment Strategy underpinned by 

a top-down, data-driven, capabilities-based process that aligns shore investments 

with required Navy warfighting capabilities, improved quality of life, and Joint requirements. We have refined our capital investment plan and aligned governance 

to target our shore investments where they will have greatest impact to our strategic and operational objectives, warfighting effectiveness, and family support. 

AFRICOM (DJIBOUTI) PROJECTS

Question. The budget request is asking for funding for four projects in support of 

AFRICOM at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti. The total cost of these projects is $51.6 million. We have seen similar requests in the past, but for some reason these projects 

have not enjoyed bicameral support. Please tell the Committee why these projects 

are required in the FY 2011 budget cycle. What is the risk of not funding these 

projects? 

Answer. The projects requested in our FY 2011 budget improve operational, logistic, and force protection functions at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, and provide improved Quality of Life for our forward-deployed Service members stationed on the 

base. The specific enhancements provided by each project and the impact of not 

funding the projects follows. 

P230, HOA Joint Operations Center ($28.1M)—The Navy plans to construct a 

Joint Operations Center, to include an operations center, Sensitive Compartmented 

Information Facility, planning rooms, office spaces, storage, and a receiving and 

shipping area. Construction of the center will bring together in one location functions that are currently dispersed throughout the base. This consolidation will optimize the ability of the Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander to execute JTF missions. 

Without the project, the JTF Commander would continue to work from dispersed 

locations with less efficiency and effectiveness than if the functions were co-located. 

P232, Camp Lemonier Headquarters Facility ($12.4M)—The Navy plans to construct an 18,880 square foot consolidated administrative headquarters facility for 

supply, public works, administration, and contracting functions. The facility will include offices, conference rooms, a secure information technology system, briefing 

rooms, and anti-terrorism/force-protection (AT/FP) infrastructure requirements. 

Construction of the headquarters facility will bring together in one location functions that are currently dispersed throughout the base. Without the project, the 

functions would continue to be performed at dispersed locations with less efficiency 

and effectiveness than if the functions were co-located. 

P912, Pave External Roads ($3.8M)—The Navy plans to conduct road grading, 

paving, and drainage improvements to provide access for military vehicles around 

the camp’s fenced perimeter. The existing gravel road is costly and cumbersome to 

maintain. Without the project, deteriorating gravel roads could impact security mission accomplishment by limiting speed of response and causing unnecessary damage 

to vehicles. 

P219, General Warehouse ($7.3M)—The Navy plans to-construct a storage warehouse to accommodate supply materials, two offices, classified material staging, and 

a refrigerated medical space. This warehouse will consolidate storage operations, decrease congestion in offload operations, and provide proper climate control for the 

preservation of supplies. Without this project, these functions will continue to take 

place at dispersed and congested locations that do not provide protection against exposure to HOA’s extreme heat conditions, which can destroy supplies and significantly impact mission readiness. 

HOMEPORT ASHORE

Question. I read in testimony that the Navy remains on track to provide sufficient 

bachelor quarters by 2016 through the Homeport Ashore initiative. Please tell the 

committee what your current bed deficit is, and what would be the FY11 cost if the 

Committee were to try to move that goal up to 2015? Does the Navy have the capability to execute bachelor housing projects beyond what is requested in the budget? 

Answer. The Homeport Ashore bed deficit, considering currently funded projects, 

is 4,300. The Navy is capable of accelerating the three remaining CONUS projects 

(Norfolk, Coronado, and Everett) into FY11 at a cost of $198 million. The two remaining OCONUS projects (Sasebo and Yokosuka) are not executable in FY11. 

However, earlier execution of the CONUS projects would facilitate acceleration of 

the OCONUS projects and would enable the Navy to complete the Homeport Ashore 

initiative by 2015. The Navy has the capability to execute bachelor housing projects 

beyond what we requested in our budget. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
196 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY

Question. The Navy is placing a priority on the security of nuclear weapons. 

Please tell the Committee what the emphasis is of this priority, and what the cost 

of this initiative is going to be to the Navy within the current FYDP. Are there 

projects related to this initiative that go beyond the FYDP? If so, what is the cost? 

Answer. Our Nuclear Weapons Security (NWS) program is a high priority for our 

Navy. The program eliminates identified security deviations from national and DoD 

security requirements at our Atlantic and Pacific Strategic Weapons Facilities. The 

Navy FYDP includes nine MILCON projects in the amount of $288 million to eliminate 21 NWS deviations. No additional MILCON is anticipated for deviation remediation beyond the FYDP. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(197) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010. 

EUROPEAN COMMAND 

WITNESS 

ADMIRAL JAMES E. STAVRIDIS, UNITED STATES NAVY, COMMANDER, 

UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

And, Admiral, welcome back with a different hat on. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good to have you back before the committee. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And we appreciate both your leadership on behalf 

of our country. We are thankful to you and all of those under your 

command. 

The purpose of this afternoon’s budget committee hearing and 

our subcommittee hearing is to look at the budget implications of 

military construction for fiscal year 2000 for all those projects 

under your command. 

And rather than offering a lengthy opening statement, I think I 

will save time for you to make your comments in a moment, and 

we will have more time for questions and answers. 

And I do want to recognize Mr. Wamp. 

And then I believe, Mr. Crenshaw, you have a constituent here 

today. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Actually, actually, Mr. Chairman, I not only 

have a constituent, I have my most famous constituent, or at least 

my constituent with the fanciest title, which is the gentleman sitting in front of you. 

So, Admiral, welcome. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, it is good to be here. And I want you to 

know I am getting on an airplane tomorrow and flying to Atlantic 

Beach, Florida, to give a couple of speeches and then take a couple 

of days on the beach. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is great. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Even a supreme allied commander—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Gets 3 days off. 

Mr. EDWARDS. A couple days—every decade he gets at least 3 

days off. 

Mr. Wamp, I would like to recognize you for any opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
198 

As I said to each of you, because tomorrow is a very light day 

and I have responsibilities in Tennessee and here, I will not be able 

to stay for the whole hearing. That actually makes Mr. Crenshaw 

happy, because he gets to slide into this role of ranking member 

on a very important day when you come back. 

As I said to you in my office, and we had a lengthy discussion 

about all the different issues that you face, to have the first admiral in this position and to break the protocol of where you go from 

your last command to this important position, to me speaks to Secretary Gates’ wisdom and new dimension. 

Again, as I said last year when you were at SOUTHCOM, the 

intellect that you bring to this task is, I think, unprecedented. I do 

not know all the history of the United States military, but I cannot 

think of a person who brings more knowledge of the world, a deep 

understanding of history, and an extraordinary education to the job 

that you have. I just want to thank you for your public service, 

which is just extraordinary. 

You are a lot of fun to be around, even though you are incredibly 

smart, and you have done awesome work around the world now. 

I know this is a whole new frontier for you and one that you have 

jumped into headfirst. 

You and I talked a lot about the extraordinary progress that is 

being made particularly in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans because of actions that our nation took, the incredible goodwill that 

is there and this thirst for a new way forward for these countries 

and how positive that is in the middle of a lot of other negative 

things in the world. 

This is something that we should really build on, not just for the 

goodwill that our country can gain, but for global peace and the notion that countries can engage in self-determination and open markets and free systems. That is how important the United States 

military is in places like this, to come in and bring stability. Everything that really comes under your command today is really important to global security, and you are exactly the right person for the 

job. 

While there will be a host of questions today about different priorities and things that you need, I just want to thank you from the 

bottom of my heart on behalf of everyone, both in my district and 

state and in the Congress, for your extraordinary service and the 

skill set that you bring. I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in my 16 years in Congress, a person that is so wellequipped in diverse ways to be in the place that you are at this 

time. 

And I mean that. I am not trying to butter you up. I do not need 

anything from you. I just really respect you, sir. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Well said, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Crenshaw, do you have further comments you care to make 

about your distinguished constituent? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You know, he is also the smartest constituent. 

[Laughter.] 

Often reminded me of that—two Ph.Ds. But, no, I just want to 

thank him as well. And I think the fact that he is from the 4th 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
199 

Congressional District kind of, you know, just speaks for itself. And 

we do thank you for all that you do. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, thanks. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And welcome back. I know you have been here 

before with a different hat on. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is great to be back. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, it is great to have you back before the committee. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you both. 

Admiral, again, it is great to have you back. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And, obviously, your full remarks will be put in 

the record, but we would like to recognize you now for any opening 

comments you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES G. STAVRIDIS

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, Congressman Crenshaw, Congressman Farr. It 

is great to see you. We had a nice chance to practicamos nuestro 

espanol. Es muy bueno. Gracias, si. 

It is a real privilege to be here with you. This is a committee that 

is (a) bipartisan, (b) totally supportive of our men and women, and 

(c) incredibly hard-working. And I mean every word of that. 

And as I said to the chairman a few moments ago, a lot of times 

these days in uniform people say to us, ‘‘Thank you for your service. And we appreciate it.’’ I want to say to all of the members, 

thank you for your service. It is hard work up here. You spend a 

lot of time on the road. You are separated from your families, and 

you are working hard for this country every single day. And your 

soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines know that, and they 

would want me to say thank you to you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I have got a great new job, as you mentioned. 

It is kind of a transatlantic job. I think a lot about bridges these 

days, about how U.S. European Command can be a bridge between 

Europe, our oldest and I think our most reliable pool of allies still, 

and ourselves on this side of the Atlantic. 

So we work very hard at making connections. Just as we tried 

to do at U.S. Southern Command, we try and do that internationally. We try and do that in the interagency and connect all of the 

different interagency partners. And indeed, we try and reach out 

into the private sector and look at private-public connections, because we think those are important as we do humanitarian operations, as we do anything involving technology, as we do anything 

that is in this business of connection. 

The big things on my plate that I would love to talk to you about 

today are from a European perspective, what are the keys to security? First, there is the relationship with Russia, which is complicated. And I am a believer that we need to seek zones of cooperation with Russia, but at the same time we need to be reassuring 

to our allies, some of whom are very concerned about Russian behavior. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
200 

They are concerned in Europe about Iran, about the potential for 

Iran to obtain a nuclear device, for the growing ballistic missile 

threat. So we can talk a little about the potential for missile defense. 

I am also concerned about cyber. There is a great deal of vulnerability to cyber attack in Europe and here in the United States, 

and we can learn from each other in that regard. 

Representative Wamp talked a little bit about the Balkans. In 

Europe there is a sense that the Balkans are going well, and I 

agree with that. It is in my view a successful application of international security efforts. If we look back at where we were in the 

Balkans 10 years ago, the progress is just extraordinary. We need 

to make sure we do not fall back in the Balkans. 

And in Europe, of course, there is concern like there is here in 

the United States about Afghanistan, how that is going. 

From a U.S. European Command perspective, our forces in Europe are engaged in a variety of ways in all the things I just mentioned. So we do have in front of you just around $850 million in 

a MILCON request. We can talk about pieces and parts of that, but 

what I would like to focus on for you today is the broad picture of 

why that is important, what we are doing to try and make some 

of these challenges that I mentioned, and how we approach doing 

that. 

So I will stop there as well so we can have plenty of time for 

questions. And again, I want to conclude by saying thank you to 

the Congress for what you do for our men and women. And thank 

you for taking the time to spend this afternoon to talk about U.S. 

European Command, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral James G. Stavridis follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
201 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 56870A.071
202 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 here 56870A.072
203 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 here 56870A.073
204 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 here 56870A.074
205 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 368 here 56870A.075
206 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 56870A.076
207 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 56870A.077
208 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 56870A.078
209 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 56870A.079
210 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 56870A.080
211 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 56870A.081
212 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 56870A.082
213 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 56870A.083
214 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 56870A.084
215 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 56870A.085
216 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 56870A.086
217 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 56870A.087
218 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 here 56870A.088
219 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 here 56870A.089
220 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 here 56870A.090
221 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 here 56870A.091
222 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 here 56870A.092
223 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 here 56870A.093
224 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 here 56870A.094
225 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 here 56870A.095
226 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 here 56870A.096
227 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 here 56870A.097
228 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 here 56870A.098
229 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 here 56870A.099
230 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 here 56870A.100
231 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 here 56870A.101
232 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 here 56870A.102
233 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 here 56870A.103
234 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 56870A.104
235 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 56870A.105
236 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 56870A.106
237 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 here 56870A.107
238 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 here 56870A.108
239 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 here 56870A.109
240 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 here 56870A.110
241 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 here 56870A.111
242 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 here 56870A.112
243 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 here 56870A.113
244 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 here 56870A.114
245 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 here 56870A.115
246 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 here 56870A.116
247 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 56870A.117
248 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 56870A.118
249 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 56870A.119
250 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 56870A.120
251 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 here 56870A.121
252 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 here 56870A.122
253 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 here 56870A.123
254 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 here 56870A.124
255 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 here 56870A.125
256 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 419 here 56870A.126
257 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 420 here 56870A.127
258 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 421 here 56870A.128
259 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 here 56870A.129
260 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 here 56870A.130
261 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 here 56870A.131
262 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425/600 here 56870A.132
263 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, thank you. Thank you for your leadership, your kind comments. And I know we know on this subcommittee who the real heroes are, and they are the men and 

women you are representing, and we appreciate that. 

I do not know what Mr. Wamp’s timetable is, so why don’t we 

begin with Zach? Why don’t you start the questions? 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, and thanks for your courtesy. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And if you need to go a little bit longer, because 

you might not have a second round, that is okay. 

Mr. WAMP. You are a trouper, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 

your courtesy. And I know we are in different parties, but you sure 

are a fair person. 

FRANCE

We talked a little bit, Admiral, in our office about France, because we went through this period in this country where even in 

this very building they tried to change the name of our potatoes. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. I remember that. 

Mr. WAMP. We have been through this cycle, but you and I 

talked about how that has improved as well. I want you to kind 

of expound on that today—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. Because that is an important long-term 

relationship, which I think, listening to you, is improving. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, thank you. 

You mentioned this building where freedom fries for a period of 

time replaced french fries. It was also in this building that President Nicolas Sarkozy came and spoke in front of this Congress and 

gave, I thought, a superb speech about the depth of the relationship between the United States and France, our oldest ally, the nation who came to our succor in the 1700s and really helped us find 

our way to independence, the nation from which the intellectual 

underpinnings of the Revolution came from Locke and Rousseau. 

Sarkozy’s speech drew that forward to the present and did two 

very fundamental things about security. And one was he pledged 

a return to NATO by France, a full return. NATO has had a relationship with France where they sat outside of the military structure, of the command structure of NATO for many, many years 

after Charles de Gaulle pulled them out. 

President Sarkozy committed in his speech to Congress and then 

followed up with bringing France fully back into this alliance, so 

now France is politically, militarily and operationally engaged 

across the board with us. 

Secondly, President Sarkozy pledged France’s support in our efforts, our collective alliance efforts, in Afghanistan. And the French 

contribution in Afghanistan has been significant. They have over 

2,000 troops there. They have taken significant casualties. They 

stand shoulder to shoulder with us. 

I believe that President Sarkozy has delivered on the promises 

that he made here in front of the Congress, and I believe that as 

we go forward, this relationship will continue to deepen with 

France as they become more fully engaged in the NATO side of the 

house. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
264 

GEORGIA

Mr. WAMP. Your easternmost territory we discussed is Georgia. 

And I was just there a year and a half ago with part of the Helsinki Commission, our delegation in Astana, Kazakhstan. At that 

time through that OSCE meeting, there was great concern in Georgia about too much fatherlike involvement in Georgia by Russia, 

much like the days of the USSR. 

I want you to speak to the security issues in Georgia. I know the 

underlying issue is oil still, but how much is Georgia threatened 

in terms of security from your standpoint because of their constant 

relationship with Russia? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think the Georgians and I have had highlevel conversations with my opposite numbers and other interlocutors in Tbilisi. The Georgians remain extremely concerned about 

pressure from Russia. They are very concerned from their perspective. The Russian presence in two parts of what they perceive as 

Georgian territory are a very real ongoing concern for them. 

What we are doing to ameliorate that concern is working with 

the Georgian military in very sensible, appropriate ways. And I 

will give you a couple of examples, if I may. 

First and foremost, the Georgians have recently committed to 

sending 800 troops to Afghanistan, which is a terrific contribution, 

and puts them near the very top of all nations in terms of troop 

contributions on a per capita basis, because their population, as 

you know, is quite small. 

So we have U.S. Marines from U.S. European Command are over 

training these 800 Georgians in counterinsurgency, counter IED, 

preparing them for what they will face in Afghanistan. That gives 

them a real sense of confidence and helps them as they look at 

their security challenges going forward. 

Secondly, we conduct through our state partnership program— 

and I am smiling slightly, because the state partner for Georgia is 

Georgia—and the Georgia National Guard is doing a terrific job in 

the Republic of Georgia, doing the kind of normal military to military training that we offer any of the republics in Europe. 

So I think we are working very hard to show our friendship and 

our balance. Vice President Biden went through Georgia recently. 

I have visited Tbilisi. We have an ongoing program to demonstrate 

friendship and security with our friends in Georgia, who do feel 

concerned by pressure from Russia. 

Mr. WAMP. What is your schedule to get into all of the countries 

under your command? 

AREA OF FOCUS

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I have been in command for 9 months. I have 

visited 37 countries. I have a total of 51 countries that are in the 

area that we focus on in European Command. And I anticipate 

having visited all of them by approximately 1 year into my tour, 

which is a very, a very aggressive schedule. 

But it is extremely worth doing, because as we all appreciate, 

personal contact trumps everything. You can write messages. You 

can send e-mails. You can cut videos. You can phone people. But 

personal contact trumps everything. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
265 

Mr. WAMP. Are the leaders of those countries aware that you are 

the first admiral ever in charge of European Command? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. They are, and to some of them it is quite perplexing. They are almost literally taken aback to see an admiral 

walk into the room. And I have had several kind of amusing conversations about it. 

Probably the most amusing conversation I had about it was—this 

may surprise you—it was President Karzai in Afghanistan, who 

just could not quite understand why an admiral would be in charge 

of NATO. Of course, Afghanistan’s a landlocked country, and so 

when I met with him, we had to go several rounds and kind of 

have that conversation, but I am happy to report they all seem satisfied when I am done chatting with them. 

Mr. WAMP. How did you speak? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, speaking is a relative term, but I have 

a good working knowledge of Spanish, of French, studying Portuguese. My Greek is passable, and English is reasonable. 

BALKANS

Mr. WAMP. One last question. With the Balkans, what kind of 

presence do we have in places like Macedonia and Albania that are 

really doing well and show great promise in terms of these emerging democracies? And how much capital do we have, the United 

States military there? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, this is really a good news story in my 

opinion. If we look at the Balkans in the 1990s, the mid-1990s, we 

can all recall those days. There is almost a classic book about it 

called ′′Balkan Ghosts′′ by Robert Kaplan. The Balkans were 

aflame in the mid-1990s. There were massacres, bitter hatreds. We 

heard things on the news like they had been killing each other for 

centuries, and they always will. It was difficult to see a path forward in the Balkans. 

Yet today, to your excellent point, we see vibrant democracies 

emerging. We have no active war fighting in progress. We certainly 

have political tension in Bosnia. We have tension between Serbia 

and the breakaway republic of Kosovo. 

But countries like Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania—these are all nations with strong, growing economies, very 

capable small security forces that we are working with. And I point 

in particular to Albania and Croatia, who just joined NATO. 

I think we have every possibility of seeing Macedonia come into 

NATO when it can resolve the main dispute that it currently faces 

with Greece, which is an administrative issue that must be corrected. 

And I think over time we will see what are called MAP programs, which are the start of membership action plans, for Bosnia, 

eventually for Kosovo. I do not think Serbia is beyond the pale, so 

overall I am very pleased with the progress. 

How much U.S. capital is involved—and here is the other part 

of the good news—in the mid-1990s we had between 20,000 and 

30,000 troops in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Today we have only 1,500 

troops in all of the Balkans. Our allies have stepped up, and we 

see over 10,000 allied troops that are helping maintain the peace 

here and there. But this is in a place where the allies have more 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
266 

than pulled the weight. We have been very much a part of the 

equation, and we are seeing real success. 

And I must say, sir, as I look at Afghanistan, you know, it gives 

me hope that these kinds of problems can be met and faced and 

overcome when coalitions come together to work on these challenges. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Admiral. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Zach. 

Sam, in English or Spanish, Sam Lejos. 

Mr. FARR. Samuelito, I hope. 

Thank you, Admiral, for coming. I want to echo the thoughts of 

Mr. Wamp, and add that it is a good thing you are not running for 

governor of Tennessee—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do not think I would have much chance on 

that one. 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Mr. FARR. I am really impressed with your ability to bring these 

interagency partners. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. I think the next growth is going to be in collaboration 

and consolidation. I think the old stovepipes, just giving me what 

you gave me last year, we cannot do that anymore. We do not have 

enough money to do that. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, right. I agree. 

Mr. FARR. We are going to have to have a better collaboration. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Mr. FARR. What I think is remarkable about your collaboration 

is not only collaborating with the services, which is not always 

easy, but the collaboration with the rest of the federal overseas 

agencies. And your statement points out all that, and particularly 

in selecting as your deputy an ambassador, Ambassador Kate 

Canavan—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. She is terrific. Yes, she is terrific. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And establishing this interagency directorate. 

My question is is this done in other commands, or is this just in 

the EUCOM? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, it is going on in other commands. In fact, 

at U.S. Southern Command there was in the 2006, 2007 timeframe 

a very substantive reorganization along interagency lines. U.S. Africa Command, which the Congress approved several years ago—— 

Mr. FARR. That was a great hearing. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, put General Ward—yes, yes, I bet you 

did. And—— 

Mr. FARR. We were excited. This committee was very—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I know that. And the support of this committee has been fundamental to Africa Command, and Africa Command is built from the ground up as an interagency command, and 

that is exactly the right approach to take in that continent. 

At U.S. European Command, as you mentioned, I am taking a 

number of steps, including a civilian ambassador deputy, elevating 

to a high level a directorate that focuses on interagency. And I am 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
267 

also—and I think this is important, too—it is the international, the 

interagency, and it is also private-public. It is starting to understand how the private-public mechanisms can work. 

How can we coordinate the good work of, say, the Gates Foundation in Africa handing out malarial nets with the work of USAID 

building schools with the work of DOD training police forces and 

doing security and building the clinic? I mean, all those things 

need to be harmonized in some way. So at U.S. European Command, we are putting a small number of people to focus on this private-public connection in addition to the interagency. 

I know Pacific Command is looking at some of these things, and 

I do not know for a fact, but my guess is the other combatant commands are moving in this direction as well, based on conversations 

I had with my peers. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I know the committee is supposed to be focusing 

on building, you know, capital outlay. But we are also very interested in mission. And one of the things that I picked up in your 

testimony that really struck me is—and you have said it many 

times—about international security. 

What we only hear about here is homeland security. You would 

think that we are the only country in the world when we try to go 

and fortress America—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. So that if there are problems offshore, you 

know, it does not happen to us. But if we are going to have a global 

war on terrorism, then it has got to be global partners. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. And in the long run, where it comes back to this committee as those partnerships are developed, it seems to me we will 

have to have less and less personnel established overseas. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Mr. FARR. We pointed out in Kosovo and in the Balkans we are 

down to a thousand military personnel. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, right. 

Mr. FARR. I think that is really exciting. It is something that we 

in the long term did not think about. As we were positioning ourselves around the world, how do we get that international sharing 

policy—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. FARR. We are not going to have to build everything. Maybe 

we share them with them. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, right. 

Mr. FARR. Maybe we integrate with them or something. 

COST SHARING AND EFFICIENCIES

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. Yes, sir. And I think, actually, NATO 

is a pretty good example of this. We have shared joint facilities 

that are built by using shared funds, and that is—that infrastructure side of it is—one path to finding efficiencies and sharing mechanisms. 

Another one is actually sharing equipment. And I will give you, 

I think, a good example, that we build these C–17 aircraft here in 

the United States, very capable cargo airplane. A consortium of 

NATO nations and a few non-NATO nations have come together 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
268 

and bought a group of these C-17s and created what we call the 

Heavy Airlift Wing. It is based in Papa, Hungary. It is flown by 

17 different nations, international crews. We used this Heavy Airlift Wing to fly supplies from Europe to Haiti after the earthquake. 

It is a perfect example of what you are talking about. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Did not we right after 9/11 ask the NATO 

airlift to come and—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We did, and they did. And there was NATO 

for the first time in its history activated what is called Article 5 

based on the attack against the United States and responded. 

So this kind of international sharing can be infrastructure, building kinds of things. It can be equipment, and it—certainly, we have 

seen many examples of where we operate together. But I think it 

is in the—as you imply, sir, it is the construction of real facilities 

and the sharing of equipment that I think has true potential for 

exploration as a shared enterprise. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I am time limited, but I really hope we can talk 

more about this. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. I think this is actually the nuts and bolts of global war 

on terrorism. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I do, too. 

Mr. FARR. It is this shared responsibility. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I could not agree more. 

Mr. FARR. Observing capacity—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. If we can get into a country with a civilian group 

ahead of time, with this new stabilization reconstruction civilian 

corps, as you and I talked about. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I agree. And if I could, we talked earlier 

about Colombia. I mean, I think the efforts of the United States in 

Colombia serve as a very good example of this, of sharing responsibility in that region in ways that have helped Colombia emerge in 

a very positive direction. And I think we can apply those lessons 

in other parts of the world. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sam. 

Ander. 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up on some of the interagency discussion, I just 

came back from Afghanistan this weekend, and it seems to me, I 

mean, our new strategy there to clear and then hold and build is 

just right up the alley of this interagency. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is, yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. After spending a good bit of the morning with 

General McChrystal hearing the military part, and then we spent 

the afternoon with a lot of the agencies, USAID, State Department. 

And, you know, I got the impression that integration, you know, 

had not really happened, probably like it happened in the Southern 

Command when you had the time to kind of put it together. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
269 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But it seems to me it is awfully, awfully important, particularly in a situation like that where that is a new strategy. And I would love to hear just—I know in, I guess, Haiti was 

a great example, because it was not just—you did not just until 

there was a problem, but all the planning that went into that interagency aspect, that you hear nothing but good reports about how 

particularly the Navy was able to kind of move in with everybody 

else. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

Mr. CRENSHAW. What are some of the lessons you learned? You 

know, the Southern Command, as you take it kind of into the European Command, do you—for instance, are there enough people in 

Europe to—you know, these other agencies, are there enough folks 

to kind of begin that integration? 

What are your plans there based on what you learned about, because you really were a leader in the Southern Command, as you 

point out, whether it is Haiti or whether it is Colombia. How do 

you see it playing out in Europe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, let me stay on the example of Afghanistan, because I think I can answer the questions asked in that regard. In NATO what I am seeking to push is what we are calling 

a comprehensive approach. And a comprehensive approach means 

bringing together all the elements of capability, not only just the 

military, because in the end in Afghanistan we are not going to deliver security from the barrel of a gun. We just are not going to do 

that. 

We have got to have the military piece, but the economic, the political, the anti-corruption, the cultural, all those pieces have to 

come together. So the question becomes how do you do that? How 

do you integrate all those things? 

The first thing you do, it is just like if you want to build a wall, 

the first thing you do is you collect up the bricks, right? So in Europe there are tremendous capabilities. Think of them as bricks. 

There is the Guarda Civil in Spain, their quasi-military, quasipolice force that is very capable of counter narcotics work. There 

is the Gendarmerie in France, who are similar, the Italian 

Carabinieris. Each of those nations have very real, slightly different capabilities in the governance and the counter narcotics 

piece, so you kind of grab those bricks. 

Then you would say to yourself, okay, what countries are particularly good at agriculture? Who can provide the kind of farming 

technology? Well, number one is the United States of America, 

NATO partner. So we have gone out to our state partnership players, our Guard, like the Florida Guard, and we find the farmers 

who have the type of capability who are in the Guard who can 

come. So that is another stack of those kind of agriculture bricks, 

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

So now the question becomes how do you create that wall? How 

do you build that comprehensive approach? And I think the answer 

is in Afghanistan what we are working through is creating—we already have a very strong military structure, obviously, so we are 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
270 

seeking to create a strong parallel civilian structure that can go 

alongside it. 

So when you were in Afghanistan, did you meet Ambassador 

Mark Sedwill? He is brand new in his job. He was the British ambassador to Afghanistan, just a deeply experienced British diplomat, speaks Farsi, speaks Dari, speaks Pashtun, speaks Arabic, 

and was serving as the British ambassador in Afghanistan. The 

NATO secretary-general asked him to become Stan McChrystal’s 

opposite number at the civilian level. 

So now we have got McChrystal and Ambassador Sedwill, and 

we are populating down underneath Ambassador Sedwill to get 

that civil-military balance right, because I think that is one of the 

four crucial things we have to do in Afghanistan. 

So in terms of how did I and others evolve those ideas, it came 

very much from my experiences in Latin America and the Caribbean in trying to ruralize that. You can have all the military power 

in the world, but at the end of the day you will not solve the problem in a reconstruction stabilization kind of world. 

AFGHANISTAN

Just to close out on Afghanistan, if we look at that civil-military 

balance as one of four really important things, the other three, I 

think, are worth mentioning. One is putting the people of Afghanistan at the center of gravity, protecting them, convincing them that 

we in the coalition are here to protect them. As Stan McChrystal 

says, we cannot kill our way out of this insurgency. We have got 

to protect our way out of it by protecting the Afghan people so they 

join with us. 

The third thing that is incredibly important is strategic communication. This is explaining what we are doing to the people of Afghanistan as well as to the people in our own nations. 

And the fourth thing, and this gets into MILCON in Europe, is 

training the Afghan security forces. You know, we all know the expression all politics are local, but in the end all security is local. 

And so we have to train the Afghans. And to do that, we can use 

U.S. European Command as a kind of a training platform, and we 

use our ranges in Germany to train these OMLeTs and POMLeTs, 

which are operational mentoring and leadership teams that go into 

Afghanistan, partner with the Afghans, train them, and bring them 

capably into operations. 

So that is a long answer, but I think it illustrates the complexity 

and also your point, sir, bringing all of these things together is the 

way forward in Afghanistan and really in all of these 21st century 

security climates. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And it is probably it is complicated by the fact 

that there is a military operation going on—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Oh, my gosh, yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. As opposed to kind of working with 

a country, you know, apart from that, because I think as you pointed out, and I think General McChrystal was very clear that, you 

know, it is the military part is never easy, but they just come back 

from Marja and the first thing that happened is that some of the 

Afghan the police came in and started looting all the stalls in 

Marja. And the first thing you got to do is say—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
271 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That is not how we do it. Exactly. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing].—That is not going to be, and I am 

going to change that. And I think that is kind of the face of Afghanistan is those local police, and right now they are very corrupt, 

and that is all changing because we are training those folks. 

And then you got the piece that you are talking about. It is kind 

of a longer horizon. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Exactly. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And when you are in the middle of a military operation, it is hard to get on the same wavelength, so this is we are 

in Marja today. We are going to Kandahar. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We are. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And the other folks that are building, they got 

a little longer view. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Exactly. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And so they did not have the luxury of kind of 

getting the kind of plan that—but I think what you did in the 

Southern Command, I think, is very clear, that that is the future. 

And I know that that is what they are working on as well. 

Can I just ask one other question? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just about Europe. You know, the missile defense that we talked a lot about here, because we were going to 

provide the funds, and that went on for 2 or 3 years, land-based, 

Czech Republic and Poland. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Poland. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And then the president kind of changed that due 

to, you know, kind of be sea-based with the Navy. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And I just wondered a couple of things. I mean, 

the bad side—let me ask you did you get a negative fallout, you 

know, from, you know, as your position as supreme allied commander, but on the other hand, were there some benefits that you 

think will come out of that? So, you know, maybe you would talk 

about both sides of that. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. I would love to. 

To be honest—and, of course, I will be always completely honest 

and in any circumstance—I have not seen any negative fallout from 

the change of the decision at my level, certainly at the military to 

military chief of defense level. 

I have read stories in the newspaper that said some of the political leadership in Poland or the Czech Republic had some concern, 

but I have found that since the phased adaptive approach, the new 

approach that the president put forward, has been briefed, it has 

been enthusiastically welcomed by all of the partners, both those 

who were engaged and some new partners. 

Example: Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, who is 

charged with negotiating these agreements, went to Romania about 

a month and a half ago, had a detailed briefing to explain the system there, and the prime minister immediately convened its national Security Council and then immediately convened the Congress and voted and passed it and accepted it within 2 hours of the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
272 

briefing. So I think there is a high degree of enthusiasm for the 

new system. 

On the sea-based side of it, I have been lucky enough to command several ships that carry that system, the Aegis system, and 

many of which were based, of course, in Mayport, Florida, and it 

is an extremely capable system technologically. And I am very confident that it will be adaptive. We will be able to advance the technology, eventually move ashore even, and use it for a holistic missile defense in Europe. 

So I must say I am a supporter of the phased adaptive approach, 

and I think the Europeans are as well. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Do you think you will forward deploy some of the 

ships, or are they a normal deployment? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think at this point I would say normal deployment will be sufficient would be my guess. I would not preclude 

at some point looking to create efficiencies by forward basing some 

of the ships, but I have seen no detailed planning in that direction 

at this point. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral, before I ask a couple of direct MILCON 

questions, please just put in perspective the troubles of some of our 

major NATO allies. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

NATO ALLIES

Mr. EDWARDS. It seems like in times past I have been somewhat 

surprised when I think about the size of the U.S. military relative 

to that. Some of our European allies’ military forces are so much 

smaller. Could you take the top five in terms of size NATO allies? 

What size active duty military do they have? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, in very round numbers—and we will 

provide for the record for you the exact numbers—— 

[The information follows:] 

1. Turkey ........................................................................... 500,000 

2. Germany ....................................................................... 253,000 

3. France ........................................................................... 240,000 

4. Italy ............................................................................... 190,000 

5. UK ................................................................................. 176,330 

Total .................................................................................. 1,359,330 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS [continuing].—But in very round numbers, if 

the U.S. military runs sort of a million overall, I would say that 

if you took the top five NATO partners, it would be just over one 

million. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The top five? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, top five. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great Britain, for example, just approximately, 

because really—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
273 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Great Britain, yes, approximately 176,000 or 

so. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about France and—and Germany? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. France has 240,000 Germany has 253,000. 

MILCON COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MOVE OF BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

(BCTS)

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you for that. 

I want to ask about the QDR and the impact of the decision on 

military construction that we will have a corps headquarters and 

two brigades that that previously had—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Planned to come, right. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing].—Our move back to CONUS. Do we 

have some idea of what the cost of that is going to be in the near 

future? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, first of all, in the near future there will 

not be any cost. As I look out probably in 2015 and on, maybe 2016 

and on, I could envision a world where in order to support the four 

as opposed to the two that we thought we would be supporting at 

that point, we might be in the world of less than $100 million per 

year in additional military construction. 

Would you say that is fair, Andy? 

REAR ADMIRAL BROWN. Yes, sir, for family housing, things like 

that. It might not include things like commissaries other agencies 

might put in. 

Mr. EDWARDS. $100 million a year for how many years? 

REAR ADMIRAL BROWN. For five or so—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. So maybe half a billion dollars. 

REAR ADMIRAL BROWN. For over the 2015, 2016 and 2020—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Infrastructure. 

REAR ADMIRAL BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is the fact that you would not start till 2015, is 

that driven by just budget constraints? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir, not at all. It is the conditions of the 

facility and the fact that as we were planning on withdrawing the 

two BCTs, and if we do not withdraw those two BCTs, they are obviously in housing and their families are in housing, and so the additional bill would be the fact that we had not expected them to 

be here in the out years. But in the near term I would not anticipate a great deal of cost. 

Let me caveat that by saying we did not know until the QDR 

came out a couple of months ago that that decision might be turned 

around. And I would emphasize, as you did, Mr. Chairman, it says 

pending the completion of the NATO strategic concept and the Department of Defense global defense posture review focused on Europe. Pending the completion of those two, the two extra brigades 

will stay in Europe. 

The way I read that is we have a NATO strategic concept, and 

we have a Department of Defense review that will take place, and 

when those are completed, then presumably we will have a final 

recommendation from the secretary of defense at that point. So we 

are now—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. It could be fewer. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
274 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do not think it will be less than two, but 

conceivably I suppose it could be, sir, but as I just kind of look in 

my crystal ball, I would say it will be four, three or two. 

And again, our planning, because we plan on sort of a worst-case 

from a facilities perspective, worst-case being they stay in place, we 

have to support the most number of people, I do not see near-term 

bills, but I see bills in the range of what I mentioned. We are working to refine those, and we will get back to you with the best guesses we have, I would say within 30, 60 days. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. Thank you. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. One standard question I like to ask every witness 

before our subcommittee on military construction issues is how 

many inadequate barracks and how many inadequate family 

houses do you have under your command based on DOD standards? 

And frankly, I am glad to see DOD finally—and I really salute 

OSD for this—finally coming up with a standardized process for determining each. You know, the Army had one definition of inadequate, the Navy another, and some of those definitions were, I 

think, really suspect. I think previously the Navy had said if you 

spent $50,000 improving a family home, then it is an adequate 

home, regardless of whether you ever spent a dime. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But so I like the fact that we have a new standard 

across the board. Have you had time to review Q1,2,3 and 4 in 

terms of house comparison? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I will defer to Andy, if he has a number 

on that. What is sort of in my head intuitively, based on traveling 

around my region and looking at things, is 20 percent. 

Mr. EDWARDS. About 20 percent. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. And I hasten to say that is an intuitive answer, and I will be glad to—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We try not to put anybody in an inadequate house, so really it is maybe more of a question of the house 

needs to be upgraded to bring it up to the higher standards that 

other houses are at, because you come across housing where there 

are haves and have not families. Although it is adequate, it is still 

not to the standard of other houses, so those are the ones that we 

are trying to get our arms around right now. It is okay to—it is 

by their quality standards you could put a family there, but they 

are still not at the standards of today. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You also see an—— 

Oh, go ahead, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have—I think one definition has been Q3 

and Q4. Can you give me just a ballpark number? If you need to 

sharpen the pencil and get back to the committee in writing, that 

is okay, but just in broad numbers, let us just talk about family 

housing. How many family houses do you have under your command? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
275 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Over the fit-up plans that we have right 

now, we will take care of the Q3 and 4. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, but how many today? I just—each year I 

want to say as of this date, how many, so that 12 months from now 

when I say of this date—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. How many inadequate homes we have. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Figure out if we—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. I do not have a number. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And that is okay. If you do not have it, if you 

could provide it. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. I could get that. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

Our components have made vast improvements to their family housing facilities 

over the past several years. In fact, U.S. Naval Forces Europe currently has no inadequate housing in its inventory. While we have made progress, the command-wide 

inventory still includes a number of inadequate units. U.S. Air Forces in Europe has 

approximately 2,300 inadequate units in its inventory; however, more than a thousand of these are slated for disposal over the next two years. U.S. Army Europe also 

has a significant number of inadequate units in its inventory. While we are unable 

to provide exact numbers at this time, U.S. Army Europe is conducting a theaterwide review of its housing facilities. Accordingly, we will be in a better position to 

provide a complete count of inadequate housing units in Europe no later than 15 

May 2010. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But would you think the 20 percent? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, more or less. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Does that apply to both family houses and to barracks? 

Rear Admiral BROWN. The barracks are coming along probably 

a little bit faster. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, 10 percent on those. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We are trying to get to the one-plus-one 

standard, and over the fit-up that will take care of the one-plusone for the most part, but then we—so that gets to our capacity 

question for one-plus-one. But then we need to go back to the quality side of the equation, which is what I need to capture next. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. The quality of those—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you could, because I think it has been an interest of the subcommittee for a long time to take a look at our overseas quality of life issue, because you are not in a member’s congressional district. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, we really appreciate that. 

Rear Admiral BROWN [continuing]. The one-plus-one I would say 

we are about 80 percent there now. But some of it depends on how 

many people. Usually before they deploy, they will have 115 percent soldiers on station so that that would not be accommodated, 

so sometimes you will have two people in a room. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. But normally, they are about 80 percent 

that can accommodate one-plus-one. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Well, if you could get us those numbers, 

and then we will just see, you know, next year—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Track it. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. I would ask the same question— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
276 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. And see what kind of track we are 

on. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Absolutely. 

DOD SCHOOLS

Mr. EDWARDS. One other question in this round, and then we 

will go back to Mr. Crenshaw. One of the things that I am very 

proud of on this subcommittee on is 2 years ago we put in our report a requirement for DOD to look at the DOD schools in Europe. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And apparently it came back where the picture 

was not a pretty one. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I salute the Secretary of Defense and all 

those involved in saying this is a serious problem. Our families and 

children deserve better than this. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We need to deal with this. Can you take a few moments—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I can. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. And just tell me how bad is the situation right now in terms of percentage of schools that do not meet 

whatever standards we set. And then I know you are committing 

a lot of resources to it. What kind of timeline are we looking at resolving that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, thank you. First of all, I want to preface 

it, as I mentioned to you, whenever our soldiers, sailors, airmen or 

Marines get a set of orders to go to in your area, in my experience 

the first thing they ask is how are the schools. It is just I think 

we all appreciate that as parents. Every time we move, the first 

thing we want to know is what kind of a school is little Julia 

Stavridis going to go into? 

You are absolutely correct. The schools in Europe were not at the 

standard that we should have maintained them in the Department 

of Defense. And I think the numbers are that we had in the Q3 

and 4, which is the bottom quadrants, if you will, almost 70 percent of the schools. Yes, sir. 

I think globally for DOD DE education, I think only 40 percent 

or so, so Europe was not only bad, but compared to the rest of the 

world, it had been simply allowed to atrophy for a variety of reasons. I was not here, and I cast no aspersions on folks before me. 

I know everyone has tried hard to do this. 

The good news is I have in front of me here the proposed DOD 

school plan. You were very generous with us in fiscal year 2010. 

We are asking for three schools in 2011, three schools in 2012, and 

we have a plan that gets us well moving forward, I think, in a wellpaced manner. And it selects the schools that need the help the 

soonest and puts them in the front of the queue. 

A lot of work has gone into this, and I would certainly solicit the 

support of the committee on this, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Now, what kind of a timeframe do we have to 

solve this problem? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think we would sort of solve as in move all 

of the schools up into a higher quadrant by fiscal year 2013 under 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
277 

this program, so over the next 3 or 4 years. And the dollar amounts 

are indicated here, and I can give you this for the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have some ballpark on the total dollar 

amounts over that time period? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Two hundred, 150, 220, 300, 525 out through 

fiscal year 2014. Now, that includes fiscal year 2010, which you are 

not looking at anymore, but it—looking forward strictly—would be 

250, 5, 50 billion, about a billion four. 

Mr. EDWARDS. About a billion three. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. That is quite a commitment, but I am glad. 

I mean, I just cannot imagine how I would feel if I have served my 

country as people have under your command and then my kids are 

going in a school that is dilapidated and—what is it? Are they old? 

Are they undersized? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. All the above. And I mean old. There is a lot 

of great difficulty. I just walked through one of the schools in Belgium, and it just—I do not think anybody would be happy with 

their child in that school. I do not want to name it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask about that. I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone either. We have been at war since—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. In this last decade. And you have to 

put those priorities to the war fighters—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. And that has to become the first priority above all others, but how did that kind of a serious problem 

get that bad? Something had to have broken in the chain of command. Somebody should have that responsibility over that. 

And, you know, we will take some responsibility for that as well, 

but somebody should have raised a red flag and said this is a problem. We have to deal with it. Was it just a wartime footing? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That would be my guess. I know that all of 

my predecessors have focused very hard on quality of life, and in 

the course of perhaps not putting dollars into schools, I suspect, I 

do not know, but dollars were probably put into clinics or dollars 

were put into housing, and there are only so many dollars. And 

now we are at this point where the schools really need the help, 

and now that is really a top priority for us. 

But I think in the good news category, as I look around U.S. European Command with a fresh set of eyes coming into it, I see as 

we just talked about, very good housing. I see very good clinics and 

medical facilities. I see some need for help in the schools. 

So my guess is, looking back in an era of constrained resources 

with two wars going on, tough decisions were made. And the good 

news is the houses are pretty good, the medical clinics are pretty 

good, and the schools could use some help. And so that is where 

we will ask for some help. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is this done on an installation by installation 

basis—let us not look backwards, let us look forward—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure, sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Will there be someone under your command that 

will have command responsibility—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You bet. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
278 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Seeing this problem is—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You bet. You bet. In fact, I have a special assistant, a civilian who is extremely good, Paul Jerome, who is on 

my immediate staff. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Paul Jerome will have responsibility. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is looking very hard at balancing this 

whole sheet along with Andy and his team. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Really, we are trying to tie our whole posture plan to—and for the theater from a COCOM perspective, tie 

that together with every project. So we have got some planning to 

do in that regard. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. Well, let us— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. And we want to work with you. Exactly. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. If we find opportunities to expedite 

some funding, you know, we should. That is another 3 or 4 or 5 

years of kids in inadequate schools while their moms and dads are 

on their fourth, fifth, sixth tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Ander. 

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of questions. One, Admiral Roughead was here yesterday, and we talked about the Littoral Combat Ships— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. Which seem to be really the kind of 

the future of the Navy and going to revolutionize a lot of the missions. There was one in Jacksonville at Mayport for a couple of 

weeks. I did not get a chance to go see it, but it is quite a buzz. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Yes, they are neat ships. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. They are going down into Southern Command 

and, like, the first week—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, got a big drug bust, yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I wondered, you know, did you see some missions in your area that where they will fit in and probably are 

there some benefits in some of the exercises you will be doing there 

in Europe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Absolutely. LCS would be extremely beneficial in the Mediterranean, where we face many of the same challenges we see in the Caribbean. We see drug trafficking, human 

trafficking, potential terrorist movements, potential movement of 

weapons of mass destruction, illegal arms shipments. 

That entire ability to surveille the maritime domain and then to 

respond at very high speed and in very shallow water is what LCS 

is all about. And as you know, sir, it also carries a helicopter, and 

it is a very efficient ship. It has a crew of only 40 operating at sea, 

so it is a cost saving as well. 

Up north in the Baltics and the fjords, the use of these ships as 

reassurance vessels participating in everything from navigation to 

search and rescue to military exercises with the Baltic states in 

those shallow waters and up in the Norwegian fjords and even up 

to the north as we get into the high North and the Arctic, the LCS 

has great capability across the board. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And if you had not heard, Admiral Roughead announced that the primary homeport was going to be Mayport. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
279 

About 2020 there will be close to 20, and that kind of demonstrates 

that, I mean, Mayport is pretty functional and strategic in terms 

of Europe, in terms of, you know, Africa, in terms of South America, so—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I think geographically, if you look at 

Florida, which launches like a knife into the Caribbean and the Atlantic, it is the closest point between Africa, Europe and the Caribbean, certainly. 

NORWAY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one quick question. I was reading that 

this—I do not know much about it, but we got, I guess, in Norway 

there is a kind of the prepositioning ships. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. They have some Norway caves, I guess they call 

them. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It must be pretty interesting, where we keep a 

lot of materiel. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And a lot of that was used in Iraq. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It is kind of under the command of the command 

that Blount Island, the Marines’ prepositioning ship. And that is 

part of, I guess, your command. Are they going to replenish those 

caves, going to keep on? Even though it is old, kind of Cold War 

stuff, but it probably makes sense to have—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, interestingly, it is actually not under my 

command. It is physically in my area of responsibility, but not 

under my command per se. My understanding is that it will indeed 

be replenished as part of a NATO-U.S. effort to build it back up. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sam. 

LANDSTUHL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Mr. FARR. Yes, does our request this year include the $8.2 billion 

to replace the current Landstuhl Regional Medical Center? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. A couple of questions on that. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. First, has the final site been selected? And what factors did you use to determine the best site? And can that site be 

used to consolidate with other activities? How far along are you in 

the planning process? You indicated it would be a world-class hospital. What standards are we using for that? Is Walter Reed the 

benchmark? Or do we have others? And how will the quadrennial 

review decisions about force posture in Europe affect the size and 

the capabilities of that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Let me sort of give a general answer and try 

to hit all those. And if I miss one, Andy will remind me. 

Where we stand right now after a lot of discussion back and forth 

is that we are proposing to use a so-called clean site, a green site, 

a new site—in other words not the current existing location of eiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
280 

ther Landstuhl or the fairly large medical clinic which is at 

Ramstein, which is contiguous essentially to Landstuhl. 

So both those buildings need to be recapitalized. We believe the 

most efficient solution is to go to a fresh site and build a new building—hence, the $1.2 billion. But it is a consolidation. It would in 

every sense be a world-class hospital, and it is a crucial hospital. 

What I mean by that is a Walter Reed, Bethesda, Balboa, Portsmouth level military hospital. As you well know, sir, it is the point 

at which our wounded warriors come back, are fully stabilized. I 

have visited many there, and the quality of care they receive is exceptional. 

In fact, I would like to provide the committee a CNN report on 

Landstuhl medical facility that I think really brings some of this 

into focus, with some personal stories that are involved with it. 

Where we are in the planning right now is we have in front of 

you a request for the funding that will do the design phase of this, 

and we anticipate next year’s request to you would begin the process of providing the funding to ultimately capitalize a $1.2 billion 

project. 

We had a lot of discussion and debate about this, whether we 

should try and effectively remodel Landstuhl, whether we should 

keep Ramstein open as a separate clinic or not, use that while we 

remodeled Landstuhl. There were a lot of options on the table. But 

I am—— 

Mr. FARR. What is the distance between the two? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. They are all within 5 miles of each other. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. As to the flightline, the new facility would 

be within a mile. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. A mile. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Right now it is up to the Landstuhl site. 

It is about 13 miles, so it is a much—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The new site, yes, the new site is close to the 

airfield. Yes, that is right. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. So that is a strategic air hub, as you 

know, and so this will be a strategic hospital right there right next 

to flightline, so it will improve transit time for wounded warriors. 

And you know about 30 percent of the wounded warriors are actually treated there and then go back to the fight. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. So that is—— 

Mr. FARR. They are not all coming here—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, not at all, not at all. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Many are returned. About 30 percent are 

returned to theater, so it is a very efficient way to handle that 

rather than have them go all the way back. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think we had some staffers from this committee through recently to look at this, did we not, Andy? 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Sir, yes, sir, we had—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You should come. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We have had great cooperation with the 

many, many folks, and that helped us come to the consolidation decision. This week, supposedly, we have gotten the release of the 

planning and design, permission to go do the design. And that will 

help size the hospital. So there is still the, you know, what size 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
281 

does it need to be in terms of what capabilities, for what doctors 

need to be present, et cetera, how many beds. So that design will 

take place in the next—I think we need to have it done by July to 

get it into the budget, so that is our goal. We have got a lot of detailed work to complete between now and then. 

ARCTIC

Mr. FARR. Another hat I wear is on ocean issues. And I have 

been very interested in the sea lanes in the Arctic that—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Are being opened up and what the impact 

to that with the competition for those sea lanes and the fact that 

we—did we fully close the Naval Air Station at Keflavik? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, that is closed. 

Mr. FARR. That was strategically positioned. Have we or are we 

going to try to reposition ourselves for what is going to be a very 

important region, the Arctic? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We are, as follows. And it really goes to the 

points you made before about sharing facilities. There is an Arctic 

Council, which is composed of the nations that share waterfront, if 

you will, on the Arctic—the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark, all NATO members, plus, of course, Russia. 

This is an area where NATO cooperation and the sharing of facilities and research centers, research vessels, icebreakers, I think, 

have great promise. And I would not exclude including Russia in 

that proposition, I think, as the high North opens up as a result 

of global warming. 

And we need to—you need to make sure that we do not end up 

with a zone of conflict up there. We need to make sure we end up 

with a zone of cooperation, and so I think this idea that you surfaced earlier of finding ways to share everything from information 

to ships to facilities is very promising, and I would—— 

Mr. FARR. Is it under your command? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is, but I share responsibility for the Arctic 

with U.S. Northern Command because of the U.S. piece of it and 

with U.S. Pacific Command kind of coming around the corner. So 

there are three combatant commands that have contiguous responsibilities in the North, and we are in dialogue about this. My command is hosting a conference on this this summer. 

Mr. FARR. It would be ideal to get all those parties of interest 

all having shares. Then they will not have— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is exactly what we are trying to do. It just 

makes enormous sense, and I think if you look back on the Law 

of the Sea Treaty, which was an extremely long and controversial 

process—— 

Mr. FARR. [Off mike.] 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Exactly, although we should be, in my opinion. And I think I am hopeful that we will be. 

But we need to think about how we can work together in the 

Arctic so we do not end up in a kind of a pointless zone of conflict 

up there. 

Mr. FARR. Good. With your leadership, I have a lot of confidence 

that will happen. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
282 

Mr. FARR. I have no other questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I just have a couple. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

PRIVATE HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. On housing, here in CONUS, obviously, we are 

building probably over 90 percent of our new houses under publicprivate partnerships model. Did we try that in Europe, or does the 

model just not work as well? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think we have tried it in Europe, and Andy 

can give you some details. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We have. We call it Build to Lease, because we do not own the land. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. And since we cannot own the land, the 

public-private model does not work as clean. So what we tried to 

do is get into partnerships with the local communities or—— 

Mr. FARR. May I interrupt you? 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. You mean we, the military owns the land here, and 

so the private investment does not get the land. They get the lease 

on it. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. Why would not that same concept work? 

Rear Admiral BROWN. There is a thought that we might be able 

to sublease. So we are a guest in the country. We might be able 

to take our lease, basically, from the host country and transfer that 

to a private company. We are exploring that right now. But we 

have not been able to execute on that yet, if I understand your 

question. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, I guess the issue is that because we own the land, 

the cost of the development, you do not have to buy the land, which 

is the expected component—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Right, right, right. 

Mr. FARR. Which the private sector leases it—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. For 50, 60 years. Then they have to go 

back and rehab the houses there. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. But their lease—I am not sure what the 

cost breakdown is in terms of what the agreement is with regard 

to the land on our military bases. What we have agreed most of 

the time was we turn over the facilities that are already built, and 

then they operate using our housing allowance to—— 

Mr. FARR. In essence, the way it works here is the builders and 

owners of the housing are private companies. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And that would be the same there. You would—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Right. One of the other issues—— 

Mr. FARR. Does not matter who owns the land. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. One of the other issues, sir, is we do not 

have permission beyond 10 years to guarantee the lease—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Occupancy. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
283 

Rear Admiral BROWN [continuing]. The occupancy. So if we had 

longer—50 years. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. If we had a 50-year deal. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Even if we had 20 years, it would help. So 

in the past where we have been successful in the Build to Lease 

partnerships with the host nation governments, it has been that 

they were willing to accept some of the risk for the out years—the 

government was. 

Mr. FARR. Was that our rule, the limit of 10 years—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. I think I am not sure what the—it is not 

our policy. I believe it is a higher—based in law, I suspect. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We will take that one for the record and get 

back to you with some better detail than this. 

[The information follows:] 

10 U.S.C. Section 2828(d)(1) provides the authority to lease housing units in foreign countries for assignment as family housing for a period not in excess of ten 

years. The intent is for this authority to be used as a gap-filling measure to enable 

both public and private local markets to respond to demand. Extending this period 

in conjunction with appropriate executive branch policy revisions may enable increased OCONUS use of public-private housing partnerships to meet long term family housing needs, while accelerating delivery of high quality housing and reducing 

theater military construction requirements. 

Mr. FARR. We are big fans of—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I am, too. And I think Andy is as well. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We will provide what authority would 

help, be beneficial to us. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. And also what we are doing now, because we 

are doing some of this within the 10-year window. I think the—— 

Rear Admiral BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS [continuing]. Ten-year piece is what has been 

holding us back. And we will find out what the basis for that is 

and get back to you in writing. 

That is good, Andy. 

CHILD CARE CENTERS

Mr. EDWARDS. Several years ago the top noncommissioned officers who testify before this subcommittee every year said, aside 

from time away from family and pay, we asked them what was 

their number one priority—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Good. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. In terms of quality of life for the soldier, sailors, airmen and Marines. And they said child care centers. 

So we put a tremendous amount of funding out of the subcommittee into that in CONUS. 

Tell me the situation on childcare needs in Europe. Is it more 

readily accessible at a cheaper price here in the United States? Or 

is it more expensive? Tell me, is it a serious challenge or something 

we need to take a look at? Or do you think we are in good shape 

on that front? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think we are in pretty good shape. As I 

have gone around and spoken in town halls and engaged with my 

senior enlisted as well as my junior officers, who are sort of the demographic that have most of the small children, it has not surfaced 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
284 

to me as an issue with any frequency at all. In fact, I cannot recall 

ever having a question about it. 

And I have toured half a dozen childcare centers in Europe that 

have been constructed by this committee, and they are in terrific 

shape. Now, I may be missing something. 

Rear Admiral BROWN. We are encouraged in the requirements to 

come forward, and in the out years we have a few childcare centers, and if we keep the four BCTs, there are some plans that we 

might need a couple more. But we encourage them to put the requirement in, and I believe it is in there. 

HEALTH CARE

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. How about health care? If you are farther 

away from Landstuhl, what is the nature of health care? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think overall it is pretty good. You will see 

some requests in front of you for, I think, three clinics that we are 

working on, but overall health care is good. 

To be completely candid, as I have traveled around and done 

these town halls, what I have heard about most is schools. And I 

have heard a little bit about housing, as we have talked about. And 

I have heard virtually no complaints on the medical side and virtually no complaints on the childcare site. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Now, on the medical side is virtually all the 

health care provided by DOD or—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is a mix. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Do you work in partnership with 

local community hospitals? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We work in partnership with the local. In 

fact, my wife just had an appendectomy and had it done by the Belgian physician, and it was terrific. I mean, these are 21st century 

European nations, and the health care is exceptional. 

What we do to make sure that everything goes smoothly is we 

have a service that provides translation and escort so that, particularly for some of our younger spouses, who might be intimidated 

by the language barrier or the difficulties, we provide ombudsmanlike capability that will walk them through the system. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

Mr. FARR. [Off mike.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. And the Belgian doctors accept TRICARE payment? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. They must have, since that is—— 

Mr. FARR. It is handled through TRICARE. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, yes. Yes, I will tell you it was terrific. 

Her care from start to finish was exceptional, and it was not a 

function of my position. It was the standard care that any Belgian 

would have gotten. 

Mr. FARR. Normally after the families who would have those 

kinds of operations that are quite serious, they would come stateside or do they—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. They are done. It is a mix done by 

our own physicians or done by local care. All our babies are—— 

Mr. FARR. That is mothers and children—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
285 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. And again, in my experience in 7 

months, it has been very good. Every time I talk to one of our soldiers or sailors, airmen, whoever, who says to me, ‘‘Oh, my wife is 

doing this’’ or ‘‘My husband is doing this’’ in the local medical care, 

I always questioned them very closely about it. And I have had 

nothing but good reports. 

You know, this is Belgium, Germany, Italy. These are extremely 

advanced countries with exceptional health care. This is not like 

other parts of the world where you could see this would be a more 

serious problem. 

Mr. FARR. Great. 

ROMANIA AND BULGARIA

Mr. EDWARDS. I just have one other question on MILCON, and that would be Romania and Bulgaria, and it is about $110 million. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, our bases out there. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Construction there—where are we? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is pretty good. They are in good shape. 

They are very usable. We are advertising them to NATO as potential training sites. I am in a very active dialogue with those two 

nations about how we could rotate our troops in and out of there 

to do training not just for the Romanians and the Bulgarians, but 

also to bring in multinational forces to train there. 

I am also very interested in using those two sites for Black Sea 

operations, looking at counter narcotics, human trafficking and 

other deleterious flows across the Black Sea, which is a complex region unto itself. So I think that investment has paid out very well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. I agree with you. 

LANDSTUHL

Mr. CRENSHAW. And, Mr. Chairman, just for the benefit of the 

subcommittee, I was in Landstuhl on Monday. We stopped on the 

way back from Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Great. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And I have been there from time to time visiting 

with the wounded warriors, but this is the first time they actually 

kind of showed us—you know, you look at the hospital, and from 

the outside it looks pretty nice. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But if you go down—like a lot of buildings, if you 

go down and see where the action is and where the, you know, boilers are and all that stuff, then it clearly—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is time. It is time. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. Needs to be—time to get upgraded. 

And, obviously, it is a wonderful facility, but I think that is something that they do a great job, but they are, you know, in today’s 

technology, it does not take long, you know, for a building or for 

all the equipment to be outdated. So that is something that we 

have got to—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. How old is the hospital? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Gosh, I do not know. 

Mr. FARR. It was in the 1950s, built in the 1950s. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Wow. 

Mr. EDWARDS. 1950s? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
286 

Mr. FARR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We put a lot of money into CONUS based hospitals. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I think DOD was kind of hoping we would put 

money in there. We thought, well, we have got some around this 

CONUS and—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Over the 18 months—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, we really appreciate it. It is a unique facility, uniquely placed. And frankly, the opportunity to be in the 

mix with these advanced European nations is also a place where 

medical training and views can be explained and extended. And cooperation in that sphere occurs there as well. It is very well located. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So schools, barracks, housing. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Those are things that we want to—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. And I think that is what you will— 

and I think that is what you will see here. I think that is what you 

will see. 

Mr. EDWARDS. My final question is how is Sam’s accent? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. His is fabulous, much better than mine. His 

accent is—it is because in Colombia they speak espan ̃ ol muy puro, 

very pure. And he has got the Castilian—— 

Mr. FARR. The admiral is being very modest. He is studying Portuguese, so he just has sort of a different accent, right? Mix it a 

little with that Portuguese. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, it sounds like I am drinking too much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Congratulations to your deployment. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Look forward to 

working with the committee over the next 3 years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It has been an honor to work with you in the past, 

and we look forward to working with you in the future. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Same here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for being here. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(287) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010. 

BRAC 

WITNESSES 

DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

L. JERRY HANSEN, SNR. OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT) 

ROGER M. NATSUHARA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS 

ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

SUZY CANTOR-MCKINNEY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF OEW CONTRACTORS 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding.] Good morning. I would like to call the 

subcommittee to order and thank all of you for being here today. 

Obviously, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

round was the largest BRAC round and I have heard sometimes 

that the BRAC 2005 round was more involved than all the other 

previous BRAC rounds combined. 

So given that we are only 18 months away from the deadline for 

the implementation of that, the purpose of today’s hearing is to 

talk about where we are in that process. Are we going to meet the 

goals? If there are some areas where we cannot, why? And what 

is the best approach? 

I will also have a question later on about whether we are artificially trying to stuff a size-10 foot into a size-8 shoe to meet the 

deadline. I hope we can all feel pressure to try to meet the deadline, but I do not want to undermine services to the troops or the 

taxpayers by artificially forcing that deadline. 

If there are a couple of examples where taking a little more time 

will save taxpayers money and better serve our servicemen and 

women and their families, then perhaps that is something this 

committee and the authorizing committee ought to consider. So we 

might want to talk about that, as well. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp, my ranking 

member, for any opening statement he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you said it extremely well. I am extremely grateful for the United States military on every front. My office was heavily involved for 2 or 3 weeks, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
288 

especially after the earthquake in Haiti, and I was reminded again, 

as we are all reminded, that anywhere in the world, when there 

is a need, the one organization in the world that can be counted 

on for efficiency and command and control and leadership, is the 

United States military. 

The BRAC process is a very effective way for the government to 

realign itself, reform itself, and make itself more efficient. And 

frankly, while I know there are deadlines to meet and we might 

not meet some for certain reasons, this model, in my view, should 

be followed more, not less, and used across other sectors of our government. 

I want to thank you for what you have done to bring us to this 

point. I followed BRAC very closely. This is one of the issues in my 

21⁄2 years here with Chairman Edwards that I have raised consistently. He has worked diligently in a bipartisan way, to try to help 

you meet these goals and to help BRAC be successful and create 

efficiency, because it is important for the government not to get 

locked in to long-term investments if they are not fruitful and efficient. 

That is why this model is a good model. I wish, frankly, that we 

had the leadership in this country to take a model like this across 

other sectors of government inefficiency to create efficiencies. Some 

institutions become near permanent, and they shouldn’t be. 

I have also seen some sites that have benefited from BRAC and 

become very productive and fruitful, not the least of which is about 

100 miles from me in Huntsville, Alabama, in the Redstone Arsenal. 

So thank you for what you have done. I look forward to your testimony today and working with the chairman to make sure that we 

help you meet every one of these targets that we possibly can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Zach. 

Let me formally introduce our first panel of witnesses. We will 

have a second panel on environmental clean-up issues. But for a 

number of you, since this is your first time before our subcommittee, let me briefly introduce you without trying to read your 

entire bio, which is impressive in each of your cases, and thank you 

for your public service. 

Dr. Dorothy Robyn is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Installations and Environment. This is your first subcommittee 

hearing, and we appreciate it and welcome you here. 

She assumed her duties in July of 2009. Dr. Robyn served as special assistant to the president for economic policy and was a senior 

staff member of the National Economic Council from 1993 to 2001. 

She worked in Congress on the staff at the Joint Economic Committee and the Office of Technology Assessment. 

She has also been an assistant professor at the Kennedy School 

of Government at Harvard and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute and has a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley. 

Again, Dr. Robyn, welcome to the subcommittee. 

Jerry Hansen is a senior official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment. 

Mr. Hansen, welcome to our subcommittee today. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
289 

In addition to his current duties, he has another hat. He serves 

as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Strategic Infrastructure. He is a West Point graduate, retired Army officer, with 

service in Vietnam. And our committee and our country thank you 

for that military service. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. He re-entered the senior executive service in 2003. 

And before coming to the Army, he was the Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight in the Department of Defense. And 

prior to re-entering the federal government, he served in inspector 

general roles for the state of California. 

Mr. Roger Natsuhara is the Acting Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Installations and Environment. Welcome to the committee. 

He was appointed as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy for Installations and Environment in August of 2009. He 

also has military service, having served in the Navy, including duty 

as a service warfare officer on the USS HAROLD HOLT. 

He also worked as a Director of Real Property Facilities and Logistics Office for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. And the senior engineer for Boeing has a master’s degree from 

the Naval Postgraduate School. 

And, again, Mr. Natsuhara, welcome to our subcommittee. 

Ms. Kathleen Ferguson is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Air Force for Installations. She has served in her present capacity 

since October of 2007. And thank you for that service. 

Prior to that, she served more than 5 years as a deputy Air Force 

civil engineer. She began her career as a civil engineer with the Air 

Force in 1981 and served on the headquarters staff at the U.S. Air 

Forces in Europe from 1997 to 1999. 

Let me also take a personal note. I am privileged to welcome my 

former legislative director, John Conger, who works with Dr. Robyn 

in her office. Thank you, John, for being here. 

We will submit for the record your full written testimony, but I 

would like to recognize each of you for approximately 5 minutes. 

And then, after that, we will get into questions and answers. Dr. 

Robyn, I would like to begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY ROBYN

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member 

Wamp, other committee members. It is a real pleasure to be here 

for my first time, as you say, before this subcommittee. 

As you said, Mr. Edwards, BRAC 2005 is the largest round undertaken by the department by any measure. Twenty-four major 

closures, 24 major realignments, 765 lesser actions. These actions 

affect 125,000 military personnel at more than 800 locations across 

this country. The cost of implementation, $35 billion, far exceeds 

that of any prior round, but so, too, do the projected savings of $4 

billion annually. 

And let me say that that $4 billion figure does not really capture 

the benefits to the military, unlike previous rounds, which focused 

on getting rid of excess capacity. The focus here has been on optimizing military capability, and it is in some ways hard to measure 

the real benefit of that. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
290 

With the BRAC deadline coming up on us, 18 months almost to 

the day, we are very focused on the end game. We are committed 

to getting every single action done by the deadline. And I think we 

are on—we are on track to do that. 

There are 222 BRAC recommendations; 28 have been certified as 

completed; 30 are in a category of having at least one construction 

project that will be completed within 90 days of that deadline, September 15, so we are watching those; and then six in particular 

that we view as having medium or high risk, and we are working 

very closely with the services to make sure that implementation of 

those is on track so that we finish by the deadline. 

We briefed your staff and the HASC staff and also your counterparts on the Senate side yesterday on these six medium-and highrisk recommendations. As you can imagine, they involve some of 

the more complex ones, such as the closure of Walter Reed and the 

significant growth at Fort Belvoir. 

But, again, let me say that we are committed to getting those 

done on time. In the past four rounds of BRAC, we have never 

missed a deadline. We have not missed a single BRAC deadline. 

And I do not want to have that record blemished on my watch. 

Let me say a word about joint basing, one of the important components of the 2005 BRAC round. When I worked with the Department of Defense 10 years ago, there was a lot of opposition to joint 

basing. I was delighted when I came back to the department and 

found that it had been embraced because of the recommendations 

that were made in the BRAC round. 

My office has been deeply involved in the process of implementing the recommendations, going from 26 installations down to 

12 joint bases. It is really challenging, but it is really gratifying, 

and we are no longer at the stage of implementing joint basing. We 

are actually now operating joint bases at a half-dozen places, with 

more to come online. 

Let me say a word about environmental clean-up. Our fiscal year 

2011 budget request, $445 million for BRAC environmental programs, $337 million for prior BRAC sites, and $108 million for 

2005 sites. This will allow us to continue to meet the stakeholder 

expectations and complete clean-up in an additional 154 sites. 

Although we strive to complete the process faster, environmental 

clean-up is not necessarily an impediment to reuse of the property, 

and we often transfer the property early, even before we have completed the clean-up. And now at a growing number of bases, we actually hand off that clean-up. We pay the community to take on the 

clean-up, including the cost of insurance and payment for the regulatory oversight. And we did that at Fort Ord last year and a number of other examples of this. 

And speaking of Fort Ord, welcome, Congressman Farr. 

And finally, let me say a word about the impact on communities. 

We are very mindful of the adverse impact that a BRAC decision 

can have on the host community. I have spent much of my time 

in the Clinton White House working with the department on base 

reuse. 

Through the Office of Economic Adjustment, we provide planning 

grants to communities impacted by the closure or increasingly imVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
291 

pacted by the growth of the military. That was a new feature in 

the 2005 round. 

We are implementing the language in the 2010 authorization act, 

which clarifies and revises our authority to transfer property 

through an economic development conveyance. And Congressman 

Farr had a great deal to do with that. 

I have directed the military departments to consider local economic conditions in the affected community and the amount of public investment required as they determine what sort of conveyance 

is appropriate and the terms of the conveyance. 

I have also urged them to expedite the disposal process, which 

has been a big, big problem. It has become very slow and cumbersome, recognizing that these military bases represent, as in 

Huntsville, a potential engine of economic activity and job creation 

for these former host communities. 

And in this regard, I want to highlight the significant accomplishment represented by the recent agreement in principle to 

transfer between the Navy and the city of San Francisco to transfer 

Treasure Island. They are still negotiating the details, but the 

mayor and the Secretary of the Navy met in December and agreed 

in principle. 

I was just reading the transcript from this hearing a year ago, 

and the—it was painful for me to read that transcript, because it 

felt like nothing was going to happen on Treasure Island. It is just 

the two sides seemed so far apart. And with new leadership at the 

Navy and Roger’s steadfast help, I think that deal is very close to 

being done. 

So let me thank you again for your attention to this issue, and 

I look forward to taking questions. 

[Prepared statement of Dorothy Robyn follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
292 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 56870B.001
293 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 56870B.002
294 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 56870B.003
295 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 56870B.004
296 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 56870B.005
297 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 56870B.006
298 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 56870B.007
299 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 56870B.008
300 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 56870B.009
301 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 56870B.010
302 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Robyn. 

Mr. Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF L. JERRY HANSEN

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is, indeed, a pleasure 

to appear before the committee. 

Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Edwards, Ranking 

Member Congressman Wamp, and the entire committee for your 

unwavering support to our soldiers, civilians, and family members. 

The Army’s BRAC program is an integral component of our 

transformation effort. And all Army—all BRAC activity takes place 

within the context of the largest transformation of the Army since 

World War II. That includes BRAC, Grow the Army, Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army Modular Force initiatives. 

And all of those are programmed to achieve the Army’s goals of 

winning overseas contingency operations, transforming from a division-structured, forward-deployed force to one comprised of more 

agile brigade combat teams stationed on U.S. soil, and growing the 

Army in a manner that facilitates the Army’s ability to win decisively anytime, anywhere. 

We are now 41⁄2 years into the implementation of BRAC 2005, 

and we have 546 days left to complete the implementation of this 

complex and critical modernization of Army infrastructure. Although we fully recognize there are remaining challenges to implementing all of the BRAC 2005 actions, the Army is on schedule to 

do just that. We have a carefully orchestrated plan to complete the 

entirety by September 15, 2011, and to convey the property in a 

timely manner. 

Some of the highlights of the Army’s BRAC program include 

completing 77 MILCON projects with another 220 under contract 

and on schedule, closing 3 of the 12 major installations scheduled 

for closure under BRAC 2005, as well as 22 other reserve component installations. 

At Fort Bliss, Texas, one of our largest growth installations, we 

are well on the way to growing three times in size. The first two 

BCT complexes are now complete, and the third is scheduled for 

completion in March of 2011. Over $2.1 billion in BRAC-related construction is occurring at 

Bliss, with 100 percent of the new and renovated facilities scheduled for completion by July of 2011. 

Another example, Fort Lee will transform from the Army’s logistics center to the Army sustainment center of excellence under 

BRAC 2005, with over $1.2 billion in construction occurring at Lee, 

with 100 percent of the new and renovated facilities scheduled for 

completion of 2011. 

Another is Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, undergoing significant mission growth, transitioning from a soldier training-focused installation to a research and development center, with over 

$1 billion in construction occurring and 100 percent of the new and 

renovated facilities scheduled for completion by July of 2011. 

Seventeen hundred personnel, approximately 30 percent of the 

inbound professional administrative personnel, have already moved 

successfully to Aberdeen Proving Ground, and they report they like 

it very well there. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
303 

The Army has also committed to the timely conveyance of BRAC 

2005 property. We have been working diligently with local redevelopment authorities to convey property at the time of closure or as 

close thereto as possible. 

The Army has approved the first DOD economic development 

conveyance (EDC) for 8,700 acres at Kansas Army Ammunition 

Plant and signed the deed for the transfer of the first 2,600 acres 

in February of 2010. The innovative EDC MOA for that location 

was crafted in accordance with new authorities from the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which we appreciate and which 

allowed transfer at less than fair-market value and incorporated 

revenue sharing with the community, so a real win-win. 

As we close and realign property, the Army’s planning and integrating the environmental restoration of the property with the conveyance actions. We remain committed to the clean-up of BRAC 

2005 and the remaining legacy properties that are transitioning 

from the federal government to private redevelopment. 

Allow me to close today by stressing the importance of a timely 

appropriations bill this coming year. With less than 12 months remaining at the start of fiscal year 2011, we will need to move our 

personnel and transport their equipment to our gaining installation, and these BRAC actions require the soldiers, Army, civilian 

employees, and their families to move immediately following completion of facilities. And much of the funding for the relocations is 

required for obligation early in fiscal year 2011. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman and members, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support to the Army. 

[Prepared statement of L. Jerry Hansen follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
304 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 56870B.011
305 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 56870B.012
306 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 56870B.013
307 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 56870B.014
308 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 56870B.015
309 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 56870B.016
310 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 56870B.017
311 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 56870B.018
312 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 56870B.019
313 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 56870B.020
314 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. We will revisit later your 

final comments, because they raise the question of, if we did not 

pass the BRAC appropriation bill on time, what would the implications be? Thank you very much. 

Mr. Natsuhara. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. NATSUHARA

Mr. NATSUHARA. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good morning. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Chairman Edwards, Representative Wamp, and 

members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you today 

to provide an overview of the Department and Navy’s BRAC program. Regarding BRAC 2005, our budget request of $342 million will 

enable us to continue outfitting buildings, realigning functions, and 

closing bases in accordance with our business plans. To date, the 

Department has completed 253 of 488 realignment and closure actions, and we are on track for full compliance by the September 15, 

2011, statutory deadline. 

The most significant action we have planned for 2010 is the reversion of the main base at Naval Station Ingleside, Texas. We 

have been working closely with the Port of Corpus Christi to complete this action by the end of April, when the base will operationally close. 

With respect to prior BRAC activity, we continue to use a variety 

of conveyance mechanisms available for federal property disposal, 

including the economic development conveyance (EDC) that was 

created for BRAC properties. Although over 90% of the property we 

have conveyed was transferred at no cost to the recipient, we have 

received over $1.1 billion in land sale revenues. We have used 

these funds to accelerate environmental clean-up, and we are able 

to finance the entire BRAC environmental effort from 2005 to 2008. 

Future opportunity for land sale revenues, however, are very limited, and we are requesting appropriated funds to continue our environmental clean-up efforts. Our requests of $162 million will enable us to continue disposal actions and meet the minimum requirement for environmental clean-up. 

We greatly appreciated the additional funding Congress has provided in the past, which we applied to accelerate clean-up of parcels to support community redevelopment priorities. 

We would like to highlight a breakthrough, as Dr. Robyn mentioned, on our negotiation for the EDC of Naval Station Treasure 

Island. Negotiations have been ongoing with the city since 2007. 

With adoption of language in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense 

Authorization Act, Congress enacted new EDC language that allows flexibility and transfer terms, including accepting profit participation structures. 

The environmental clean-up of Treasure Island is nearing completion. Once the city finalizes the environmental documentation 

and receives approval from the board of supervisors in late 2010 or 

early 2011, we will be in a position for the clean transfer of more 

than 75 percent of the base. 

The Department continues to make excellent progress in implementing the BRAC actions. While meeting the September 2011 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
315 

statutory deadline to complete the BRAC 2005 actions is challenging, we feel we have a reasonable plan in place to meet this 

requirement. We continue to work with regulators and communities to tackle complex environmental issues associated with prior 

BRAC installations and develop creative solutions to support redevelopment efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. 

I am ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Roger M. Natsuhara follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
316 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 56870B.021
317 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 56870B.022
318 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 56870B.023
319 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 56870B.024
320 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 56870B.025
321 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 56870B.026
322 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 56870B.027
323 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 56870B.028
324 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 56870B.029
325 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 56870B.030
326 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Natsuhara. 

Secretary Ferguson. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON

Ms. FERGUSON. Chairman Edwards, Congressman Wamp, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide an 

update on the Air Force’s efforts supporting the implementation of 

the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure program. 

More than four years ago, the recommendations of the BRAC 

2005 commission were approved, and today we are a mere 18 

months away from the completion date of September 15, 2011. 

For the Air Force, BRAC 2005 yielded seven Air Force installation closures and 59 realignments affecting 122 of our installations. 

General Mitchell Air Reserve Station was—Galena forward operating location Galena, Alaska, already considered closed, and the 

others are proceeding according to plan. 

The Air Force’s overall program is complex and diverse. And 

while there is still much work to be done, I am confident in informing the committee that the Air Force BRAC implementation efforts 

remain on track, on time, and within budget. 

My written statement outlines two significant BRAC undertakings affecting San Antonio. The first is the creation of the Medical Education and Training Campus, or METC, on Fort Sam Houston, and the other is the creation of the 711th Human Performance 

Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, which facilitates the relocation of Air Force missions from Brooks CityBase, Texas. 

BRAC 2005 recommendation 172 calls for consolidation of all enlisted medical training by relocating basic and specialty enlisted 

medical training onto a new educational campus. The METC campus is being constructed on Fort Sam Houston proper, with a total 

investment of $790 million. 

The Medical Education and Training Campus will be the home 

for joint military enlisted medical training for the Army, Navy and 

Air Force. The campus will serve over 9,000 students per day, with 

an annual pipeline of nearly 45,000 students. 

In addition to the Medical Education and Training Campus on 

Fort Sam Houston, there will be a satellite field training campus 

on Camp Bullis as an integral part of student training. The campus 

is over 50 percent complete, with the first classes beginning in 

June of this year. 

The creation of the 711th Human Performance Wing contributes 

to the largest military construction effort at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base since World War II. While over $200 million in new 

construction will bed down the Human Performance Wing, the 

711th Human Performance Wing merges the Air Force Research 

Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate with three functions 

of the 311th Human Systems Wing at Brooks City-Base, Texas, the 

United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, the Air 

Force Institute for Operational Health, and the 311th Human Performance Enhancement Directorate. 

In conjunction with the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, relocating from Naval Air Station Pensacola and surrounding universities and medical institutions, the 711th Human 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
327 

Performance Wing will create a center of excellence for aerospace 

medicine. 

In regards to joint basing, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and the services continue to work through many complex issues to 

make joint basing successful. Memorandum of agreements have 

been signed for all joint bases, and full operational capability was 

achieved for all phase one bases, and we are progressing towards 

that same milestone for all phase two joint bases by 1 October of 

this year. 

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force’s total BRAC implementation budg- et for this round was $3.8 billion, two-thirds of which was for military construction. Our military construction program calls for the 

last contract award by the end of this fiscal year. Throughout the 

implementation of BRAC 2005, the Air Force has been and remains 

fully funded. 

Though this year’s budget request is significantly smaller than 

previous years, let me underscore, its importance remains. It allows the Air Force to complete full implementation of all BRAC 

2005 recommendations by the deadline. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I thank you 

and the members of the committee for your time and the opportunity for this update. And I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Kathleen I. Ferguson follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
328 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 56870B.031
329 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 56870B.032
330 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 56870B.033
331 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 56870B.034
332 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 56870B.035
333 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 56870B.036
334 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 56870B.037
335 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 56870B.038
336 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 56870B.039
337 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 56870B.040
338 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 56870B.041
339 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 56870B.042
340 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 56870B.043
341 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 56870B.044
342 

IMPACT OF STATUTORY DEADLINES

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Secretary Ferguson. 

Dr. Robyn, let me begin with you, and then if others of you want 

to comment, if you believe that would be helpful, if it affects your 

particular projects. I salute you, Dr. Robyn, for wanting to have 

every BRAC recommendation implemented by September 15, 2011, 

because that was the direction of Congress, that is the law of the 

land, and to ignore that would be to ignore the law of the land. 

But I would just like to delve for a few minutes into, what are 

the costs—are there some adverse results and adverse costs to taxpayers of being arbitrary in trying to follow that? And perhaps our 

authorizing trends do not want to change that deadline for any single project, but it is at least something we ought to look into, because this subcommittee’s responsibility is to see that the taxpayers’ dollars are spent wisely and for the long-term benefit of our 

troops and their families. 

Let’s talk about Fort Belvoir, just as an example. It is my understanding that $53 million to meet the deadline, will be spent for 

temporary facilities to relocate 973 personnel. That $53 million of 

facilities will have to then be replaced by permanent facilities. 

If you did not have the September 15th deadline, would there be 

a way to save taxpayers’ dollars and better serve these personnel 

and the people they serve? 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me answer it generally, and then I think I am 

going to let Jerry Hansen talk about Fort Belvoir in particular. But 

you said that you understand the importance of trying to meet our 

legal obligation. And that is part of it. But I want to expand on 

that. And I think the comments that Congressman Wamp made are 

very relevant. 

BRAC is an unusual mechanism. We have Dick Armey to thank 

for it, and it is something—as you indicated, we should be doing 

more of this rather than less. And people around the world are trying to emulate the BRAC process. It is a difficult one, but it ties 

our hands, but that is the beauty of it. It imposes discipline that 

we do not really want, but the alternative is worse. 

Let me mention a couple of reasons why meeting the BRAC 

deadline is so important. First of all—and as I just indicated—it 

preserves the discipline on us. There is an all-or-nothing quality to 

BRAC. There is an all-or-nothing nature to the votes. You vote it 

up or down. It is all or nothing. 

And the same with us. This is so—keeping that discipline on 

us—is enormously important. It ends the turmoil of the transition. 

The process is meant to be fast to get the pain over with. It allows 

that to end. It gets contractors off the base. And it provides certainty for the community so that they know that this is going to 

be done by a particular date. 

And all of these benefits spill over, I think. They spill over if 

there is another BRAC round. And so I think it is more than just 

meeting the letter of the law. It is for all of these reasons, in some 

cases, that does mean spending a little bit more in order to meet 

the deadline. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. And let me just quickly say, I think that 

is a very persuasive argument for the benefits of meeting the deadVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
343 

line. But since you used cost-benefit analysis on a daily basis in deciding to fund or not to fund projects, I would just like to know 

what the costs are going to be. The benefits are perhaps intangible, 

but yet very real, and I do not minimize those for one minute. 

I would like to know or get some sense, though—we are talking about one site, $53 million, or, you know, hundreds of other millions of dollars at Fort Belvoir and $1 billion elsewhere in order to 

meet this deadline so that at least Congress could say, look, all 

right, these are the benefits that you have outlined very, very precisely and very persuasively, but these are the costs. 

I just do not want to be blind on the cost side of the cost-benefit 

analysis as sticking to this. And so that is—at some point, I would 

appreciate—would not expect you to have this at this moment, but 

at some point, I would appreciate some objective, fair—not 

fudged—fair, objective analysis of what the additional costs are, 

such as if you send this $53 million as being spent to meet the 

deadline. 

Is it $1 billion of extra cost? 

Ms. ROBYN. No, no, no. No. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You know, a couple of hundred million dollars? 

What—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, I think we went through the six challenges, 

most challenging places yesterday with Walter Reed and others. 

And that particular site, Belvoir, and those relocatables, that is the 

most challenging one and the most expensive. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. So you mentioned Belvoir. You mentioned the closing of Walter Reed. What are the other four sites? 

Ms. ROBYN. Let’s see. There is San Antonio. Let me get my list. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Which—Fort Sam? Which project at San Antonio? 

Fort Sam? 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. FORSCOM and the U.S. Army Reserve 

Command, San Antonio Regional Medical Center—and Kathy can 

speak to that—Walter Reed, miscellaneous facilities at Belvoir, relocating the Medical Command headquarters. I believe that is here 

in D.C. And then Fort Bragg, is that—yes, Fort Bragg. 

USE OF RELOCATABLE FACILITIES

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Do you have some flexibility, Dr. Robyn, in 

terms of defining what meeting the BRAC deadline means? Does 

it mean a contract has to have been signed or the physical space 

has to have been opened? Do you have some flexibility there so 

that reason can be part of this process and not just the arbitrary 

deadline as the only criteria? 

Ms. ROBYN. There are some. I believe the function has to have 

physically moved, so there is less flexibility there than you would 

think, but there is some. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Ms. ROBYN. Our lawyer is—you know, can go on and on about 

this at great length, but it is not—there is not a huge amount of 

flexibility. There are certain things that we need to get done, and 

the primary thing is to actually move the function. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. And, obviously, we will need 

follow-up meetings where we can talk in more detail than we can 

at this hearing. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
344 

But, Mr. Hansen, could you briefly tell me, is that figure about right, for $53 million? And what kind of relocatable facilities will 

they be? How long will those be used before that $53 million of facilities is replaced by permanent facilities? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We, as Dr. Robyn indicated, do 

have the plan that will comply with BRAC, but it does involve 

relocatables during that period of time, and those are on permanent-type structures, I mean, on platforms, but—so they are not 

like construction trailers. They are buildings that look fairly permanent, but they are modular, and they are—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Modular offices? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. HANSEN. And the Army, while committed to complying with 

BRAC, will continue to communicate with the members over this 

last 546 days to ensure that you are fully informed and can express 

any concerns or other alternatives that you would like us to explore. 

Although we do not have a defined alternate plan at Belvoir at 

this time, we are always working to achieve efficiencies and effectiveness in our implementation. And we will be—as we refine possible alternatives for your consideration—we will certainly present 

those. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What time period do you expect as of now for 

those $53 million of relocatable facilities to be replaced by permanent accommodations there? 

Mr. HANSEN. We are working on the—as you know, the 12 to 17 

POM and would envision that any military construction still required at Fort Belvoir would be included in that, the front end of 

that, I would hope. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. So we are not talking about 6 

months or 9 months? It could be several years? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is that $53 million about correct? Is that for this 

particular—— 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any other cost for temporary facilities at Fort Belvoir, in addition to these $53 million that would be required in 

order to meet that September 15, 2011, deadline? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is approximately $33 

million for the Office of Chief of Army Reserve that will be established in current warehouse space that will be reconstructed. But 

it will save us significantly in lease costs. The total net cost is probably—is approximately $69 million for the total. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For everything at Fort Belvoir? 

Mr. HANSEN. For the relocatable—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Net cost of $69 million. Okay. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Wamp. 

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

Mr. WAMP. I do not know who would give us a more specific answer on the six particular at-risk projects with respect to meeting 

the deadline, but for the good of the members, I think we ought to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
345 

have a little more detailed summary. We would like to know the 

six locations, the expected delay, the cost factor, and a summary. 

You might have to bounce around to give us each one of these 

six so that we all hear, why they are in jeopardy and the level of 

rush with each. Please start with Walter Reed. 

Mr. HANSEN. The Walter Reed, sir, is, of course, a combined 

Army and Navy project, so we—from the Army perspective, we are 

committed to and fully expect to be able to complete the Walter 

Reed relocation on time by 15 September, 2011, be moving into 

Navy facilities. 

And I defer to my colleague on the Navy part of that. But it is 

my understanding that anything that will not be ready by September 11 would be ancillary type of buildings, and there are mitigation strategies in place for those. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. The Department of Navy is within budget on 

BRAC 2005, and we do not anticipate having to lease any space, 

that we will complete our projects on time, including Bethesda to 

accommodate the Walter Reed closing. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. You talked about Fort Belvoir, but what about 

the others? 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Ms. FERGUSON. I can talk a little bit about San Antonio. Recommendation 172 really had two components to it. One was closing 

the inpatient operations at Wilford Hall on Lackland Air Force 

Base and relocating that to Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort 

Sam Houston. 

And the second one was to consolidate enlisted medical training 

from a number of U.S. locations to Fort Sam Houston. The second 

one is not at risk at all. That one is proceeding. That will be accomplished on time. 

The one that does have some risk and we consider medium risk 

is the closing of the inpatient operations at Wilford Hall and relocating to Brooke Army Medical Center. And we have looked at that 

as medium risk. And the reason we classified it that way is currently the consolidated medical tower and renovations at Fort Sam 

Houston are scheduled to be complete in July of 2011. 

If there are any hiccups during the construction, that pushes 

that to the right. That does put that in some jeopardy, so we are 

continuing to monitor that very closely. We are looking right now 

to see if there are other mitigation efforts that can be done in case 

that does slip. 

But right now, we are still on track, but we do recognize, because 

it is so close to the deadline, if there are any issues that crop up 

during construction that could put the relocation from Wilford Hall 

to Brooke at some risk for meeting the deadline. 

FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. WAMP. Fort Bragg? 

Mr. HANSEN. Regarding Fort Bragg, Mr. Congressman, the one 

project that I believe was discussed was a project to construct a 

warehouse at Fort Bragg to provide temporary swing space for serial movements of FORSCOM and U.S. Army Reserve Center perVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
346 

sonnel from Fort McPherson to Bragg and its plan for contract 

award approximately 11 March, 2010. 

This project is currently being staffed for congressional notification, and completion is currently planned for a soldier-ready date 

of 1 May of 2011. So this involves outfitting a warehouse with some 

temporary office space inside for swing space until a completion of 

the permanent buildings. 

Mr. WAMP. And the Medical Command—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, this was a commission recommendation, not a 

DOD recommendation. So we were—in the implementation of it. It 

is not high risk—we have characterized it as medium risk, rather 

than high risk. 

Let me—hold on. I think there is—GSA is waiting for some committee. They need some sort of action—I am sorry? 

Mr. WAMP. Okay. 

Ms. ROBYN. I only know a little bit about this. GSA needs to proceed on with the lease. But this is a lease action, and so there is 

going to be GSA involvement on that. 

TEMPORARY EXPENSES

Mr. EDWARDS. So could I piggyback with Mr. Wamp? Will there 

be temporary expenses—— 

Ms. ROBYN. No. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Tens of millions of dollars to do something temporarily? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. I think the two high-risk ones of the six are 

Belvoir, which you have heard about, and the Mark Center, which 

is also Belvoir. That is Belvoir north. This is the large building 

that is being constructed at Seminary Road off of 395. The schedule 

for—the construction is on time. The schedule for move-in bumps 

up close to the deadline. 

And we said yesterday to your staff, we need better fidelity from 

WHS, Washington Headquarters Services, on that in order to give 

you a better picture. We are treating that as high risk, but, again, 

none of—we have not identified any costs associated with trying to 

meet the deadline on that. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have a short question. It appears 

you all are going to carry almost $1.2 billion of unobligated balances into 2011, and I wonder why the high level of unobligated 

balances would be carried into the next fiscal year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is that in the BRAC account? 

Ms. ROBYN. In MILCON or non—— 

Mr. WAMP. In the budget appendix of the 2005 BRAC account, 

there is an unobligated balance carryover of almost $1.2 billion, 

$1.85 billion. 

Ms. ROBYN. I do not know. I am not sure. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would that be for projects where you are making 

further improvements? You have already moved into Belvoir, and 

you are for the next couple of years making additional improvements? Or—— 

Mr. HANSEN. We show approximately—just a little over $600 

million, sir, and from the Army perspective, we have obligated approximately 29.27 percent of the fiscal year 2010 funds received to 

date. And we are fairly comfortable that we will have efficient exeVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
347 

cution of the remaining funds. Now, that is not to say that they 

will all be used, but that it will not be a large amount remaining. 

Mr. WAMP. I have other questions next round, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing. I would like to thank you all for your public 

service. 

And, Dr. Robyn, I would just like to personally thank you. I 

think you bring a personality and a professional style that is really 

making this BRAC system work, and I really appreciate that. 

We have had five rounds of BRAC, started in 1988 and second 

one was in 1991; 1991 was when they announced that the base in 

my district, Fort Ord, which was a training base for the 7th Infantry, was going to be closed. It was the largest military base ever 

closed in any BRAC round. It affected 33,000 people—people who 

just left seemingly overnight. 

We still have a little bit of the base realigned for military, and 

we still have 6,000 active military personnel going to the Naval 

Postgraduate School and Defense Language Institute and a bunch 

of other military programs. $1 billion of defense money is spent in 

Monterey County. 

But I ran for Congress because I knew this was going to be the 

biggest real estate transfer ever. It really affected the whole region, 

and I wanted to try to get some things done there, like establish 

a university, which we did. In fact, Secretary Perry came to transfer the property, and President Clinton came to inaugurate the 

opening of the university that we got started. 

On the day I arrived in Congress, I had to testify on the 1993 

round. I got elected in June 17 years ago. DoD was trying to close 

or realign the Defense Language Institute, and I was able to defeat 

that, and twice defeat the potential closure of the Naval Postgraduate School. Fort Hunter Liggett was realigned, but only 

slightly. So won some, lost some. 

But I thought when I came that BRAC would consume my first 

year in Congress my first term, and I have learned that it ended 

up defining my entire 17 years, because of all the issues, so many 

issues. And so I want to ask some questions today. 

BRAC CLEAN-UP

I think the clean-up account is so important because it is the responsibility of the federal government to clean up the dirt. So any 

kind of municipal waste, toxic waste, and especially the big one, 

unexploded ordnances, have to be cleaned before the land can be 

transferred. This is a strict liability. The federal government is liable forever if any hazardous waste is found on it. 

You did mention that you were able to get much more clean-up 

done with the beefing up of the account last year, which this committee did, and the chairman did, and I am really proud for having 

done that, appropriating more than the president asked for. 

I was really shocked at President Obama’s FY11 request, which 

is $137 million less than what Congress appropriated last year. 

And I think, Dr. Robyn, you testified that, you know, you can get 

a better bang with a buck because contracts are cheaper. It seems 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
348 

to me that that is just the reason why you should double down. I 

mean, why not clean up twice as much? And, indeed, if you are getting a better bang for the buck, the clean-up should be moving 

ahead of schedule. 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me give you two answers to that. First of all, I 

think what we should be doing—and I am committed to trying to 

make this happen while I am in the Department—is increasing our 

spending on R&D for unexploded ordnance. That is the area where 

the Defense Department is developing technology to better clean up 

unexploded ordnance. 

The technology being used now has 99 percent false positives. We 

are developing technology. There is one being developed with 

Berkeley. It is called BUD. It is a system that has radically better 

reliability. 

Mr. FARR. Well, we have developed some of that at Fort Ord with 

a contractor on the ground—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Who has done a great job, really bright 

kid who has built this thing with his father in the garage, which 

is able to draw readings of what is underground. Usually if there 

is any metal underground, you do not know whether it is a beer 

can—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And there are a lot of buried beer cans; 

I do not know how they got those into maneuvers, but they did— 

Or unexploded ordnances. It is hard to know if it is pipelines or 

junk. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. I mean, there is all stuff there. So—— 

Ms. ROBYN. So the technology is out there. It needs to be tested. 

We need to demonstrate it at a much higher rate than we are doing 

in order to get it. And there may be—there are—I know you have 

a whole panel on clean-up, but this is—we have a wonderful program, SERDP, Strategic Environmental R&D Program, and then a 

demonstration counterpart, which I oversee, that is—they think 

that with a very modest expenditure over 5 years to demonstrate 

this, they can save the Department $10 billion in clean-up costs. 

Mr. FARR. But why now then cut the budget? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think that is a different—this is a different 

budget than that. That is an RTD&E line, which we did cut—— 

Mr. FARR. Why did you ask for $137 million less when the need 

is to increase? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think—I am going to ask Jerry to say something 

about this. But I think it reflected a combination of bid savings, efficiencies, and some significant overestimation of the amount of 

property that needed to be cleaned up, which when the services 

took—and Army in particular took a more refined look, was substantially less than what they had—— 

Mr. FARR. That is hard to believe. How many bases—I mean, we 

have had five rounds. We mostly talk about the latest round, which 

was the 2005 round. That is because that is the big politics of the 

Congress right now. Everybody forgets the bases that were closed 

and are still out there. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
349 

Ms. ROBYN. The bulk of the budget is for the former bases. Only 

about 100—— 

Mr. FARR. How many are still yet to be cleaned up? 

Ms. ROBYN. A hundred million are—I do not—well, I mean, as 

you know, the clean-up goes on for a long period of time, so many 

are left to be cleaned up. It is a question of the rate at which you 

are doing it. 

Mr. FARR. I agree with you, everything you are saying. But I cannot understand from one word that you have said why the budget 

was cut. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, it is a good news story, because it does reflect 

bid savings, overestimation. I mean, it is not that, you know, we— 

intense competition for the money—and this is an area where we 

discovered that we had actually overestimated what we needed to 

do. And so we are staying on pace to clean up at the same rate that 

we have been—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, why is that? If you are saving some money—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, why not faster? Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Because everybody is waiting. We have to find out 

how many bases need to be cleaned up. 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I ask Jerry to elaborate on the—— 

Mr. FARR. Sure, if you have an answer to that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, Mr. Congressman, of course, we have a lot of 

competing resources requirements right now that are competing for 

scarce resources. But part of this is executability and part of it is 

the fact that we do feel we have a—— 

Mr. FARR. What do you mean by executability? 

Mr. HANSEN. How much we can do in a given year, for instance, 

at Fort Ord, where we have the burn restrictions that you are familiar with. 

Mr. FARR. That is not the only base in the country. 

Mr. HANSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. FARR. So it is—I mean, are you talking about, you do not 

think there is capacity out there to do the work? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, there is not unlimited capacity. There is certainly some capacity to do more in a given year. 

Mr. FARR. Are you spending as much money as you can spend 

to get the job done and essentially engage the clean-up industry to 

do all they can do? Are we holding back? 

Mr. HANSEN. We programmed as much as we felt was affordable 

and executable in a given year. Sir, we appreciate the assistance 

we got in previous years to get a little bit ahead of that curve. 

Mr. FARR. I do not accept those answers, but, anyway, thank you. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE

I want to move to another issue, which is the EDCs, and I thank 

you for your approach to looking at EDC conveyance base by base. 

Handling that way is the smart thing to do, because there are no 

one-size-fits-all solutions. How many no-cost EDCs are pending request for EDCs? 

Ms. ROBYN. I do not know the exact number. 

Mr. FARR. How about the number of—how many bases are attempting to utilize the EDC law? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
350 

Ms. ROBYN. I do not know the exact number. I mean, it is— 

Kathy, do you want to—okay. All right. Maybe we could go—— 

Ms. FERGUSON. The Air Force is looking at five EDC applications 

right now, three for legacy BRAC, two for BRAC 2005. And we are 

on a path to try to do this over the next couple of years, and we 

can give you the details when each one of the bases—— 

Mr. FARR. Is that each—that for each of the services? 

Ms. FERGUSON. Yes. Do you know—— 

Mr. FARR. And, also, I would be interested in how many of them 

are asking for a no-cost EDC. Do you know? 

Ms. FERGUSON. I do not know offhand. We are still working with 

some of the communities to see if they will come in with a no-cost 

or not, but we can get that—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I think one—there are cases where there is absolutely no question this is—a property is essentially not worth anything. It is very rural or for other reasons it is easy to say that is 

no-cost. 

There are another class of closed bases, like Treasure Island, 

where there is dispute over what the value is, and I think the 

Treasure Island model, which involved backend participation—so it 

is a limited—more limited upfront payment by the community, but 

then the Department, the federal government gets a share of revenues on the backend, that is a very good model. And—— 

Mr. FARR. It is. We do that in politics. We call them triggers. For 

example if you have two possible outcomes, disagreements on 

whether one is going to happen or the other, you say, okay, if ‘‘X’’ 

happens or does not happen, this will happen. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And there are consequences. But you make a decision. 

That is what I think you are good at. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. I have got some more questions. I will do it the next 

round. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Farr. 

INITIAL COST ANALYSIS AND ACTUAL COST

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today. 

Secretary Robyn, welcome. 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You mentioned in your testimony that nobody 

has ever missed a deadline, but I know you all know that from 

time to time you do miss the cost estimates—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. Not you personally, but you are new 

on the job, and you were not around when they said, well, this 

round of BRAC is going to cost $21 billion. And those of us on this 

committee who kind of provide the funds know it is closer to $35 

billion. 

And so I want to talk a little bit about that, because I note—you 

do not want to be short-sighted. Sometimes it makes sense to 

spend a little bit more money. I know in my own backyard at NAS 

JAX, part of the BRAC was all the P–3s were going to come down 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
351 

from New Brunswick, Maine, and we had to build a hangar. And 

then that was all part of the original estimate. 

And somebody says, well, you know, there is another aircraft 

called a P–8 that is going to kind of be a successor. And if we are 

going to build a hangar, we ought to provide for that next generation of aircraft, and so that cost more money. 

But, obviously, it was a better thing to do, enhance capabilities. 

And so we do not want to be shortsighted, but we also want to get 

a better handle on, you know, what the actual costs are going to 

be. 

And so my question is, have you all thought about—are there 

some lessons that you learn when you go through these BRAC 

processes, whether it is a BRAC or whether it is just, you know, 

building new facilities, how we can kind of build all that in to the 

initial analysis so that those of us on this committee that provide 

the funds will have a better idea of what it is actually going to cost 

and not kind of see it double and triple from time to time? Could 

you comment on that? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, and let me just go over the basic numbers. The 

estimate that was drawn up internally using a system called 

COBRA was $21 billion. That was an internal estimate. It is not 

meant for budget purposes. It is probably unfortunate but inevitable that a number like that gets out. That is for purposes of comparing options, but it is not a good estimate of what something is 

actually going to cost for budget purposes. 

But taking that $21 billion, then there is a $14 billion increase. 

The final cost will be about $35 billion; $10 billion of that $14 billion increase represents an expansion in the scope of what was 

done. So it is military construction or recapitalization over and 

above what was in the initial estimate. That was a conscious decision by the services to upgrade rather than using more of a BandAid approach. 

This is a very MILCON-intensive BRAC round. Seventy percent 

of that $35 billion is going for military construction. In the previous 

rounds, on average, it was 33 percent. So it is doubly MILCON-intensive, and that reflects a conscious decision by the services to expand scope, to build new, rather than renovate, to recapitalize, 

rather than repair. 

And it was partly a result of troops coming back from Europe, 

a number of things going on, but it was a conscious decision. There 

are good things to show for it. It expanded our capability, as in the 

example that you described. 

A second factor, there was a conscious decision, again, by the Department to shift the implementation schedule to the right rather 

than trying to frontload the realignments and the closures within 

the 6-year implementation period to take advantage of the full 6 

years, which is why we are coming so close to the deadline on a 

lot of these actions. 

That, again, conscious decision—and largely because of budget 

constraints associated with being involved in ongoing actions in 

Iraq and Afghanistan—that is expensive to do that, because it compounds the cost of inflation, when you push out the implementation 

schedule. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
352 

The third factor was the run-up in construction costs, the extraordinary inflation in the construction industry in 2007, early 

2008, which was the period during which a lot of the big contracts 

were let. So those three factors, together with the fact that the 

COBRA model is not really a good—does not provide a good baseline, but that accounts for most of the increase. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Knowing that now, are there things you are 

doing to try to build that in? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. If that has been the experience, then the next 

time, you would say, ‘‘We might have some enhanced capacity that 

we are going to build.’’ 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I mean, those are some of the lessons you 

learned. Do you think if you were to do that again you might recognize that you were going to do that, just to get a—only to say so 

that we would have a better idea so we did not have to kind of 

come back and find additional ones, just on the front end? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, I do not—no one in the building is talking about 

the next BRAC round—you will be probably glad to hear. 

BRAC LESSONS LEARNED

Mr. CRENSHAW. Build something new. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, right. That is true. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And if you could tell us some of those lessons 

that you learned here so that, when you did, you did not say—you 

came and said, ‘‘Well, it costs twice as much because.’’ I am just 

trying to make you all aware and maybe help us help you understand how you can better make that initial analysis. It sounds like 

you know what went into the—— 

Ms. ROBYN. We know in retrospect, yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But would not that help you—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW [continuing]. In the future? 

Ms. ROBYN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thanks. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Congressman, I would also mention that one 

of our areas of lessons learned is in the area of disposal and conveyances. We have established—the Army has established a dedicated disposal team to work with the affected communities and 

other Army and DOD elements to make sure we complete the necessary actions early so we can meet our goal of transferring in conjunction with the closure. 

And we have established priorities based on the closure dates 

and the community input, when we are committed to the economic 

principles of redevelopment, which dictate that capital investment 

is required and that they can be achieved through a number of current transfer authorities. 

We appreciate the language in the NDAA, which gave us additional flexibility in there regarding no-cost and low-cost EDCs. We 

have four in process right now, Riverbank, Red River, Lone Star, 

Fort Gillem, and the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant. 

Kansas is a good news story. The first 6,000 acres were transferred no-cost or low-cost EDC. And the EDC—the MOA between 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
353 

the Army and the Great Plains Development Authority for transfer 

of approximately 8,700 acres was completed February 2010, and 

the deed for transfer of the first 2,600 was completed on February 

19th. And this was in accordance with the guidance in the NDAA, 

which allows us to transfer less than fair-market value. 

And the MOA turns include transfer of the first 2,600 acres for 

$1, transfer of an additional 6,100 acres for a cash balance of 

$49,999, and revenue sharing of gross revenues for the property up 

to a total of $3.5 million over a 10-year period. 

So we think it was a very innovative approach and one that was 

a win-win for all the parties concerned. And we would envision 

using a similar approach for the other three that we are working 

with now. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

I would like to begin the second round with Mr. Wamp being recognized, but members, what if we go vote—this first vote is always 

so uncertain. They may leave it open for 20 minutes or 35 minutes, 

but we will go vote now, then we will know exactly when we need 

to go back up with the second vote. Is that okay with everyone? 

Mr. WAMP. Fine with me. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. We will stay in recess—we will just go 

vote and come right back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee back to 

order and recognize Mr. Wamp for getting in a second round of 

questions. 

Mr. WAMP. It is amazing how much authority that little gavel 

has. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I wish I had one at home for my—— 

[Laughter.] 

JOINT BASING

Mr. WAMP. This is not a BRAC-related question for Secretary 

Robyn and Secretary Ferguson. The short story, 241st Engineering 

Squadron of the Tennessee Air National Guard has leased a big 

space at our airport in Chattanooga for 52 years. 

Ironically, you mentioned Sonny Montgomery when the hearing 

began. He visited the airport and met my predecessor about 20 

years ago. He wanted to relocate that Air Guard facility off of the 

Chattanooga airport into a new facility. It wasn’t until 2 years ago 

that we funded that new facility, which is under construction and 

will be finished later this year. 

The lease was for one dollar a year for this facility. The lease basically said that the Air Force would maintain this facility in keeping with the rest of the airport. There is no obligation for damages, 

but there is a question now about the clean-up of the site. 

I wonder if there are provisions and what the policies are, because the airport and the city of Chattanooga are certainly not in 

a position to clean the site. As the Air National Guard leaves their 

facility, literally right in the middle of our airport, what remedies 

do we have for them helping the city leave that space in the same 

way they received it, for a dollar a year 52 years ago? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
354 

Ms. FERGUSON. I am not familiar—I am familiar with the lease, 

but I am not familiar with the issue on the clean-up. But if I could, 

I will take that for the record and get that back to the committee. 

[The information follows:] 

Dr. Robyn:—— 

The Air National Guard has completed a baseline survey and environmental characterization of the site, and will meet all statutory obligations for environmental remediation before returning the land. 

Additionally, the Department of the Air Force and, more specifically, the Air National Guard looked into the matter regarding the removal of existing facilities from 

the Air National Guard site at Chattanooga Lovell Field. Under the terms of the 

lease, the City of Chattanooga waived all claims for the Air National Guard to remove or demolish any of the structures on the site. The facilities that remain on 

the site have been maintained to Air Force standards and have been in continual 

use since the 1950s, ready to be used for many more years. The current lease expires in 2050. The Air Force will be returning the land to the city approximately 

40 years earlier than when the lease was signed allowing the Airport flexibility in 

its re-use plans. 

Ms. Ferguson:—— 

The Air National Guard concluded an environmental characterization of the site 

will meet its obligations to remedy any concerns identified in the Baseline Survey 

for environmental remediation before returning the land. 

Additionally, the Department of the Air Force and, more specifically, the Air National Guard looked into the matter regarding the removal of existing facilities from 

the Air National Guard site at Chattanooga Lovell Field. Under the terms of the 

lease, the City of Chattanooga, waived all claims for the Air National Guard to remove or demolish any of the structures on the site. The facilities that remain on 

the site have been maintained to Air Force standards and have been in continual 

use since the 1950s, ready to be used for many more years. The current lease expires in 2050. The Air Force will be returning the land to the city approximately 

40 years earlier than when the lease was signed allowing the Airport flexibility in 

its re-use plans. 

Mr. WAMP. Please. 

Same answer? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. WAMP. Okay, good. 

Thank you. 

Secretary Ferguson, you and I talked about this a year ago, and 

I do think great progress has been made in the general attitudes 

towards joint basing, but the Air Force had the latest heartburn on 

that. I want to follow up on the progress has been made from the 

Air Force’s concern about joint basing that I heard over the last 2 

years? 

Ms. FERGUSON. I think I can confidently say the Air Force no 

longer has any heartburn with joint basing. And, of course, there 

was some history there, but the Air Force has been fully supportive. We sit on all the committees. I think you will not see, if 

you ask the same question to the Chief tomorrow, I do not think 

you will hear any different from him. We are fully supportive and 

engaged. 

And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have got three 

Air Force bases that have reached full operation capability. That 

happened at the end of last year. We are on track to have the remainder fully operational and capable by 1 October of this year. 

The 31st of January this year, we had seven additional bases 

reach Initial Operational Capacity (IOC) from the Air Force side. 

And, in fact, the Air Force has adopted this so much, we are also 

looking at adopting the COLS (Common Output Level Standards) 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
355 

that were developed for joint basing across the rest of the Air Force 

installations. 

So there are still some growing pains, because it is a huge endeavor to take this—what were individual installations doing separate installation management and bringing them together, but Dr. 

Robyn hosted a meeting back in January in Norfolk and had all of 

the installations, all the MAJCOMs there, and it was, I think, the 

best session we have ever had, and it truly showed how much 

progress has been made in the last 18 to 24 months. 

IMPLICATIONS OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. WAMP. The three of us spoke as we were going to the floor 

about a little uncertainty coming out of the hearing today regarding both cost-benefit using actual numbers, trying to give us as 

many details as you possibly can, and, it seems a little bit of division between what is high risk and what is regarded as medium 

or low risk as we head down the stretch. 

I ask, particularly for our professional staff, to be kept apprised 

of what we really expect between this hearing, the movement of the 

bill, the finishing of the conference report, especially on this issue 

of what the potential ramifications would be in the event that a bill 

is not enacted into law in a timely manner. 

This is one of those messy election years. And historically, way 

above Chet Edwards’ pay grade, decisions are made that put 

us—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. At home and at work. 

Mr. WAMP. Right. But this is one of those years where I wish we 

could guarantee that October 1, all the money is going to be made 

available, but I think it would be hard to do. As a result, we need 

to know ahead of time what the ramifications are and what any 

delays of a C.R. for 30 to 60 days might mean. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Robyn, could you comment on—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I am going to let my colleagues comment. I think it 

is a big problem. I think if it is—if it is a week—a week or 2 

weeks—yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But it is a 2, 3, 4–month, if it is December—— 

Ms. ROBYN. It is a problem, yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Appropriation bill rather than October 1, please, if each of you for the record would tell us what the 

implications would be. Do not sugarcoat it. What are the real implications? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Congressman, you know, it is going to depend 

somewhat on what our authorizations are through OMB on what 

we are allowed to expend under the C.R. But we would certainly 

intend to manage that as aggressively as we could to stay on track 

and to keep you informed of any problems that would result from 

that, but it is really very difficult to quantify exactly the impact of, 

say, a 2-month delay without knowing exactly what the rules will 

be for outlays. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think it is possible to get the same level 

of funding in a C.R. that you would have received? The funding levels are coming down now on BRAC. If it is a continuing resolution, 

unlike yours, where you are going up from year to year in BRAC 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
356 

appropriations, would you actually be able to expect to be able to 

have enough money to continue on? 

Mr. HANSEN. We are certainly hopeful that we would, but that 

is—I really cannot say, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I know it is not fair for us to ask you to speak 

for OMB. But I think Mr. Wamp just asked a very important question, and I think we need to get it for the record. And if that means 

we need to get someone from OMB to help answer that question, 

we will do that. 

Let me modify or add to his question. Let’s assume, if for whatever reason, there is a C.R. and OMB does not rule that you can 

get the money, tell us the implications, assuming that you do not 

have the monies you need, the Fulbright money you need, tell me 

what the implications are. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, it will affect the movement of 

the Soldiers’ families and civilians into the facilities that they are— 

their destination facilities and would affect the timeline on that, as 

well as having an impact on quality of life. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. The Department has built in some flexibility 

there. If it goes longer than 30 to 45 days with the C.R., we think 

we can manage about a 30- to 45-day C.R. If it goes any longer 

than that, we are going to have difficulty in meeting all our deadlines. 

Our program is not quite as big as the Air Force and Army, so 

we are not as impacted as them. But—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. What would be a specific problem created, you 

know, Sailors that could not move into new barracks? Or what—— 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Ours are mainly realignments of some of the activities from different locations. So here in the National Capital Region, it would be an issue of relocating some of the people from 

Crystal City to some of the new facilities. And we have some of our 

test equipment coming from Fort Wayne to China Lake that could 

be impacted. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Secretary Ferguson. 

Ms. FERGUSON. The Air Force fiscal year 2011 request is signifi- cantly lower than fiscal year 2010. It is just over $100 million. And 

I agree with Mr. Hansen that the biggest impact will be depending 

on what the OMB determination will be. 

Certainly, we could probably live with it for a short period of 

time. Most of the dollars that we have in our budget request for 

2011 are for similar issues, PCS moves from military and civilian, 

some severance costs, transportation, desktop communication gear, 

things like that. 

So we probably would have some flexibility, although not a significant amount of flexibility, depending on what the ruling would 

be. But we should have a majority of our implementation actions 

complete getting into 2011. So we will really be in the downward 

slope in 2011. 

NEWLY IDENTIFIED TEMPORARY COSTS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp, for asking that. 

Dr. Robyn, let me ask you two questions, if you could answer for 

the record. I would not expect you orally to have an exact answer 

to each of these. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
357 

But yesterday, DOD informed our staff that they had identified 

$189 million in so-called temporary costs in order to meet the September 15, 2011, BRAC deadline. 

Would you please have your staff look at that and see—I would 

like to know for the record in writing some time in the next few 

weeks, if we possibly could, is that the total amount? Or was that 

just a partial picture, so that, again, as we look at costs and benefits, we know what the cost sides are on that? 

[The information follows:] 

Since the March 16, 2010 brief to the SAC staff, the Department has refined costs 

associated with meeting the September 15, 2011, statutory deadline. In particular, 

the Army has revised its construction plans to eliminate a requirement for temporary facilities reducing the required funds. These estimated costs are reflected in 

the table below: 

Fort Bragg San Antonio Belvoir 

Hospital 

Belvoir (Army 

Leases) Total 

FY 10 ........................................................... $12.5M $35M .................... $24M $71.5M 

FY 11 ........................................................... .................... $20M $27M ............................ $47.0M 

Total .................................................... .................... .................... .................... ............................ $118.5M 

The costs in this table are rounded. Note the costs above are additions to the 

BRAC account to ensure the Department’s legal obligation to complete BRAC by 

Sept 15 2011. It should be noted that accelerating these projects through application 

of this additional funding reduces the Department’s exposure to the additional costs 

resulting from longer construction timelines. 

Secondly would be, the cost of BRAC, the $35 billion or so, plus 

transportation, cost of improving roads, for example, Belvoir and 

around Bethesda, those are real. The cost savings of $4 billion a 

year sometimes are tangible, sometimes they are very intangible. 

Would you please submit when you can to the subcommittee a detailed description of, how did we get to that $4 billion in savings? 

[The information follows:] 

Below is a detailed description of the ∼$4 billion in BRAC 2005 savings: 

Category Savings ($) 

Operation & Maintenance (includes civilian personnel) ................................................................... $900M 

Military Personnel ............................................................................................................................... $1,800M 

Other ................................................................................................................................................... $1,100M 

Total ........................................................................................................................................... $3.8B 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is that identified number of personnel that do not 

have to be hired? Or is it generally assumed better efficiencies if 

the Army and Air Force are working together? And I would just 

like to get some sense of how much of that is tangible and how 

much of that is intangible. 

And, obviously, as you so very well pointed out in your opening 

comments, there are some significant non-cost benefits to BRAC. At 

least on the cost savings, I would like to look at those numbers 

that tend to be a little more squishy than the actual cost of implementing BRAC. 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay, good. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
358 

FORT BLISS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hansen, could I ask you, what is the implication for BRAC and Fort Bliss of the decision, if it is finalized, to 

keep two additional Army brigades in Europe? And are there any 

facilities you have already built at Bliss that were intended for 

those brigades? And if so, what do you do with those facilities? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The current 

BCT complexes are either intended—are either being used for an 

existing BCT or for other units that had immediate needs for facilities. And we had more than one staff visit down there to examine 

that to ensure that we were—that that money was being used for 

a legitimate purpose. And they do have certainly the capability of 

if another brigade comes back to be able to accommodate that, as 

well. 

But the construction at Bliss is continuing. We did not have to 

make any major modifications to that as a result of that decision. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Are there some savings at Bliss because of that? 

I would normally think that there are costs in accommodating two 

brigades, there are savings in not having to accommodate two brigades. 

Obviously, there will be more expenses for improving facilities 

and building new ones in Europe, but is there no cost savings from 

not bringing—I guess one of those brigades was scheduled for Fort 

Hood. So let me say at Bliss—I mean, at Bliss. So there should be 

some cost savings for that, shouldn’t there? 

Mr. HANSEN. I would think so, Mr. Chairman, but I do not have 

a figure for that. We can get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

The projects in FY 11 at Fort Bliss that support Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) remain as legitimate requirements. They are the Indoor Aquatics 

Training Center and South Overpass Across US 54. 

There are, however, projects in the President’s Budget Future Years Defense Plan 

that will no longer be needed at Fort Bliss should the decision be made to keep both 

Brigades in Europe. A detailed analysis is ongoing to determine specifically what 

projects would no longer be required. 

In addition, the Army Staff must analyze the cumulative impacts to Fort Bliss 

of the decision to halt Brigade growth at 45 and the potential decision to keep 

GDPR Brigades in Europe. It is possible there are other projects, for example range 

projects, that might no longer be required at current scope. We expect details to be 

available later this year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. If you could just follow up with the committee, what are the BRAC and/or MILCON savings as a result of 

that brigade not coming to Fort Bliss? And then we will talk to 

your European Command folks about what additional costs they 

will have for keeping those two brigades there. 

Where the second brigade was scheduled for—New Mexico, is 

that correct? 

Mr. HANSEN. That would have been an additional one. There 

were the three that—are you talking about—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Two brigades from Europe. The two brigades that 

were scheduled to come back—— 

Mr. HANSEN. One was coming to White Sands, yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. One was coming to White Sands, one 

was coming to Fort Bliss. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
359 

Mr. HANSEN. And the secretary announced that the one—that 

there was not going to be one going to White Sands. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you also look at what savings there might 

be for not having to build facilities at White Sands? Or are there 

other actions presumably? 

And finally, let me just say, it seems that a couple of the highrisk challenges in terms of meeting the BRAC deadline deal with 

hospitals. And just to let you know, I might have an interest in 

having our staff meet with the Surgeons General of the Army and 

the Navy just to ask them specifically. Are you having to, for example, cut quality for a hospital that will be providing health care 

servicemen and women and their families for the next 30, 40 or 50 

years? Are you having to cut corners, not build something you otherwise would have built? 

And I think we will just maybe have a direct conversation with 

them and I am not pushing to have us miss any of the deadline 

on any of these projects, but at the same time, I am far more interested in health care for the next 50 years for servicemen and 

women, and I want to be sure we are not arbitrarily cutting corners, reducing services, not building what might have taken 6 

months more to build if we had done it right. 

So after we have those conversations with them—and I know you 

work with them on a regular basis—we will follow up on—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Is your question, is BRAC MILCON crowding out 

non-BRAC MILCON? Or is this related to meeting the deadline? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Basically relating to meeting the deadline. 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay. Okay. All right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Again, more eloquently and more succinctly and 

more persuasively than anyone I have heard mention, you mentioned—you expressed why there is a good reason to stick to a 

deadline. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But particularly when you are talking about hospitals, I want to be sure we are not cutting corners. 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me just say, I am not aware of that. Neither of 

our high-risk, two high-risk actions are medical infrastructure. It 

is not the hospital at Belvoir. It is not Walter Reed. It is the Mark 

Center and the non-medical Personnel Belvoir. 

In general, medical infrastructure has benefited enormously from 

this BRAC round. It has been one of the things that we focused on, 

particularly in San Antonio and in the National Capital Region. 

And this BRAC 2005 has been an engine of recapitalization of our 

facilities. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And this committee has really been committed to 

that, because we have added several billion dollars above administration requests for other hospital modernizations, so that is why 

we have a special interest in the hospital recapitalization. Okay. 

Thank you for that. 

Mr. Farr. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE IMPLEMENTATION

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

Dr. Robyn, I have a couple of questions. One is on the EDC law 

that we passed last year. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
360 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. When will the regulations be implemented? 

Ms. ROBYN. I cannot give you an exact date. We have an internal 

process that we are working—— 

Mr. FARR. Have they been promulgated yet? 

Ms. ROBYN. Not draft regs. I put out a memo to the services in— 

which was a policy memo indicating—which provided interim guidance—— 

Mr. FARR. Are not you going to drive it? 

Ms. ROBYN. Oh, yes. No, I am driving it. 

Mr. FARR. And then how will the communities have input to the 

regulations? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, we—a couple weeks ago—— 

Mr. FARR. Is it regular rulemaking? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. There are a couple of different ways to do it, 

but, yes, I anticipate interim regs on which we get public comment, 

but we are—— 

Mr. FARR. Do you think it will be done this year? 

Ms. ROBYN. Oh, absolutely, yes. No, it will be done this year, but 

we are—you know, I think—I mean, the lesson that I have learned 

from my years of working with the services on base reuse is that 

I want them to be part of the process and feel ownership in it, rather than having the Office of the Secretary put something out saying, ‘‘You shall do this.’’ It does not, and—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, that will be nice. I think the defense community 

is very interested in when will they see draft regs so that they can 

comment on them. 

Ms. ROBYN. I mean, we are trying now—the services and my office are working together now to figure this out, so it is—I think 

you are seeing change already. Roger talked about Treasure Island. 

Jerry talked about Kansas Army Ammunition Depot. So there has 

already been a response. I do not think you—— 

Mr. FARR. I mean, can you make those deals without the regulations? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Oh, no. Once the law is changed—— 

Mr. FARR. Then you can do it? 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. We have an obligation to follow the new 

law. We are no longer obligated—— 

Mr. FARR. The process of developing the regs is going to be open 

and transparent—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And probably online? 

Ms. ROBYN. We met—yes. Several weeks ago, the Association of 

Defense Communities had a conference in Albuquerque, and we 

were there in force meeting with the communities to get their 

input. And also with the—it was an occasion to sit down with people from the services who aren’t in Washington, but—— 

Mr. FARR. So let me just get it clear. You are going to get the 

regs drafted? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes. No, my office is—— 

Mr. FARR. And you are going to put them for public comment? 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. Yes. Right. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. And that will happen—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
361 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Sooner than later? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

CLEAN-UP

Mr. FARR. Let me ask you another question, and I do not know 

if it is for you or Mr. Hansen, because it really deals with an Army 

base. The law says that before transferring land that the dirt has 

to be cleaned up, I mean, the ground, anything in the ground, the 

water, anything that is in there. 

But it does not apply to buildings on top of it. What I have found 

at Fort Ord is that we have some old Army barracks. They have 

lead paint. The Army whitewashed the buildings. Gasoline was 

used to cut the paint. 

These barracks have asbestos. They have PCBs. That contamination was created by the Army, but the Army does not pay to clean 

it up or deconstruct those barracks. 

And so what happens is the REUSE authority has millions of 

dollars in clean-up expenses, but no way to pay for it, so the buildings are just sitting there. The law calls for transferring the property only when it is clean. But clean, as I said, to the ground and 

the water, not the infrastructure. 

So what can be done to change this? We really need to get access 

to some capital to deconstruct and clean up these buildings. Some 

of them are concrete. Some of them are wood. The wood is not so 

hard, because they just grind it up, unfortunately. It is beautiful 

wood. But still, there is no money available to do this. I mean, the 

big concrete stuff is really difficult to clean. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we probably should come back to you for 

the record for that one, sir, but I would say that, even those that 

we have conveyed, we certainly have—we recognize our continuing 

responsibility under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program. 

And we continue to entertain some very old claims from places we 

have conveyed many years ago, and we will certainly consider—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, I am looking at these contaminated buildings 

and trying to figure out how to tackle the contamination problem, 

because so far, I have been working on it for 17 years and have 

not found an answer. So hopefully you can put your resources, and 

those of the entire United States military into figuring out how to 

do this. 

Also, while I have you on that, you have done a good job on the 

ESCA with the local Fort Ord reuse authority to clean-up lands 

that will be transferred and reused by communities and private 

sector. But we have not worked out an agreement on how to cleanup the lands which remain in federal ownership, in this case, the 

Bureau of Land Management BLM. 

Have you got a plan to get BLM and the Army together to cleanup those lands? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sam, before we cut short their answer, because I 

think it is an important question, could I ask that we go vote and 

then come back? We only have a couple minutes. I think we have 

2 minutes left—let me just say very quickly, if this is a problem 

for any of you, I will respect you not being able to be here, but we 

have a second panel scheduled to talk about environmental cleanVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
362 

up issues. It is an issue this committee has a great interest in, and 

Mr. Farr has been the champion of this issue. 

Normally, we would have assumed that you had planned on 

being here at least until noon, and I would like to ask if any of you 

or all of you could stay. 

But I just think it would be good to move this discussion forward, 

if you could stay here. If you have appointments that you had made 

and cannot break or should not break, I had not previously asked 

this of you, so—— 

Ms. ROBYN. No, no, no. I would very much like—— 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. About that. We will stay in recess, 

and we will come back after this vote or after the next couple of 

votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I do not think Mr. Wamp would mind if we called 

the committee back to order. And we won’t do anything by unanimous consent. 

So, Mr. Farr, I would like to recognize—— 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. FARR. If we can just—the BLM at Fort Ord. This is a lingering issue of how we get that cleaned up. It has been a discrepancy in what—how the clean-up has to be done between BLM and 

Army, with the degree of clean-up and price and all of that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. I think we have really 

resolved any issues that we had with BLM over that. As you know, 

we have conveyed all the property to Ord that is planned for economic redevelopment. And the remaining 7,100 acres are primarily 

within the old impact area, which is set apart as the BLM managed conservation area. 

And we are projecting the transfer of 120 acres this fiscal year 

and remaining acres dependent on the clean-up of the impact area, 

which is limited by the burn restrictions that we are basically 

burning Marine chaparral in there, and there are limits on it because of the toxicity of that and how much that can be burned over 

a period of time. 

Mr. FARR. No, that is not the reason for the limits on the burn. 

It is just that that is how much you can clean-up afterwards. You 

burn land in the amount for which you have enough manpower to 

go in and clean it. It is not because of toxicity. Do not go there. 

They have already proven—— 

Mr. HANSEN. Okay, sir. Thank you for the correction. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. That that is not toxic. 

Mr. HANSEN. Okay. But they are controlled burns, heavily regulated, constrained by the size of the amount of the smoke—— 

Mr. FARR. I am aware of all that. Would you get to our office and 

figure out—or get a more specific as to what the clean-up schedule 

will be with BLM? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir, I will. 

Mr. FARR. Thanks. 

[The information follows:] 

The cleanup of the remaining 7,100 acre conservation parcel has in fact begun 

with four areas having undergone prescribed burning to remove surface vegetation 

prior to munitions cleanup. Cleanup of the entire 7,100 acres will most likely reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
363 

quire more than 10 years due to the complexity of the process including habitat 

management requirements, the size of the area, the 800 acre annual burning limitation, and public concern about smoke during the prescribed burns. Before every 

burn, the Army must coordinate with the California Department of Toxic Substance 

Control (DTSC), in case any toxic substances are located; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to ensure that rare, endangered and threatened species are protected; the 

Environmental Protection Agency, to monitor the overall environmental impact of 

the burn; the California Air Resources Board and Monterey Bay United Air Pollution District, for concerns over smoke from the burn; and the Federal Aviation Administration, whose concern is the possibility that smoke could obscure visibility at 

nearby Monterey Airport. All these agencies have a voice in approval for a burn. 

UNDERSEA REMEDIATION

And then I have one question for Mr. Natsuhara. Is the Navy engaged in undersea remediation with BRAC clean-up? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. I am not aware. Undersea—— 

Mr. FARR. You have unexploded ordnances under the ocean. You 

have been out in Hawaii, Kahoolawe, and some of the other islands 

there. And I am sure there is some clean-up that you have to do 

down in Puerto Rico. Are there any other places? I mean, you are 

engaged in that, aren’t you? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. I am not aware of it. We will have to take that 

for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The Army is conducting research to satisfy the requirements of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public Law No. 109–364 

(2006), Section 314, that, among other requirements, authorized the Department of 

Defense (DoD) to research the effects of sea disposed munitions in United States 

coastal waters on the ocean environment and those who use it, and of the ocean environment on sea disposed munitions. The Army’s efforts have focused on two sea 

disposal sites off Oahu, Hawaii. One of these areas is Sea Disposal Site Hawaii– 

06 (HI–06), which is an area off Waianae that is locally referred to as Ordnance 

Reef. At HI–06, conventional munitions were sea disposed in waters at depths of 

30 to over 300 feet. The other is HI–05, which is an area approximately 5 miles 

south of Pearl Harbor. At HI–05 both conventional and chemical munitions are believed to have been sea disposed in waters in excess of 1,000 feet of depth. 

The Army’s focus has been on developing methods and procedures, such as sampling protocols, for characterizing sea disposal sites as Section 314 requires and determining the effects of sea disposed military munitions, as described above. It has 

also studied the feasibility of remediating sea disposed military munitions and of 

taking other safety measures. Later this or early next year, the Army will use HI– 

06 (Ordnance Reef) as a demonstration site for assessing commercial technology 

that is used in underwater oil exploration that has been adapted for the remote recovery of underwater military munitions. During this assessment certain military 

munitions at HI–06 at depths between 30 and 120 feet will be recovered and subsequently destroyed during a concurrent assessment of barge-mounted destruction 

technology. 

Although the Army is conducting this research related to sea disposed military 

munitions, DoD does not conduct environmental restoration actions (removal or remediation) to address sea disposed munitions. The DoD does conduct environmental 

restoration actions at land-based Munitions Response Sites (MRS) along the US territorial shoreline where underwater munitions originating at the MRS have washed 

ashore as a result of natural phenomena, have been determined to have a potential 

to either wash ashore or impact the public who may use the shoreline, or have been 

brought to shore as a result of human activities, such as dredging and fishing. 

There are no other locations at which the Army is currently conducting research. 

The Services are working together to assemble archival information on sea disposal 

sites. The Army is also assembling information on operational and former ranges 

that impact US coastal waters. 

Ocean disposal of excess, obsolete unserviceable munitions began at least as early 

as the late 1800s and continued through 1970 when DoD ceased the practice. In 

1971, the Secretary of the Navy formally ended the practice and it was prohibited, 

unless authorized by a permit, by Congress in 1972 with the passage of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The Environmental Protection 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
364 

Agency has no record of a permit being issued for ocean disposal of munitions following passage of the MPRSA. 

Maps showing the locations of know munitions disposal sites in US coastal waters 

are provided in the FY08 Defense Environmental Program Annual Report to Congress (Appendix Q: Sea Disposal of Military Munitions). This information will be updated in the FY09 report. 

Mr. FARR. Could you also give us some lists or maps of the undersea munitions that need to be cleaned up? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Yes, sir. We will take that for the record, and 

we will get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

The Army is not conducting munitions response actions (cleanup) to address underwater munitions in the ocean. Pursuant to PL 109–364 (2006), Section 314, the 

Army has reported to DoD on military munitions sea disposal sites in US coastal 

waters. DoD reports these sites for all DoD Components, with maps showing their 

approximate locations, in its Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to 

Congress (DEP ARC). In the 2008 DEP ARC, the lists of these sites are found in 

Appendix Q. 

Mr. FARR. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Congressman, the Army is involved with the 

UXO there, including in Hawaii, as executive agents. And we can 

provide that for you. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. 

I do not have any more— questions on this round. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. No further questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, thank you all for your testimony. 

Secretary Ferguson, I know you had some pre-existing commitments, and we will respect that, and thank you for your service 

and for being here today. 

And, Mr. Natsuhara, if I could ask, if you could move down into 

Mr. Ferguson’s seat, and, Mr. Hansen, if you could sit where Judge 

Carter normally sits. And thank you for staying. 

I am going to hand the gavel over to Mr. Farr. He has been a 

real champion year in and year out on the issue of environmental 

clean-up. And I have asked him to take the lead in helping us work 

through these issues and how we can make more progress in this 

area. 

So, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR [presiding]. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate having this second panel. 

This is a panel with the director of natural resources and environment, Government Accountability Office, Ms. Anu Mittal, and 

she is responsible for leading the GAO’s work in the area of defense, environmental clean-up, as well as the federal lands and 

water resources. She served with the GAO since 1989 in various 

capacities, and she has an MBA from the University of Massachusetts. 

The other panelist is Suzy Cantor-McKinney, vice president of 

the National Association of Ordnance Explosive Waste—is that it? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. Ordnance and Explosive Waste Contractors. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And Explosive Waste Contractors, the private sector that is doing the work. And I want to thank you both 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
365 

for being here today and give us some insights. You have heard the 

testimony this morning on clean-up and could respond to that. 

If you have written statements, they will be entered in the 

record. And what we would ask is that you summarize your remarks in about 5 minutes. And then we will begin the questioning. 

So why do not we begin first with Ms. Mittal? 

STATEMENT OF ANU MITTAL

Ms. MITTAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased 

to be here today to discuss GAO’s recent work relating to DOD’s 

environmental remediation efforts at former defense sites. 

As you know, defense sites can be contaminated with a variety 

of hazards, and DOD is obligated to ensure that they are cleaned 

up in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment before they are transferred to other owners. 

However, the need to clean up contaminants at the BRAC sites 

has historically been a key impediment to the expeditious transfer 

of these properties to others. My testimony today will briefly cover 

information on how DOD allocates clean-up funding for BRAC and 

other sites, the status of clean-up at these sites, and some issues 

that we have identified that can impact clean-up at former defense 

sites. 

Under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, known 

as DERP, DOD conducts environmental restoration activities on 

former and active installations. DOD has identified over 31,600 

sites eligible for clean-up under DERP. These sites include active 

and BRAC sites, as well as FUDS. The total number of BRAC sites 

eligible for clean-up under DERP has increased since 2004 from 

5,150 to 5,445 in 2008. 

With regard to funding for clean-up activities, we found that 

DOD uses the same method to allocate funds for clean-up at FUDS, 

active sites, and BRAC sites. Clean-up funding is generally based 

on DERP goals and is generally proportional to the number of sites 

in each of the three categories. 

For example, BRAC sites requiring clean-up account for about 17 

percent of the total number of defense sites that need clean-up, and 

they received about 25 percent of the funding obligated for cleanup in fiscal year 2008. 

The amount of annual funding obligated for BRAC clean-up has increased since 2004, as well. It was $314 million in 2004, and it 

was over $520 million in 2008. 

The total estimated costs to complete clean-up at BRAC sites has also increased since 2004. It has gone from $3.2 billion in 2004 to 

$3.7 billion in 2008. 

With regard to DERP goals, the program includes target dates 

representing when the current inventory of sites are expected to 

complete various phases of the clean-up process, such as achieve 

the remedy-in-place or response complete milestones. 

DOD has established remedy-in-place and response complete 

milestones for all of the BRAC sites. And as of fiscal year 2008, 72 

percent of all BRAC sites had reached the response complete milestone. In response to Congressman Farr’s earlier question about 

how many BRAC sites still need to be cleaned up, as of 2008, there 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
366 

were 1,492 sites that had not reached the response complete milestone. 

Because DOD does not have adequate funds to clean up all sites 

at once, it requires all of the components to rank their inventory 

of BRAC and other sites by relative risk to help make informed decisions about which sites it needs to clean up first. Using these relative risk categories, as well as many other factors, the components 

set more specific restoration targets each fiscal year. 

For FUDS, we have found that one factor that can influence the 

amount of funding available for clean-up is the extent to which 

long-term monitoring needs to happen at these sites. This is a very 

real concern for BRAC sites because, as of fiscal year 2008, there 

were 440 BRAC sites that required long-term management activities. 

Our past work has also identified a number of issues that can 

impact environmental clean-up activities, including those at BRAC 

sites. For example, we have reported that DOD’s preliminary cost 

estimates for environmental clean-up reported to Congress may not 

reflect the full cost of clean-up. This is because costs are generally 

expected to increase as more information becomes known about the 

extent of the clean-up needed at a site. 

In addition, we have reported that three factors can lead to 

delays in the clean-up and transfer of sites. These include, first, 

technological constraints that limit DOD’s ability to accurately 

identify, detect and clean-up potential hazards from specific sites; 

second, prolonged negotiations between environmental regulators 

and DOD about the extent to which DOD’s actions are in compliance with applicable environmental regulations and laws can also 

lead to delays; and third, the discovery of previously unknown environmental contamination can result in the need for further cleanup, cost increases, and delays in property transfer. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the data indicate that DOD 

is making progress in cleaning up its contaminated sites, these 

data also show that a significant amount of work remains to be 

done. Given the large number of sites that DOD must cleanup, we 

recognize that it faces a significant challenge. 

Addressing this challenge, however, is critical, because environmental clean-up can be a key impediment to the expeditious transfer of unneeded defense properties. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Anu Mittal follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
367 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 56870B.045
368 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 56870B.046
369 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 56870B.047
370 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 56870B.048
371 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 56870B.049
372 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 56870B.050
373 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 56870B.051
374 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 56870B.052
375 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 56870B.053
376 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 56870B.054
377 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 56870B.055
378 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 56870B.056
379 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 56870B.057
380 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 56870B.058
381 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 56870B.059
382 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Ms. Suzy Cantor-McKinney. 

STATEMENT OF SUZY CANTOR-MCKINNEY

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wamp, 

and committee members, I am honored to be here today to represent the National Association of Ordnance and Explosive Waste 

Contractors, otherwise commonly known as NAOC. 

We are trade association for firms who are involved in the detection and clean-up of unexploded ordnance, UXO, on active military 

bases, formerly used defense sites, FUDS, and BRAC sites. NAOC 

includes 69 member companies that participate in the entire spectrum of clean-up, from the development of detection technologies to 

the actual cleanup of UXO at these sites. 

I am here today to speak about the environmental restoration 

and clean up on BRAC sites, and I am grateful for the opportunity 

to speak to you on behalf of NAOC about this important issue. 

I want to thank Chairman Edwards for his leadership and for 

holding this hearing. And in addition, I would like to thank Congressman Farr for championing this issue. 

According to the 2008 Defense Environmental Programs Annual 

Report to Congress, over the past 10 years, Congress has provided 

$5.8 billion for environmental activities at BRAC installations. Annual appropriations for clean-up of BRAC sites have remained relatively consistent; however, of the total amount appropriated for 

environmental clean up, only approximately $60 million per year is 

spent on military munitions clean-up at legacy BRAC sites, or preBRAC 2005. 

This is a rough number, as there are no requirements to report 

funding for expenditures for munitions clean-up separately from 

the traditional hazardous waste clean up. 

This funding is inadequate to address the military munitions 

clean-up of the legacy BRAC sites. Currently, there are 84 legacy 

BRAC military munitions response sites, with a total cost to complete of $643 million. 

BRAC 2005 includes an additional 38 military munitions response sites, with a cost to complete of $329 million. And a detailed 

list is included as an attachment to this testimony. 

The backlog on clean-up of legacy BRAC sites is a problem that 

has been addressed by this body itself. The problem was specifically addressed in Senate Report 110–428 and House Report 110– 

775, which accompanied the fiscal year 2009 military construction 

and veterans affairs appropriations bills. 

In the Senate version it was stated, ‘‘The committee remains concerned about the backlog of environmental remediation activities 

required to complete the clean-up of U.S. military installations 

closed during previous BRAC rounds. The most recent estimate of 

the cost to complete the clean-up of these bases is approximately 

$3 billion. 

‘‘The committee recognizes that lengthy delays in completing environmental clean up at shuttered bases hampers the ability of 

communities to put valuable property to economically and socially 

productive uses, and it believes that a more robust funding for the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
383 

BRAC 1990 account will help to accelerate the clean-up and the 

reuse of these bases.’’ 

The fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act included a $100 million plus-up from the president’s request for legacy BRAC, and we were very thankful for this 

request or this increase. However, when compared to the fiscal year 

2009 appropriation, it is truly only a $38 million plus-up from the 

previous year. 

When one looks at the scope of the problem and the cost to clean 

up these legacy BRAC sites, one can see that there is still much 

to do. When installations are closed, the local economy has little 

chance of recovery until the sites are transferred to allow safe use 

for their newly identified purposes. 

Limited funding delays the required clean-up, which delays the 

transfer of this land from DOD to private entities and municipalities for non-military use and tax-generating activities. With a 

weakened economy and a possible prolonged recession, the timely 

clean-up of transferred and transferring sites, which protects the 

public and provides for economic development, is extremely important. 

Though some BRAC sites have been transferred, previous reports 

from GAO have noted that environmental clean-up requirements 

present the primary challenge to transfer these remaining properties. 

For fiscal year 2011, the DOD has requested $47 million to address remaining munitions hazards on these legacy BRAC sites. 

And at this rate, the program will take approximately 13 to 14 

years to complete. Many sites are projected for completion in 2015 

and beyond and in several cases over 20 years after the installations were identified for closure. This was not the intent of the 

BRAC legislation. 

A good example of a BRAC installation that has remaining sites 

awaiting clean-up is Fort Ord, located in California. Fort Ord is 

one of the most beautiful BRAC sites in the country, with high 

value real estate ripe for redevelopment. The remaining cost to 

clean up Fort Ord is $275 million, with a site at this installation 

having a completion date listed far into the future at 2023. 

Fort Ord was closed in BRAC 1991, with the expectation to clean 

up and turn over the property to Fort Ord Redevelopment Authority within just a few years. While much progress has been made, 

there is still much to do. Other legacy BRAC sites which could be 

redeveloped and bring new jobs and increase tax bases are located 

in Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Texas. 

NAOC, as a representative of the companies performing UXO 

work, believes that the industry has significant untapped capacity 

and will be able to execute additional work if BRAC receives additional funding. It is our estimate that the industry can currently 

support funding of approximately $1.5 billion per year, while the 

DOD funding for the clean-up of UXO has traditionally been about 

$500 million per year. 

And we do understand that there are limiting factors, such as 

the government’s ability to issue contracts and the resource constraints that might be imposed by the regulatory community. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
384 

Our member companies employ more than 250,000 people in 

every state of the union. Munitions response projects can require 

a wide variety of labor disciplines to execute this work, including 

UXO technicians, engineers, scientists, geophysicists, general laborers, surveyors, risk assessors, and public relations specialists. 

Our industry demonstrated our ability to manage and execute 

surge capacity between 2003 and 2008 when we executed approximately $1.7 billion supporting the—$1.7 billion supporting Captured Enemy Ammunition/Coalition Munitions Clearance program 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These efforts were accomplished in addition to the domestic clean-up sites that were being 

simultaneously conducted, and they were executed by large and 

small companies. 

In summary, it is in our national and economic interest to appropriate adequate funds for the timely and complete clean-up of UXO 

on legacy BRAC sites. Again, the National Association of Ordnance 

and Explosive Waste Contractors appreciates this opportunity to 

appear before this subcommittee and to provide you with information on the pace of clean-up of the BRAC sites and the challenges 

that we are facing in accomplishing the task of completing this 

clean-up. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Suzy Cantor-McKinney follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
385 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 56870B.060
386 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 56870B.061
387 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 56870B.062
388 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 56870B.063
389 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 56870B.064
390 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 56870B.065
391 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 56870B.066
392 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for your testimony. And it will 

be entered into the record. And we appreciate both of you coming. 

And let’s open up this dialogue. 

Do I lead off with questions, Mr. Chairman? I am not you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is your gavel, Mr. Chairman. 

UXO CLEAN-UP

Mr. FARR. All right. Perhaps Dr. Robyn can enter in here. The 

issue here is your testimony says that we are doing all that we can 

do, that we do not really need more money to do it, and here the 

industry says they can absorb $1.5 billion in work. 

It is labor intensive. Congress is in a mood to create jobs. What 

kind of training does one need to do UXO clean-up? Is there a 

training program? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. For the actual ordnance removal from 

the ground, there are requirements, either have graduated from a 

military ordnance and explosives school or to have undergone 

training through one of the—they are called Tech 1 schools that individuals can apply and undergo that training. So there are specific 

requirements to actually remove the ordnance from the ground. 

Mr. FARR. Is there any stimulus funding to do that training? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. I can check into that for the record. I 

am not sure. 

Mr. FARR. The people behind you are nodding no. And how many 

people did you say the industry employs? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. We have over 250,000 within the companies and the unexploded ordnance technicians who are available for 

work. 

Mr. FARR. If you had full funding, how many jobs would that— 

you would have that full impact? How many jobs right now? What 

is the unemployment rate in there? I mean—— 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. I would have to check on that for the 

record. I am not sure the actual employment rate versus that 

surge. Most of the ordnance technicians, they worked for companies 

for a period of time and then perhaps moved to another company, 

so they are not full-time employees, and so I would need to research some of those data points. 

Mr. FARR. I guess what I am trying to get at is that there seems 

to be capacity out there in the private sector to be able to do a lot 

more work. It is labor-intensive. 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. It is. 

Mr. FARR. It is beneficial. And yet part of our stimulus attitude, 

whether it is in the stimulus bill or in the defense appropriations 

bill, that there ought to be some money to get this work done. And 

your testimony was that you do not need any more money. 

Ms. ROBYN. I did not mean to imply we could not do more, that 

I think the constraint is, as it always is, it is the—it is the competition for a number of very, very worthy things. 

I mean, could the Defense Department—I do not disagree the capacity is there. I guess I would—and I am not trying to change the 

subject—but I would love to get Ms. McKinney’s view on the role 

of technology advancement, which is, again, what I see as getting 

beyond particularly in the munitions area. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
393 

Mr. FARR. Well, she listed in her priorities there that technology 

limits was number-one priority. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. The second was prolonged environmental negotiations. 

And the third was the discovery of unintended consequences of 

things with previous contamination. So it was the number-one 

issue. I do not think there is any disagreement on that. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

CLEAN-UP ESTIMATES

Mr. FARR. Can I ask the GAO a question? It seems to me that 

we are not going at this rate of estimating what the work is. You 

said that 17 percent of the BRAC sites need cleaning up and that 

we have 25 percent of the total defense funds obligated for this 

purpose spent on cleaning up. It is like you are trying to force a 

round peg into a square hole. 

Why not know the entire cost of the clean-up you have to do 

through estimates—— 

Ms. MITTAL. No, I completely agree. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And then set a budget to do that? 

Ms. MITTAL. Sure. One of the frustrations that we have had with 

the way DOD presents information about the total clean-up costs 

for the BRAC program is the fact that they fragment all of the different pieces in four different documents that they provide to Congress. 

So the last time we tried to estimate how much it was going to 

cost or how much the BRAC clean-ups had cost up to a certain 

point and how much more they were going to cost, it took us quite 

a bit of work to try to pool all of these various documents together 

and come up with an estimate. 

So I completely agree with you. We believe there needs to be 

more transparency and more clarity in how DOD presents the information to Congress how much the BRAC environmental cleanup is going to cost. 

The 17 percent that I mentioned was because sometimes we hear 

arguments from the FUDS program or the BRAC program or the 

active installations that they are not getting their fair share of the 

total dollars. And what we were trying to do was do an analysis 

to show that each of the categories of properties receive a proportional amount of the total amount of funding available. 

So 17 percent of all DOD’s properties that need cleaning up are 

BRAC properties that need clean-up, and they have received 25 

percent of the total funding available. That is the point I was trying to make. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. So how do we get exactly what is needed? Can 

you provide us those—— 

Ms. MITTAL. Well, the last time we did this analysis was in 2007. 

And at that point, we estimated that for the first four BRAC 

rounds, environmental clean-up—that was DERP, as well as nonDERP-related clean-up—would cost an estimated $13.2 billion. 

At that point in time when we did our analysis, DOD did not 

have really good numbers on what round five was going to cost. 

There was a lot of incomplete information, so at that point they 

were talking about close to a billion dollars for round five, but that 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
394 

was based on incomplete, preliminary information. We have not 

gone back to redo that analysis, but I am sure that we would be 

happy to work with the committee and try to do that if you needed 

it. 

Mr. FARR. So is clean-up being factored into the COBRA model? 

It does not sound like it. 

Ms. ROBYN. No, because we have an obligation to clean that up, 

BRAC or non-BRAC, so we do not treat that as a BRAC cost. 

Mr. FARR. But we are not appropriating enough money to do it. 

Here we are—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Well—— 

Mr. FARR. Congress has asked to close these bases. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And then you are going to have all these savings. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. But you do not factor in what the clean-up costs are 

going to be. And when we find them, you are saying, well, it is 

being paid for, but there is not enough money in the account to do 

all the clean-up it has to do. I mean, how many years did you say 

it is going to take to do all the things that are on the list, if you 

need $3 billion more in clean-up? 

Ms. MITTAL. The cost is $3.7 billion to complete. That will take 

many years, yes. 

Mr. FARR. How many? 

Ms. MITTAL. We have not calculated. I know for the FUDS program, DOD has estimated 50 years. 

Mr. FARR. Fifty? 

Ms. MITTAL. Fifty. That is just for the FUDS program. We have 

not looked at the BRAC program, specifically to match it out, but 

I would expect it would be several decades at the rate at which 

funding is made available annually. 

Mr. FARR. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Congress is not getting 

the full cost of BRAC if they are not putting these factors in here. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I agree. 

Mr. FARR. So, Mr. Wamp, did you have a question? 

CONTRACTORS

Mr. WAMP. In East Tennessee, there are some very effective 8(a) 

contractors in the ordnance business, and I would like to find out, 

particularly from the contractor community, is there an average, 

above average, below average percent of minority or 8(a) contractors that do ordnance work? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. We can provide for the record the specific breakout of the companies and their status that hold current 

contracts. The munitions contracts are competitively bid through 

the Army and the Corps of Engineers. And that opportunity is provided to all status of firms. 

We would be happy to provide the breakout of the current firms 

that hold contracts and their business status. 

Mr. WAMP. Are the 250,000 employees that are in your industry 

mostly small-business people or are there large contractors that do 

a lot of this work? What is the mix of who does this work? 

Ms. CANTOR-MCKINNEY. There is a very nice mix of small businesses. There are a significant number of small businesses that 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
395 

hold munitions contracts. And as far as the number of employees, 

again, the ordnance technicians tend to not be a permanent technician with a specific company for longevity. They will work from 

company to company based upon where those project sites might 

be. 

So I can definitely for the record provide the permanent status 

of positions with each of the companies that they are broken out. 

Mr. WAMP. In my district, the Volunteer Army Ammunitions 

Plant, which remained active, but was not producing ammunition 

when I came into office, was closed in the 1998 defense authorization bill in the House by me and in the Senate by Senator Thompson. This was not one of the waves of BRAC, but it occured under 

the BRAC process, and is considerd a BRAC closure. 

Ironically, out of the 7,000 acres, about 2,500 of it is now a green 

space buffer between the residential and education community next 

door. About 2,500 acres is the original contaminated site. Ironically, the other 2,000 acres is where Volkswagen now has their billion-dollar-plus U.S. production facility under construction, which 

was exactly what we were trying to accomplish. 

But, frankly, we see very little remediation of that original site. 

We are very fortunate to actually be able to deem it as kind of a 

green space for the VW production facility land adjacent to the 

original area and clear the water adjacent to it. 

I wonder if your studies include projects like ours, which was 

closed under the BRAC process, but not in one of the waves. I assume that it is in one of those 30-some-odd sites that you would 

include in your total. Do you have any idea if the Volunteer Army 

Ammunitions Plant in Chattanooga is one of your sites? 

Ms. MITTAL. I am not aware, if that site is but I can definitely 

check and can get back. 

Mr. WAMP. Please get back to me and let me know if that is one 

of those that you are including in this list of $3 billion of yet to 

be cleaned up. 

Ms. MITTAL. Sure. 

Mr. WAMP. That is all I have. And this has been insightful, Mr. 

Farr. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Let’s see if I had one other question here. 

Oh, Mr. Edwards? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FARR. Give me the gavel, and—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. You are using it well. 

NUMBER OF BRAC SITES NOT CLEANED UP

Ms. Mittal, could I ask, would you happen to have any numbers 

of the number of BRAC sites that have not been cleaned up by 

BRAC round, going back to 1988, how many of those sites have not 

been cleaned up, 1991? 

Ms. MITTAL. I do not have that data with me, but we can definitely go back and look at the information we have and provide it 

for the record. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Dr. Robyn, we had not asked you to prepare 

that kind of information, but you would not happen to have 

that—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Do not have it offhand. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
396 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. But, Ms. Mittal, overall, I think you testified that there are now 5,445 BRAC sites that have not been 

cleaned up? 

Ms. MITTAL. No, there is a total of 5,445 BRAC sites that are eligible for clean-up under the Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, eligible for clean-up. 

Ms. MITTAL. For clean-up, right, 72 percent of them have reached 

a response complete status, which means that the remedy that the 

DOD was planning to implement has been implemented and it has 

functioned—as it was designed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Seventy-two percent implemented, so 28 percent 

times 5,445 have not been? 

Ms. MITTAL. Just under 1,500 have not yet reached that point. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And tell me, you mentioned 31,600 sites. 

Ms. MITTAL. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Tell me again that represents number of sites 

that—— 

Ms. MITTAL. That represents all DOD sites, including active installations that need to have clean-up undertaken, which is about 

over 21,000. There are about 4,700 FUDS in there, formerly used 

defense sites, that need to have clean-up. And then the remaining 

were BRAC sites. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. The $3.7 billion number you used 

was to clean-up all of the BRAC sites. Is that correct? 

Ms. MITTAL. That is the remaining cost to complete for the BRAC 

sites that have not been—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have any cost number for the non-BRAC 

sites? 

Ms. MITTAL. It is in the testimony statement. I could find it 

and—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. FARR. So the $3 billion does not include the FUDS sites? 

Ms. MITTAL. No, the $3.7 billion was the cost to clean up BRAC 

sites in fiscal year 2008. Actually—the statement does not have the 

full cost. We can provide that for the record. But we do have 

that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have an approximate amount, just ballpark, within 10 percent or 20 percent of the number? 

Ms. MITTAL. No. We will get it back rather than misquote the 

number. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you guess, is it closer to $10 billion or closer to $5 billion? 

Ms. MITTAL. I think my guess would be closer to $10 billion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Do we have any kind of analysis of the economic development that is created at sites that have been cleaned 

up and turned over to communities? And the reason I ask that, listening to Mr. Farr and his comments about, you know, if it is 

labor-intensive, I will get the jobs in the short run, but you have 

economic development in the long run, because these sites used— 

I know there is a former naval site in my district that was used 

for a Hercules plant, built rocket motors during the Cold War 

there. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
397 

And about 10,000 acres have been turned over. And we now have 

everything from, local transportation companies to the gentleman, 

Elon Musk, with SpaceX. It is headquartered in California, does 

this rocket testing there, and it has a $1.6 billion NASA contract. 

And literally there have been hundreds of jobs created, with a 

multiplier effect, perhaps thousands of jobs created because of that 

one 10,000–acre site being turned back over to communities. Do we 

have any kind of an analysis—if we were looking at, all right, the 

cost-benefit of how much it will cost taxpayers to invest in this 

clean-up versus the tax benefits they get long-run by the economic 

development that comes from the clean-up, has anybody done 

any—— 

Ms. MITTAL. I will check—we have a whole team of people who 

are BRAC specialists. I focus on the environmental restoration program, so I cannot answer that question, but I will double check 

with the folks that work on BRAC issues on a regular basis and 

see if they have done any sort of economic analysis that we can 

share with the committee. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. ROBYN. I think your question, Mr. Chairman, is—and I 

would like an answer myself—is, where is environmental clean-up 

the impediment to economic development? And in many facilities— 

I mean, it does—it sounds like this is going to take forever, but at 

many, many places, environmental clean-up is not an impediment 

to reuse. 

So McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento is a clean-up because 

of some unusual problems will go on for several decades, but it is 

the biggest economic development project and boom in Northern 

California. And so it is a minority, I think, of the clean-up sites 

where clean-up needs to happen for economic development to occur. 

But it is one reason we are—— 

Mr. FARR. However, you cannot transfer the land in any capacity 

until you have adopted a proven clean-up process. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. So if you are cleaning up water, underground water, 

which I think they are doing in a lot of these sites, that is going 

to take 20 years. But they use acceptable technology. It is going to 

be in place, not just on paper—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Because you transfer with a remedy in 

place. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. So, yes, you are right. But you have got to invest in 

this clean-up process. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. And I would hope that we are prioritizing those 

places where the clean-up is what is needed for economic development. One of the rationales for the kind of approach that we have 

taken at Fort Ord, where in effect we privatized the clean-up, is 

that that allows the community to clean-up at a faster rate than 

we would. We pay the community the cost of the clean-up. They 

then can proceed at a faster rate. I think that is very promising. 

And, again, I just want to put in a plug for—I think the key on 

munitions is better technology. As long as we are doing this with 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
398 

technology that has a 99 percent false positive rate, we are not 

going to make huge progress. 

We are the Defense Department. We ought to be able to come up 

with the technology to do this in a better way. This is a unique munitions clean-up. You know, we own that problem. Commercial industry is not—is not working on that. That is our R&D. 

Mr. FARR. We are spending, Mr. Chairman, $5 billion a year on 

a program to detect IEDs. I forget the exact name of the program, 

but the Department of Defense is focusing specifically on IEDs. You 

have got to wonder if some of that $5 billion a year investment in 

research could help us—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, or vice versa, right. Right. 

Mr. FARR. Well, in closing, I would like to just suggest that there 

may be an opportunity here to address clean up in a jobs bill, or 

the supplemental for Afghanistan. You know, I cannot see why you 

cannot urge that this be in that supplemental. I do not know how 

many billions would be appropriate to ask for but if it is $3 billion 

for bases and another for FUDS, it would be worth doing it to really create this specialized labor force. These are shovel-ready jobs. 

Once land is cleaned up, things can move. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, it is a twofer. 

Mr. FARR. Let’s get it off the books. And rather than cutting back 

on this, let’s figure out how we can really tackle it the way people 

have suggested we ought to. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask, if the present rate going of expenditures, just flat-line that out based on inflation, is the hole getting 

deeper, or are we making progress? 

Ms. MITTAL. We are making progress, but we are making 

progress so slowly, it will probably take anywhere from 50 to 75 

years before we are at the place we need to be, if we continue to 

fund cleanup at the level that we have been funding it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. This reminds me of the situation we were in, in 

military family housing a few years ago, where we just realized—— 

Ms. MITTAL. Right. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. We will never get caught up, and it 

is unfair to those—because we just had to do something dramatically different. And, again, I am going to defer to Mr. Farr’s leadership on this, because this has been a real focus of his, and I appreciate your attention on that. You are the reason we are having this 

panel today. 

But I think we have been understanding in the past. America 

has been at war. And when you are at war, your first priority has 

to be those troops in harm’s way have what they need. So this 

could be competing with those dollars. 

But bottom line is, we are looking at 50 to 75 years catching up. 

That is assuming you have no future BRAC rounds. 

Ms. ROBYN. I believe that is for FUDS sites. I do not think the 

BRAC—the BRAC sites, I think it is—— 

Ms. MITTAL. With BRAC sites, it depends on how much progress 

they make on the clean-up and how much long-term monitoring 

they have to do. It is probably not 50 years for BRAC sites, but it 

is definitely for FUDS sites. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
399 

Ms. ROBYN. I think we have reached the 95 percent clean-up 

stage within the foreseeable future on both munitions and non-munition sites for BRAC. But I—— 

Mr. FARR. Her testimony was that they needed $3 billion just to 

meet what has been—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Promised to do, what has been decided 

that this needs to be done. So how are we going to get there without—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, it is—I mean, since 1984, we have spent $40 billion on the DERP program, $40 billion. So, you know, a lot has 

gone into it. It was a big problem. It is still a big problem. And I 

think the analogy to family housing is a terrific one. We needed a 

game-changer. That was privatization that aligned the incentives 

properly. We saved money. We got better housing, because the 

most effective thing my office has overseen, and it faced enormous 

resistance 10 years ago when I was involved in it. 

I think the game-changer here is technology. It is a different 

kind of game-changer, but I think that is—at least on the munitions side, I think that has to be the thing that gets us out of this 

hole that we are in. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I would like to see if we could try to figure out 

how to pull us more into one stop, one—I mean, your technology 

is in one silo. Clean-up for bases is in another silo. Clean-up for 

formerly—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Formerly used defense sites. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Used defense sites is another silo. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. I think—— 

Mr. FARR. We are all on the table right now talking about them, 

but we are only talking about one account. 

Ms. ROBYN. Those are budgetary silos. The technology is in the 

RTD&E world appropriately. We have a DR&E. The high-tech part 

of the Defense Department oversees SERDP, Strategic Environmental R&D Program, which is responsible for—and it is a small 

program, you know, $60 million a year. But they have systematically invested in munitions clean-up technology. 

The woman who is running DARPA right now started in that 

world. She and I had a wonderful discussion about this the other 

day. She totally understands the importance of that. UXO clean-up, 

that is something—no one else is doing R&D on that. 

We demonstrated through a program called ESTCP, environmental technology security certification program. We need to be 

demoing this UXO clean-up technology at a faster rate. That is the 

impediment to getting it into widespread commercial use, and that 

is my job, to try to increase the rate at which we are doing that, 

because I think that can have huge, huge payoff. 

Mr. FARR. Well, what is the carrot? I mean, what is the carrot 

to get the private investment, giving the analogy of the RCI? The 

RCI is, here we are. We have federally owned land. You are bringing in private dollars and build this housing according to our specs 

and local control, I mean, all those right things you do. But, by the 

way, we will give you guaranteed monthly rentals off the BAH. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. FARR. You do not have a BAH out there for base clean-up. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
400 

Ms. ROBYN. No, no, no. It is not a—and it is not an—it is a different kind of a game-changer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The analogy I was using was that it has to be a 

bold, new approach—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Or we just never catch up. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. I mean, the privatization of clean-up is a different kind of—that is good. It allows communities to clean-up faster. But it still takes the same amount of money. 

Technology is a game-changer. It is a force multiplier. It has that 

potential. So it is a game-changer, but it is not directly analogous 

to family housing privatization. 

Mr. FARR. Is there enough interest from the private sector to develop new technology? Or is it that we have got to have more 

money out there to have private-sector investment in technology? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think we need to—we work with industry 

when we do these demos. And I think if we could be doing these 

demos at a faster rate—the Defense Department has been a great 

test bed for environmental clean-up technology. There was a very 

conscious effort after the 1993 round to make some of the closing 

bases a test bed for environmental clean-up technology, and particularly UXO, because that is a kind of clean-up that no one else 

is doing. 

And we have come up with some, working with universities and 

I think with industry, some good technology, but like a lot of technology, it is at a—it is not commercial. It needs to be demonstrated. 

Mr. FARR. I just think that the administration asked for too little 

money to get this job done, because, in fact, the gentleman I talked 

to out of Fort Ord who has invented this new false positive cleanup—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Tool, he said, I came here because this is 

a long clean-up plan. He said, I have been moving around with different companies, and it has always been short-term. I have never 

had the time to invest my brains in being able to see whether the 

things that I build can work. 

So if you want to get that technology developed, we are going to 

have to spend more money to get a lot of people out there and 

thinking out of the box. I just think it cries out for leadership here. 

Ms. ROBYN. I hear you. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, members of the committee. 

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Farr, thank you. I 

think this is the longest, most productive discussion we have had 

in my years on the subcommittee on environmental clean-up. And, 

obviously, we are just scratching the surface, and we look forward 

to working with all of you on this very, very important issue. 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you very much, also, Dr. 

Robyn, for staying. 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And thank you, as well. Thank you all. 

We stand adjourned. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
401 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Chairman Edwards] 

NEW START

Question. The BRAC 2005 request for fiscal year 2011 appears to contain at least one new start, which is $20 million for Metro station access at the new Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center. Can this project be completed by the deadline? Answer. The FY11 BRAC budget submission included $20M for improving pedestrian access from the Medical Center Metro Station to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), which will be located across a heavily 

traveled and congested road. Because the project provides indirect support to relocating medical functions from Walter Reed to Bethesda and its completion does not 

impede this relocation, the pedestrian access can be completed after September 15, 

2011. At the present time, stakeholders are considering all options to accomplish the 

improvements (e.g., overpass or underpass across Wisconsin Avenue). Montgomery 

County, MD, is currently funding an Environmental Assessment to determine the 

impact each alternative might have on the surrounding environment and the most 

cost effective approach. 

INFRASTRUCTURE REDUCTION

Question: Prior to the BRAC 2005 round, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld 

estimated that the Department was maintaining 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than needed. Can the DOD quantify the infrastructure reduction achieved 

through the BRAC 2005 program? 

Answer. At the time the Department submitted its recommendations to the Commission, we estimate that approximately five percent of our plant replacement value 

(PRV) would be reduced. The rejection of several of the Department’s major closures, 

such as Hawthorne Army Depot, Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, and Ellsworth AFB, 

by the Commission, reduced this to something less than five percent. 

It is also important to note that infrastructure reduction was not the primary goal 

of BRAC 2005; instead it was maximizing military value. 

SAVINGS

Question. Based on your current estimates of BRAC savings, how long will it take 

for the Department of Defense to recoup the one-time implementation costs of BRAC 

2005? 

Answer. Using the same methodology as the General Accountability Office, DoD 

will recoup one-time implementation costs in 2019. This is based on a conservative 

assumption that annual recurring savings (the net of recurring costs and recurring 

savings) are approximately $4B. In reality actual savings are likely higher because 

elimination of unneeded infrastructure and efficiencies gained from consolidation result in costs avoidances of various expenditures that are not easily tracked, such 

as the hiring of lower cost employees to replace personnel who refuse to relocate. 

Question: How long would it take to recoup the one-time implementation costs if 

the personnel savings disputed by GAO were from the calculation? (Please note that 

I am not asking you to agree with excluding these savings, but only to perform the 

calculation as a basis for comparison.) 

Answer. Using the same methodology as the General Accountability Office, and 

assuming that Military personnel savings should not count in the savings calculation, DoD will recoup one-time costs in 2033. This is based on a conservative assumption that annual recurring savings (the net of recurring costs and recurring 

savings) are approximately $1.5B. As stated in various forums, DoD believes the 

savings for Military personnel should be applied in any assessment of BRAC. 

BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP

Question. You indicated during the hearing that the pace of technology development for environment clean up needs to be accelerated. How do you plan to achieve 

such acceleration? Is there any way in which Congress can aid this effort through 

funding or new authorities? 

Answer. DoD is investing in research to accelerate the development of innovative 

technologies that improve the safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of environmental clean up. For example, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification 

Program (ESTCP) support the development of unexploded ordnance (UXO)-specific 

geophysical detection systems and associated signal processing routines. These systems are designed to distinguish between hazardous items, such as UXO, and inert 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
402 

fragments and clutter items on munitions sites. DoD is testing the systems at a series of live test sites, including a recently completed demonstration at former Camp 

San Luis Obispo, California. Research shows that the next generation sensors have 

achieved success during these demonstrations. 

New authorities will not accelerate the pace of technology development for environmental clean up. DoD has appropriately planned, programmed, and budgeted for 

environmental technology. Through these investments, DoD will continue to develop, demonstrate, and validate innovative technologies that the Department will 

use to meet its clean up objectives. 

Question. Your written testimony refers to unspecified ‘‘contract efficiencies’’ and 

‘‘bid cost savings’’ in the BRAC 1990 program. Where exactly have these savings 

been achieved, and how have the savings been reinvested in the program? 

Answer. DoD realized contracting efficiencies and bid cost savings for several investigations and studies for munitions sites at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; 

Camp Bullis, TX; Fort Belvoir, VA; Fort Rucker, AL; Makua, Pohakuloa, 

Waikakalaua and Schofield Barracks, HI; and Toole Depot, UT. These savings have 

allowed DoD to make additional clean up progress at other BRAC sites. 

Question. In dollar terms, and by service, what is the additional (above the budget 

request) amount of unfunded BRAC 1990 environmental clean up that could be executed in fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. Additional BRAC 1990 environmental clean up could be executed in FY 

2011 as follows: 

Army = $0M 

Navy = $60M 

Air Force = $0M 

[Question for the Record submitted to Anu Mittal by Chairman 

Edwards] 

Question. 

How can the Committee seek to improve the justification material for the BRAC 

1990 account submitted by the Department of Defense? What, if any, additional information should be included? 

Answer. DOD can ensure that Congress has the most complete information on 

BRAC cleanup costs available by providing more clarification and explanation as to 

what is included and excluded in the environmental cleanup costs it presents to 

Congress and include the total expected cost—both incurred costs as well as the 

most current estimate of expected future costs—for the cleanup at BRAC bases. 

Without this information, Congress cannot ensure that scarce federal resources are 

used in the most efficient manner to address environmental cleanup issues at 

unneeded DOD properties so that productive new uses for these properties can be 

more quickly realized. In order to provide more complete and transparent cost information for the environmental cleanup of properties from all BRAC rounds, we recommended in January 2007* that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to report all costs (DERP 

and non-DERP)—past and future—required to complete environmental cleanup at 

each BRAC installation and to fully explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup costs DOD reports to Congress. We suggested including this information in the annual BRAC budget justification documentation since it would accompany information Congress considers when making resource allocation decisions. 

* GAO, Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost 

Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property, GAO–07–166 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

30, 2007). 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GAO 

(1) What is the status of the cleanup of the former Volunteer Army Ammunition 

Plan in Chattanooga, TN? 

• According to DOD data for Fiscal Year 2008—the most recent available data— 

the cleanup of the former Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant is under way. Fifteen 

of 23 sites on the property have reached ‘‘response complete’’ status. About $63.8 

million has been spent on cleanup to date and DOD estimates that another $29.4 

million will be needed to complete the remaining cleanup activities. 

(2) How many BRAC sites have not yet been cleaned up? 

• DOD data for Fiscal Year 2008 indicated that 1,492 BRAC sites had undergone 

some cleanup activities, but had not yet reached the response complete status. Another 440 sites had reached the response complete milestone, but still require some 

long-term management activities, such as groundwater treatment monitoring. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
403 

(3) What is the total cost to clean up the remaining active, FUDS, and BRAC 

sites? 

• As of Fiscal Year 2008, DOD estimated that completing environmental cleanup 

at the remaining active, BRAC, and FUDS sites will cost a total of $31.2 billion, 

including $11.3 billion for active installations, $3.7 billion for BRAC sites, and $16.2 

billion for FUDS. (These amounts do not include program management and support 

costs). 

(4) Has GAO performed any analysis comparing the costs to the taxpayer of cleaning up BRAC sites with the resulting benefits of subsequent economic development 

of the sites? 

• GAO has not conducted an analysis of the costs and benefits of cleaning up 

BRAC sites. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
404 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 56870B.067
405 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 56870B.068
406 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 56870B.069
407 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 56870B.070

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(409) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010. 

CENTRAL COMMAND 

WITNESS 

GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. 

General Petraeus, welcome back. It is good to have you here 

again. 

I am going to be very brief in my opening statement because I 

would like to leave as much time as possible for your initial comments and then a discussion and questions and answers. 

I do want to say thank you on behalf of this subcommittee and 

my family for your 36-plus years of service to our country. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for that leadership, and what a difference you have made. 

Without a doubt, you are serving at a critical time in our nation’s 

history in a vital part of the world, and this committee wants to 

be of support to your troops and their families as they go in harm’s 

way and make sacrifices every day for us. And we look forward to 

a chance to hear your overview for the region under your command 

as well as looking at some of the specific responsibility at this Subcommittee on Military Construction. 

I believe we have about $1.7 billion of military construction 

projects between a potential supplemental and then the 2011 fiscal 

MILCON bill for MILCON projects in your area of command. So we 

look forward to talking about that. 

And at this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Well, I thank Chairman Edwards as well. And on behalf of, I am sure, everyone in this room, but everyone on this committee and all the people in the state of Tennessee, given your storied history at commanding the 101st Airborne and your storied 

history in the state of Tennessee, it is a privilege to help Chairman 

Edwards welcome the premier soldier of our generation to our subcommittee today. And thank you for your extraordinary service, 

General Petraeus. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Salazar, it is good to have you here. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
410 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to just—I want to thank the general for his service, 

and we certainly are proud—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. General, you have been through this before. Your 

full testimony will be submitted for the record, but I would like to 

recognize you now for any opening comments you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS

General PETRAEUS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, very much. And Congressman Wamp and Congressman Salazar, thanks. It is great to 

be back with you. 

And I very much appreciate the opportunity to lay out what it 

is that we are doing in the Central Command AOR. But up front, 

I want to thank you for the enormous support that you all have 

provided because it has been the key enabler in what we are doing 

now, particularly, as we shift emphasis to Afghanistan. 

I would like to just quickly go through a couple of the different 

countries and then some issues starting with Afghanistan because 

I think it would be important to lay out for you what it is that we 

are trying to do. 

With respect to Afghanistan, as President Obama observed when 

he announced the new policy, it is in our vital national interest to 

send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. These are 

the forces that will provide the resources that we need to seize the 

initiative while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a 

responsible transition of our forces, ultimately, out of Afghanistan. 

The challenges there are considerable, but as General 

McChrystal has observed, success there is both important and 

achievable. Our goals are quite clear. They are to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and set the 

conditions in Afghanistan to prevent the reestablishment of the extremist sanctuaries that existed there prior to 9/11 when al Qaeda, 

of course, planned the 9/11 attacks in Kandahar, conducted the initial training in East Afghanistan before going to Germany and the 

United States. 

To accomplish this task, we are working with our ISAF and Afghan partners to improve security for the people, to wrest the initiative from the Taliban, to develop the Afghan security forces, and 

to develop the Afghan governance that can be seen as legitimate 

in the eyes of the people. 

As I mentioned when we met before, we spent a lot of the last 

year trying to get the inputs right in Afghanistan, to get the right 

structures and organizations, to put the best leaders we have in 

charge of them, to get the concepts right for the situation in Afghanistan, and then, of course, to ensure that the leaders there 

have the authorities and the resources they need to achieve unity 

of effort and to carry out the missions and the concepts that have 

been developed. 

Now, these resources include the additional 30,000 forces that 

the president ordered plus additional civilians plus additional resources, funding, and so forth for Afghan forces and for the operations, maintenance, and MILCON that support all of this as well. 

It is important to remember, though, that of course, we are building on top of a substantial increase that took place in 2009. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
411 

As a result of decisions President Bush made before he left office 

and then President Obama made shortly after taking office, of 

course, we increased from some 30 or 31,000 at the beginning of 

last year to somewhere around 68,000 by the end of the year. And, 

of course, this 30,000 is on top of that and will take us to somewhere around 98,000. 

Again, the flow of equipment and forces would not be possible 

without the continued support of Congress as a whole but of the 

expeditionary MILCON program in particular. With the inputs 

largely in place now, we are starting to see the first of the outputs. 

And the operation in Central Helmand Province was the initial 

salvo, if you will, the first operation of what will be an 18-month 

civil-military counterinsurgency campaign plan. 

It is pretty well known that we have focused first in Central 

Helmand, Marjah, Nadi-Ali, and some other areas. Over time, we 

will transition additional emphasis to Kandahar, certain areas in 

Regional Command-East and even a few areas in the north and in 

the southwest as well. 

Central to everything that we do there is the development of the 

Afghan National Security Force. That is made possible by your sustained support of the Afghan Security Forces Fund. That expansion 

is now under way in earnest in the wake of the international community and Afghan decision to authorize an additional 100,000 

forces by the fall of 2011. That will take the total of the Afghan 

Army, other military, and Afghan Ministry of Interior forces to 

somewhere around 305,000 and 306,000 by the fall of 2011. 

This effort is facilitated by the recent establishment of the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Training Mission in Afghanistan, which is now led by Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell. We are 

working hard with NATO to source the additional trainers, partner 

elements, transition team, and so forth that are needed to expand 

this capacity rapidly. 

The Supreme Allied Commander and NATO have generated 

about half that so far. They have got to generate the rest. We are 

also looking at other alternatives for how to ensure that we provide 

the trainers if possible. 

Again, this is going to be an 18-month campaign, as we see it. 

And the going is going to get harder before it gets easier. 2010 will 

be a tough year in many respects. There will be progress. There 

will be reversal of the Taliban momentum in important areas, but 

there will also be tough fighting and periodic setbacks. 

Turning to Pakistan, there have been important changes in Pakistan over the past year. During that time, about 10 months ago, 

in fact, the Pakistani people, the political leaders, and the clerics 

all united in recognizing that the most pressing threat to their 

country’s very existence is the threat of the internal extremists, 

particularly the Pakistani Taliban, which they had seen in action. 

They saw the barbaric activity, the indiscriminate violence, and the 

repressive practices of the Pakistani Taliban in Swat and the 

northwest frontier province and then also in some of the federally 

administered tribal areas. 

And they realize that these organizations, these elements want 

to turn the clock back several centuries in Pakistan, not allow it 

to progress forward. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
412 

With that support of the people and of the leaders, the Pakistani 

military has carried out impressive counterinsurgency operations 

over the past 10 months. They have cleared the Taliban from the 

Swat District, and I was there three weeks ago on the ground in 

lower and upper Swat; cleared it from the rest of the northwest 

frontier province and have conducted some good operations in the 

federally administered tribal areas as well. 

Our effort here is to support them. They are the ones doing the 

fighting, and we will continue to work with Congress to determine 

how we can, indeed, support them as fully as is possible. We have 

to show that we are a steadfast partner. They have a lot of—there 

is a lot of history between our two countries, and we have to show 

that we are not going to do to Pakistan what was done before, such 

as after Charlie Wilson’s War when we provided a substantial 

amount of assistance and then left precipitously, leaving Pakistan 

to deal with the situation that we had helped create. 

So it is really important that we provide what we term ‘‘sustained, substantial commitment.’’ And that is what we are trying 

to do with your support. And in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill, as you know, $1.5 billion 

per year for each of the next 5 years is very important in economic 

assistance. The coalition support funding for our military financing, 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, all of these and other forms of 

security assistance provide equally important help to Pakistan Security Forces. 

If we turn to Iraq, in the last 3 years in Iraq, there is no question 

about the significant progress that we have seen in security. Since 

the beginning of the surge, numbers of attacks, violent civilian 

deaths, and high-profile attacks are all down by over 90 percent 

from their highs in 2006 and 2007. That is not to say there are not 

security threats; there are. But they have been reduced very substantially and to a point that Iraq can deal with them, first of all, 

with their own security forces, by and large. And second, it has 

been reduced to a level where the reconstruction and so forth can 

still take place. 

And we have seen progress in a host of different areas. The conduct of the elections on 7 March, of course, is the latest example 

of that progress. That was a day when very impressive numbers of 

Iraqi voters defied al Qaeda attempts to intimidate them and went 

out and exercised their right to vote. 

And having said all that, as always, the progress does remain 

fragile, and it still could be reversed because Iraq faces innumerable challenges. We will see some of these as we watch what will 

inevitably be the fair amount of political drama as the selection of 

a new—first, the council of representatives is seated and then they 

form a coalition that can select the prime minister, president, and 

Speaker of the Council of Representatives. It is going to be very, 

very interesting and a very dynamic period. I would be happy to 

talk about the implications of the elections if you want to get into 

that. 

Our task is still to help the Iraqi Security Forces. They have 

come a very long way. They are nearly 700,000 strong now. They 

are reasonably well equipped. They are quite capable, and they 

have, by and large, taken on the security task themselves. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
413 

For example, they did the security on election day, and we were 

at some distance. 

We are in the midst, of course, of reducing our forces in accordance with the president’s policy and the responsible draw-down 

that was part of that policy. We have reduced by over 30,000 since 

that policy was announced. Now, we are down to about 97,000, and 

we are on track to reduce that number to 50,000 by the end of August. 

We may tinker with the force structure a little bit. We may keep 

a seventh brigade headquartered (instead of going down to six) and 

then reduce some of the forces underneath them so that we can 

have an engagement element that can continue to perform those 

tasks in Kirkuk but, I think, we will be able to get to the 50,000. 

And that is, indeed, where we are heading. 

That will also mark the transition to, literally, a change of mission at the end of August when we will go to a security ‘‘adviseand-assist’’ role, as it is termed, and our brigades will literally become advise-and-assist brigades if they have not already. We are 

actually in the process of transitioning to that. So we will go from 

a combat role to an advise-and-assist role. 

Two other countries, Yemen and Iran. We have obviously seen, 

in Yemen, an increase in the prominence of al Qaeda as it exploits 

the country’s security, economic, and social challenges. There is a 

serious threat there to Yemen, to the region, and, indeed, to our 

homeland. And we have seen all three of those manifest themselves 

in the course of recent months: the attempt by suicide bombers to 

carry out attacks inside Yemen’s capital, the attempted assassination of the Assistant Minister of Interior in Saudi Arabia, and the 

attempted bombing, of course, the Detroit bombing on Christmas 

Day. 

The truth is a number of us have been quite seized with the developments or concerned by the developments in Yemen for about 

21⁄2 years. We have watched those. Even when I was in Iraq, it was 

a place where we saw facilitators, trainers, and so forth, and there 

was a prison break some years back when a number of individuals 

who are now leading al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as it is 

now called, were able to break out. 

Last April, I approved a plan that was developed in concert with 

the Ambassador in Yemen, the State Department, and the intelligence community to expand our assistance to key security elements there. And then, with Yemeni President Salih’s approval last 

summer, we began executing that plan. And that helped strengthen 

the capabilities that we have actually seen demonstrated since 

about mid-March—or I am sorry—mid-December when a series of 

different operations played out. And we continue to see that as it 

continues. 

Turning to Iran. Iran poses the major state-level threat to regional stability in the AOR. Despite various UN Security Council 

resolutions, efforts by the ‘‘P5-plus-1’’, and the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA), the regime continues its nuclear program, 

and many analysts assess that it is a nuclear weapons program, 

the advent of which would obviously destabilize the region and 

likely spur a regional arms race. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
414 

The Iranian regime also continues to arm, fund, train, equip, and 

direct proxy extremist elements in Iraq, Southern Lebanon, Gaza, 

and, to a much lesser degree, in Afghanistan. And, of course, their 

internal activities are also troubling as the violent suppression of 

the opposition groups and the demonstrations in the wake of last 

year’s hijacked elections have made a mockery of the human rights 

of the Iranian people and actually fomented further unrest. 

These internal developments are also important because they 

have resulted in a greater reliance than ever before by the regime 

on Iran’s security services to sustain the regime’s grip on power. 

The Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) continues to be a vital tool for our commanders in Iraq. The small 

CERP projects continue to be the most responsive and effective 

means, in many cases, to address the local community need. And 

where security is challenged, it often provides the only tool to address pressing requirements. 

I raise it today to assure you that we have taken a number of 

actions to ensure that we observe the original intent for CERP and 

that we are working hard to ensure adequate oversight for the use 

of this important tool. I have, for example, withheld approval for 

projects over $1 million at my level and, in fact, there has only 

been one since late September last year. 

The average cost of projects is now down into the tens of thousands of dollars range as opposed to a good bit higher in past 

years. We may ask the Army Audit Agency to come in again, because we have done this in the past, and audit the programs in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

We have identified established guidelines for the number of 

projects each CERP team can oversee, and we have coordinated 

with the military services to ensure that adequate training and 

preparation is provided for those who will perform important functions connected with CERP in theater. 

Information operations. We have worked very hard in recent 

years to improve our capabilities in the information domain. Always coordinating these activities with the State Department’s Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, now Judith 

McHale, who came down and had a very good visit at CENTCOM, 

and we continue to work closely with her and her team. 

We made significant progress over the course of the past year. 

One of those organizations we had to get in place in Afghanistan, 

indeed, was a Joint Information Operations Task Force, which we 

did not have. But we still have a long way to go there. We desperately need to build the capabilities of a regional information operations task force to complement the operations of the superb task 

force in Iraq and the now-growing task force in Afghanistan. 

We have a program of record called Operation Earnest Voice that 

resources our efforts to synchronize our information operations activities in the theater to counter extremist ideology and propaganda and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard. 

This program provides direct communications capabilities to 

reach regional audiences through not just traditional media but 

also through public affairs blogging and regional Web sites. In all 

of these efforts, I want to assure you that we follow the admonition 

we practiced in Iraq, that of trying to be first with the truth. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
415 

Full and enduring funding of Earnest Voice and other IO programs will, together with the State Department initiatives, enable 

us to do just that and communicate critical messages that counter 

the propaganda of our adversaries. 

Finally, cyberspace. Cyberspace has really become an extension 

of the battlefield, and we cannot allow it, I do not believe, to become uncontested enemy territory. In truth, in the years ahead, extremist activities in cyberspace will, undoubtedly, pose increasing 

threats to our military and to our nation as a whole. 

And we really have to work to come to grips with this, not just 

DOD, but all elements of our government. This is an area in which 

we will need to develop additional policies, build capabilities, and 

ensure adequate resources. And I suspect that legislation, over 

time, will be required in this arena as well. 

Within DOD, the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command that 

has been proposed by the Secretary of Defense represents an essential step in the right direction. And it is important because, again, 

extremists are very active in cyberspace. They recruit there; they 

proselytize there; they coordinate attacks there; and they share tactics and techniques there. 

And frankly, we have to ask if this is something that we should 

allow to continue. And if not, then we have to determine how to 

appropriately prevent or disrupt it without impinging on free 

speech. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, there are now about 

210,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the Central Command area of responsibility. They are, as you know, doing great 

work on the ground, in the air, and at sea. And they and their families are making enormous sacrifices in doing so. 

They have constituted, together with our diplomatic and coalition 

partners, the central element in our efforts to promote security, 

stability, and prosperity in the region. Nothing means more to 

them than the support of those back home. And so, as always, I 

would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to say thank you 

to the American people overall but especially to thank this committee and the members of Congress for their unwavering support 

and abiding concern for our troopers and their families. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of General David H. Petraeus follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
416 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 56870B.071
417 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 56870B.072
418 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 56870B.073
419 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 820 here 56870B.074
420 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 821 here 56870B.075
421 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 822 here 56870B.076
422 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 823 here 56870B.077
423 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 824 here 56870B.078
424 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 825 here 56870B.079
425 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 826 here 56870B.080
426 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 827 here 56870B.081
427 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 828 here 56870B.082
428 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 829 here 56870B.083
429 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 830 here 56870B.084
430 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 831 here 56870B.085
431 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 832 here 56870B.086
432 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 833 here 56870B.087
433 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 834 here 56870B.088
434 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 835 here 56870B.089
435 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 56870B.090
436 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 56870B.091
437 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 56870B.092
438 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 56870B.093
439 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 56870B.094
440 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 56870B.095
441 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 56870B.096
442 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 56870B.097
443 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 844 here 56870B.098
444 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 56870B.099
445 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 56870B.100
446 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 56870B.101
447 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 56870B.102
448 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 849 here 56870B.103
449 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 850 here 56870B.104
450 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 56870B.105
451 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 56870B.106
452 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 56870B.107
453 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 56870B.108
454 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 56870B.109
455 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 56870B.110
456 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 56870B.111
457 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 56870B.112
458 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 56870B.113
459 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 56870B.114
460 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 56870B.115
461 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 56870B.116
462 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 56870B.117
463 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 56870B.118
464 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 56870B.119
465 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 56870B.120
466 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 56870B.121
467 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 56870B.122
468 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 56870B.123
469 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 56870B.124
470 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 871 here 56870B.125
471 

Mr. EDWARDS. General Petraeus, thank you very much. 

Members, I think what we ought to do in order to allow multiple 

rounds of questions is we will stick to the 5-minute rule, counting 

the time of the question and the answer. 

I will begin and I will stick to that 5 minutes. 

FLEXIBILITY WITHIN MILCON PROGRAMS

General, let me ask you directly—and we will want to talk about 

strategic issues as well in our questions. But let me go directly to 

MILCON issues. 

It takes a long time to put in a request, to get it approved 

through the bureaucracy. Do you need additional flexibility for the 

MILCON programs that this subcommittee funds? And if so, do you 

have any thoughts on how to do that? 

General PETRAEUS. Sir, I think that, with the supplementals, 

that we are doing okay. It may be that, over time, we have to look 

at the processes connected with CCA. Again, the Contingency Contracting Authority is hugely important. We used it in 2009, as we 

mentioned, in the meeting beforehand. We have not used it—we 

tend to regard this as a break-glass kind of last resort when it is 

not in the base, it is not in the OCO, and you cannot get it in the 

supplemental, maybe then you use CCA. 

But we probably need to look at streamlining that process as 

well. And I think, in that regard, that might be the one area that 

I might offer—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will have our staff work with yours. Obviously, we have to be accountable to the taxpayers—— 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. And ensure the money is spent wisely. But with troops in harm’s way, we want to be sure you have 

the flexibility that you need. 

Let me just ask my second question and last one for this round. 

LESSONS LEARNED IN IRAQ

In terms of the lessons learned in Iraq, it clearly was not an easy 

task and still in the process of helping train local forces to defend 

their own streets and their own country. And you are really having 

to compress that timeframe in Afghanistan if we are going to be 

serious about reducing some of the build-up within 18 months. 

Tell me, can it be done? And is it realistic to expect just to be 

able to train Afghan forces much more quickly than it took to train 

Iraqi forces? 

General PETRAEUS. Well, again, we did not have all the inputs 

right before just recently, frankly. As I mentioned, that is what we 

worked very hard to do over the course of last year. But that is not 

to say that there was not a great deal achieved in years prior to 

that. 

There was a lot of infrastructure built. There was a lot of development of institutional structures. So it is interesting that, as I 

would come from Iraq and look at Afghanistan—something I did 

once when I was actually serving in Iraq on the way home at the 

request of Secretary Rumsfeld—and then after taking command of 

Central Command, while in certain areas, they are way behind because they hadn’t been resourced to the level that we were in Iraq 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
472 

and there were a lot of different areas that needed much greater 

emphasis. There were also some areas where you really sort of 

envied what they had. 

You know, they have the West Point of Afghanistan as a wonderful military academy. And it has just had its second graduating 

class. The competition for it is fierce. 

There are a number of different examples of that kind of development that has taken place, and we should not overlook considerable progress made in a host of different areas in Afghanistan during the course of the 8 or 9 years or however long we have been 

at it there now. 

And that does enable us to build on certain things. Having said 

that, there were areas where we just did not have the concept 

right. On the side of the police, for example, it was essentially recruit, assign, and then train. In other words—and that defies logic, 

needless to say, it became, I guess, necessary because they just 

needed people to go out and help secure streets, but the logic, obviously, is recruit, train, and assign. And the problem is, then, you 

do not have them immediately available. And if you are really desperate, you might opt for the other. 

Well, we have to go with the logic. We have to train them before 

we assign them. And so that is a decision that was made here relatively recently. That kind of thing is what we have to do. 

We also have to ramp up this training capacity. If all else fails 

at some point, we are going to have to examine some other alternatives besides getting additional forces among the quite substantial number the NATO nations have pledged but not yet, by any 

means, all that is needed. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, we probably should have commended 

General Petraeus at the opening for wearing green today. [Laughter.] 

Following up on just the MILCON piece, just kind of the nuts 

and bolts, because you come here and, to be honest with you, we 

are all tempted to talk policy and strategy and a lot of things extraneous to the nuts and bolts of the bill that we actually provide each 

year because of who you are and where you are and our national 

interest. 

We do need to think about the trains running on time. And I 

know, right now, your eyes probably are on the supplemental more 

than this particular bill. I would just say, as we said in our morning hearing, we all need to be cognizant of the difficulty that we 

will have, this year getting a bill by October 1st. 

I am always hopeful that this bill will somehow be exempt from 

all the politics and the gyrations the packaging, the omnibus and 

all of that, but you can almost see it coming in a cycle like this. 

So I would say, for the good of everyone, be aware that as you 

make your requests through the supplemental to the administration, that there could be a 60-day delay, just guessing, who knows, 

lame-duck session. I hope it does not get rolled into the next calendar year, but I think it is highly unlikely that all the trains are 

going to run on time in a cycle like this. I have been here 16 years, 

and you can almost see this one coming. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
473 

I would just say that anecdotally, as we begin that you have got 

a short fuse here on what has to happen in a timely manner. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. WAMP. And, our civilian leadership has made some pronouncements of what is necessary to be victorious since you were 

here last year. And I thought back on the conversations we had 

last year about where we were in Afghanistan. And now, we pretty 

much know what needs to be done. That was the beginning of the 

discussion, last summer, when you were here—or last spring. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. WAMP. We knew by the fall what needed to be done in order 

for us to finish and be successful without telling anybody when we 

were leaving or what comes next or what is necessary now. 

So we now know that. You told us earlier about the extraordinary infrastructure, particularly from the north, that is being 

opened in order for your logistics command to be so successful. I 

want you to expound on that, but tell us this because we are making investments on behalf of the American people who absolutely 

stand with every one of those 210,000 men and women in uniform 

in CENTCOM today. I am hopeful that, in a period of a few short 

years, we do not have this many combat troops there and we do 

not have these needs there. 

But the investments are going to actually stay there. And that 

is what I want to hear. 

General PETRAEUS. They are necessary. 

Mr. WAMP. Our investments are necessary—— 

General PETRAEUS. Right. And they are. 

Mr. WAMP [continuing]. For their future, for our success, not just 

for the military needs but for the viability of Afghanistan as a nation. Speak to that because that is what we are doing is investing. 

It may be for 2 years in terms of our needs, but it may be for 200 

years in terms of the stability in the region. 

General PETRAEUS. You are exactly right, Congressman. 

And, you know, first of all, it is pretty important to remember 

why we are there. And that is to make darn sure this place does 

not become a sanctuary for transnational extremists again who can 

carry out attacks like 9/11. So it is hugely important that we get 

this right. 

Second, you are precisely right that this is infrastructure that 

will endure and be used way after, hopefully, in a few years, we 

are slimming down and not requiring quite as much of it as we will 

over the next couple of years. 

But it will be hugely important to those Afghan Security Forces 

who remain. In some cases, it will be hugely important just to the 

functioning of a country which, interestingly, actually does have extraordinary wealth potential. The mineral wealth in a variety of 

different categories, tin, iron, or even sufficient natural gas and oil 

to power itself, but these others are world-class and a couple of the 

only world-class fields left. 

In fact, Warren Buffett’s son was out there a couple weeks ago 

when I was out there as were some—we call them ‘‘adventure venVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00473 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
474 

ture capitalists.’’ I mean, you have to have an adventurous spirit 

to go to venture capitalism in Afghanistan. 

But these guys have done it in other tough places, and they can 

see the extraordinary potential that exists. But they also see the 

extraordinary challenges to getting those minerals or whatever out 

of the ground and then out to a market because of a lack of infrastructure. That is why, again, infrastructure, even as important for 

us to reestablish security and Afghan Security Forces to continue 

that, will then become very important to the overall country of Afghanistan in the longer term. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

the hearing. 

Thank you for your service. 

General PETRAEUS. Thanks, Vice Chairman. 

CIVILIAN RESPONSE CORPS

Mr. FARR. Thank you for being here today. I want to speak to 

you about the civilian response corps because we chatted about it 

last year when you were before our committee, and the concept of 

whole-government. As I understand, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry 

and General Stanley McChrystal have an integrated civil-military 

campaign that directs our military and civilian components to take 

a residential approach in a culturally acceptable way and live 

among the people, understand their neighborhoods, and invest in 

community relationships. 

Last year, before this committee, I asked you how the Civilian 

Response Corps was doing in picking up their civilian side of our 

whole-of-government response to Iraq and Afghanistan. I would 

like to ask you that again in light of the new integrated civil-military campaign plan in Afghanistan. 

And there are a couple of questions here. How are the civilian 

responders doing? Are the civilian components executing at a high 

level as they undertake the residential approach, living among people, understanding the communities, and building functional relationships? 

And what is your appraisal about how our civilian agencies are 

performing and building the public sector capacity in Afghanistan 

and, I might add, in Iraq. 

And are there any civilian capabilities that need to be strengthened to ensure that the military-civilian handoff in Iraq and Afghanistan goes smoothly? 

Our whole thought in creating this was to really strengthen the 

civilian capacity by experienced folks from USAID and State Department and other related agencies that have had overseas experience, mid-level career folks backed up by a cadre of reserve corps, 

essentially, of state and local governments and even from the private sector. 

I am concerned that we are not going to be able to hand this off 

to a civilian command. But are we focused enough and doing—and 

do we have the right people on the ground to be doing that civilian 

handoff? 

General PETRAEUS. What I would say, Congressman, is that we 

have come quite a long way, actually, from when I spoke with you 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
475 

last time. First of all, civil-military coordination is excellent. There 

is a good civil-military campaign plan. In fact, Richard Holbrooke 

and I are going to go out and, together, take a—what we call a rehearsal of concept drill—ROC Drill—where people talk through a 

variety of different activities over time and so you ensure that it 

is all meshed, basically. 

The truth is that the process of getting to where they can brief 

us forces them, if they haven’t already coordinated and synchronized, they have to be able to do that. We think they have done 

it already, but it will be a good confirmatory activity. And literally, 

you spend an entire day doing this. You spend an hour and a half 

or more for each period just walking through this. 

The civilian components are growing. Just this year, the number 

of civilians on the ground has doubled and, if not, tripled already. 

I would have to check the latest numbers and where they are relative to a thousand or what have you, which was the first goal. But 

I think they are very close to that. 

Mr. FARR. And these are all our people? 

General PETRAEUS. They are a combination. It is—— 

Mr. FARR. NGOs? 

General PETRAEUS. Oh, no. These are strictly U.S. government 

employees or contractors of the U.S. government. And the overall 

civilian capacity, my sense is, that it is growing and it is getting 

a bit more expeditionary as well. 

As you may recall, one of the challenges that we had when I was 

in Iraq—at least when I was at the three-star level, it got a little 

bit better when I was a four-star—is that an awful lot of our executive branch departments have people who are actually willing— 

they want to—they are willing to go out and engage in this. In fact, 

they are eager to do it. But because their departments were not 

funded for it explicitly or because, again, there is just not the capacity to do without them, they could not do that. 

I think that is changing a bit. And so there is some progress 

there. Definitely, AID has got some additional, in a sense, new 

blood in addition to new leadership. State Department certainly 

has, I think, you know, got its first authorization for real growth, 

I think, in some time as well. 

So that is coming along. 

Mr. FARR. There are some unmet needs though? 

General PETRAEUS. Well, I mean, there are unmet needs. What 

I do not know is what is in the pipeline to meet them. Because generally, I think that they are—you know, if you had the Deputy Secretary of State in, with whom I work quite closely on some of this 

stuff, Jack Lew would say that we are doing reasonably well, and 

not just because he is the guy reporting because he would say that 

to me, I think. 

And then the civilian response corps now—what I do not have a 

feel for—they are now thickening the effort. They have literally 

said, okay, let us just get engaged—we are going to get involved 

here. We are going to support it. 

What I do not have is the numbers of all of these different elements that add up to a thousand or so civilians, what number of 

those are civilian response corps. But they are in there, and they 

are thickening the effort. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
476 

The provincial reconstruction teams, the overall linkages between civil and military have really never been better in the two 

different active theaters within CENTCOM in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are just tremendous. 

I think we really reached that, probably, in 2007 at some point; 

2008 in Iraq. And that has continued. And, in fact, as we draw 

down there, one of our considerations is to ensure that we still secure platforms from which the PRTs can go out and perform their 

functions. 

As you probably know, we are going to hand off some substantial 

tasks to State Department, having taken them from them some 

years back. That is going to be interesting. In fact, in that case, 

Jack Lew and I are going to go out to Baghdad and take a rehearsal of concept drill from the U.S. Forces-Iraq Commander and 

the embassy—the Ambassador—once the dust settles from the elections here because they are looking at, for example, taking over the 

entire police program in the fall of 2011. That is going to be a very 

big deal and a big moment, and we have got to make sure it is 

right—and that is one of many. 

There are actually over a thousand tasks that have been identified that are actually transitioned. Some, obviously, pretty small, 

but some others, like the police program, quite big. 

So I think that sort of gives you a sense of the atmospherics of 

it. Again, I think there has been considerable progress in this effort. But, again, I think there also needs to be further progress. In 

fact, the most important agriculture advisers probably, at least in 

terms of numbers, still in Afghanistan, are our National Guard agriculture development teams. They are wonderful. 

And, you know, they are real farmers. In some cases, they actually run the agriculture programs for their states. But they are also 

in the National Guard. They have been activated. They come on active duty, and they do terrific work. 

Now, Tom Vilsack and others are contributing but, again, I think 

that is another department that probably, until more recently, was 

not as actively engaged as it is becoming. So it is a work in 

progress, but we have made progress. 

Mr. FARR. Let us know if there is anything missing. 

General PETRAEUS. Okay. Sir, we will do that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Carter. 

INSTITUTIONS

General PETRAEUS. Actually, if I could, you know, probably, what 

would be worth maybe even asking the State Department about— 

but it is sort of the—how do you institutionalize this? How do 

you—you know, you have got the big ideas now. How are you doing 

on educating your whole organization? These are institutions that 

really are educating them on that. You know, what is the professional development of leaders and so forth? 

Okay. How do you practice it? How do you prepare them for it— 

and then how do you capture lessons to refine the big ideas, to educate, and all the rest of that? I mean, that is the kind of thing, I 

think, that—and I do not have great visibility on that in this position. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Judge Carter. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
477 

Mr. CARTER. General Petraeus, welcome. 

General PETRAEUS. Hi, Judge. How are you? 

DRAW DOWN

Mr. CARTER. Good to see you, and great job. Thanks for what you 

do for us and for our soldiers. 

You just mentioned in your report and also, yesterday, you testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the possibility that you might leave a brigade headquarters in Northern 

Iraq and that you might slim out some organic forces. What type 

of organic forces would be slimmed out? And what could that impact be on the readiness of the remaining forces? 

General PETRAEUS. When you are drawing down—in fact, if I 

could use an example from Bosnia, because it is the first time when 

I was helping—I was the Chief of Operations for the NATO S–4. 

We did a troop-to-task analysis for an area in which we had two 

battalion headquarters, each of which had three infantry companies. The troop-to-task analysis determined you only need four infantry companies. So Petraeus says, ‘‘hey, you only need one battalion headquarters now. They can deal with four companies.’’ 

They said, ‘‘no, you know, au contraire; it takes two battalion 

headquarters with two companies because the engagement responsibilities are hugely important.’’ So do not forget just because you 

have less security responsibilities, the engagement responsibilities, 

working with the locals and so forth, is hugely important. 

And this is what has happened in Iraq. As we have looked at 

how we have configured the force, as we are coming down, interestingly, headquarters take on greater importance, in some cases, 

than do, if you will, maneuver units. Although, they are no longer 

maneuver units; they are now advise-and-assist elements. 

And so, in certain cases, we are better off having that extra hundred people be a brigade headquarters instead of an infantry company, let us say, assuming you can handle the security tasks. 

And so that is the kind of thing that we are looking at. We think 

that is doable. We are still working it. It will still take some time 

because, of course, again, there will be some security implications, 

potentially, from the council of representatives taking their seats 

and then the dynamics of selecting the prime minister and so forth. 

But we think that is doable. We definitely think that—again, a 

decision hasn’t been made, but we do think it is useful to have an 

engagement headquarters in Kirkuk just to serve as an element 

that, in a sense, is an honest broker, can help facilitate discussions, 

can provide a set of eyes that all different sides trust, keeping in 

mind it is not just Kurds and Arabs, it is Turkmen, it is Christians, 

it is Yazidis, and there are even Shia and Sunni among the Arabs. 

So it is a very, very sensitive city, and it is one where we really 

want to do what we can to help. And so that is why we have looked 

at keeping—as you are drawing down—I forget the number of brigades we have right now. Anybody remember? Eleven? As we come 

down from eleven brigade combat teams to—originally, we were 

looking at six advise-and-assist brigade headquarters. And, again, 

the mix of forces under them—we may have seven advise-and-assist headquarters, but with some of the elements under them 

slimmed down. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
478 

Again, the headquarters is only about 100 people, so it is not a 

huge deal. 

Mr. CARTER. I visited with General Cone before this deployment—and we were talking. And he just kind of gave me an outline of the big job he has got to do between now and August to get 

the withdrawal. And—— 

General PETRAEUS. Huge task. 

Mr. CARTER. And the conversation—of course, the elections were 

part of it. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. And a lot of other things in the formula. And then 

it comes down to the one that I think is in the back of everybody’s 

mind as we draw—as we actually load up and draw down soldiers 

out of the zone, the combat zone. Will there be attacks on our 

forces as we try to leave? 

And everybody always wonders about that. I mean, I think I do. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. And I think at the back of everybody’s mind is, as 

we pull 50,000 soldiers out, is there going to be a possibility of violence as a part of that pull-back? And if so, are there things we 

need to help you with that might protect those soldiers as we pull 

them out? 

General PETRAEUS. Congressman, I do not foresee, really, a 

heightened level of violence. I am not sure where that would fit, 

frankly, with any of the elements. What they are trying to do now 

is to undermine the Iraq Security Forces, frankly. They want to 

erode the confidence—lead to an erosion of the confidence of the 

people in the Iraqi institutions and the Iraqi Security Forces which 

is, of course, why they have tended to attack symbols of the Iraqi 

government with their most horrific attacks—these periodic car 

bombings that we have seen in Baghdad and a few other places. 

So I do not expect an increase in targeted violence against, say, 

convoys leaving or something like that. Any time you are making 

transitions, those are always sensitive, and you have got to be careful. And our commanders are keenly aware of that. 

Mr. CARTER. And General Cone did not actually say that.—This 

was me thinking about it. 

General PETRAEUS. Sure. 

Mr. CARTER. He told me what he was having to do. He certainly 

was not expressing concern—— 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. He is a capable man. I am confident—— 

General PETRAEUS. Bob Cone is a great soldier, and he already 

is. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER. But I just—you cannot help but think about it. 

General PETRAEUS. No, no. 

Mr. CARTER. All blood and guts we have put into that place—so, 

thank you. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, thank you again. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
479 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Last year, when you were here, we talked a little bit about developing the agriculture. You just briefly mentioned it now. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I think that is critical—— 

General PETRAEUS. It is. 

Mr. SALAZAR [continuing]. To the success of Iraq and Afghanistan 

as well. 

How are we doing in the drug war in Afghanistan? And, you 

know, to build the infrastructure that we need to get good access 

to different markets, is that going to be a major undertaking? Can 

you speak to that in progress? 

General PETRAEUS. To answer the last one first, Congressman, 

that infrastructure—really, that is another area that actually has 

been under construction for quite some time. You look at Route 1, 

for example, which is literally the ring road from Kabul all the way 

around the country. There is still a segment of that that is not finished. But, by and large, it has been finished. 

Now, it has also been subject to attacks and so forth. But that 

part is substantial. 

In fact, when you look at the number of miles of road that existed in the beginning and you look at the numbers of miles now, 

there is no comparison. And, again, some of the infrastructure that 

Congressman Wamp talked about as well, I mean, this is going to 

be infrastructure of enormous value to the development of Afghanistan and to its ability, over time, to get these hugely valuable minerals and other blessings that they have out to market. 

It really could become, you know, the silk route again, if you will, 

with some extraordinary blessings right in the middle of that. 

DRUG WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

With respect to the drug war, this has been another area in 

which we have worked hard to get the concepts right. And the fact 

is that eradication proved, in many cases, to be counterproductive. 

Eradicating the crops of small poppy farmers was just a non-starter. It took away their livelihood. It did not replace it with anything. 

It turned them into automatic insurgents and Taliban supporters 

if they were not already. And it did not allow them to substitute 

or have, you know, an appropriate way of going at it. 

So we have reduced just about completely our eradication that 

was conducted. And the Afghan government has done it in a more 

targeted manner. It has a place, but it is a fairly small niche, by 

and large. And it has to be tied to a whole comprehensive effort 

that supports crop substitution, that if you do eradicate some of 

these crops, that you provide them the means to sustain themselves and their family. 

And moreover, the real focus needs to be on the illegal narcotics 

industry kingpins. And that is hugely important. The fact is that 

less poppy has been grown in Afghanistan, but before we pat ourselves on the back, some of it is because the price went down and 

the price of wheat went up as did the price of pomegranates. I 

mean, there is some market dynamics here that will always win 

out at the end of the day. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
480 

And then beyond that, also, there have been, some real successes 

in terms of governors who have really put their shoulder to the 

wheel and turned their provinces into poppy-free zones. And then 

there have been appropriate incentives provided to them—crop substitution and all the rest of that. 

So this is how we need to come at it. And this is what we are, 

indeed, trying to do is target the kingpins, not the little guys, and 

to make sure that, when you try to persuade the little guy not to 

grow it anymore, to then immediately provide something that he 

can substitute for that crop that he used to grow poppies and something that is sustainable over time. 

Mr. SALAZAR. As I mentioned to you before, we will be out there, 

hopefully, on the—— 

General PETRAEUS. Great. Yes. Right. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you so much. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, General. Good to have you here. 

General PETRAEUS. Good to see you again, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I had the privilege the weekend before last of accompanying Chairman Dicks on a codel to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We stopped in Germany going and coming. 

MARJAH

And it was, I think, a very interesting time to be there. And I 

would like to make a couple of observations and ask a couple of 

questions about that, particularly, about Afghanistan because, you 

know, they just finished the Marjah operation. And it just seems 

like an incredibly difficult assignment, I mean, particularly in light 

of the timeframe to give a report at the end of this year and then 

kind of next year, July. 

But I think that is—everybody probably knows that. It is not 

easy. And the new strategy—the kind of the clear and hold and 

build which you know so well; they had just finished the clearing 

part. And not to say it is ever easy, but that is where we are awfully good, obviously, with the best trained and the best equipped 

troops. And they sent word we are coming, and most of the Taliban 

left. And, of course, they left hundreds of IEDs and that made it 

very difficult. 

But the holding part seems to be, building is important, but the 

holding part is so critical because it—my impression was that part 

of the solution is one of perception that the Afghani people kind of 

finally get it that, you know, their military and their police are 

going to be there to provide the security along with us to start 

with. 

But it seems like the perception now is, well, maybe they are not 

sure that they are up to the task, so to speak. And before you kind 

of begin the building, you have got to have them believe that somebody is going to be there to give them the kind of security they 

need to begin the building. 

So I guess the big question is: What do you see as the real kind 

of obstacles to this holding part? What are the threats? Because we 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
481 

have got to get that part right, it seems to me, to go on. Is there 

any one thing or any number of things that really are part of that 

threat to the holding part of that equation? And what can we do— 

because that, obviously, involves not only us but the Afghani people 

and our allies. 

Could you just talk a little bit about that? And am I right that 

that is—that is the perception part that could really—that could 

change overnight in they would just finally recognize we are there 

to, you know, to help the Afghani police. 

General PETRAEUS. In fact, I talked to Chairman Dicks after that 

trip. And it was quite clear that was a very, very good trip and, 

clearly, very informative and instructive. 

I mean, this is a difficult assignment. Marjah is a work in 

progress. The hold part is critical, and it is a challenge. And the 

real challenge—I mean, in terms of what can you all do, I think 

you have done it. CERP is—that is where CERP comes into its own 

is before we have really gotten the civilian, on the ground. Although, I will tell you, they are hot on our heels now. I mean, they 

are coming into that, as you saw. They are right with us just about 

on this. 

But, again, what you want is every option you can hear and as 

much flexibility and responsiveness. 

AFGHAN GOVERNANCE

The long pole in the tent, as you correctly observed, is Afghan 

governance and Afghan local security. Now, we can, in a sense, 

cover or compensate for local security by using the Afghan National 

Civil Order Police, the national almost gendarmerie-like organization, or Afghan National Army. 

But over time, you have to transition, again, to local police forces. 

And the challenge there has been that their training has not been 

adequate. They are threatened because of the security situation. 

And local police are always the weakest link, if you will, when the 

security situation starts to go south, as we saw in the case of Iraq 

in particular, where we lost entire swaths of the country, and had 

no police whatsoever. They could not survive because citizens have 

to live in the neighborhood, and they are so vulnerable. 

And then you have to find these Afghan patriots who are willing 

to be government officials and who will actually serve the people 

and not prey on them. President Karzai, when he went to Marjah 

with General McChrystal, had a shura as council. And he had quite 

a number of issues presented to him about the conduct of the police 

in the past and how they did not want some of these officials to 

return. 

And one reason the Taliban were able to get into that community 

in the first place—they were happy to see them go, but the reason 

they were able to get in there in the first place is because of the 

lack of Afghan governance with earned legitimacy in the eyes of 

the people. In fact, in some cases, earned the opposition of the people. 

That is the big challenge, and you put your finger on it. But that 

is, again, where CERP and other forms of responsive USAID funding come in. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
482 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Israel. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, great to see you. I’ve always enjoyed our work together 

on professional military education and will continue to do so. 

We are trying to set up an opportunity for you and I want to 

speak offline about some concerns I have with respect to 

CENTCOM and Israel and the Middle East, but we will do that at 

another time. I do not want to—— 

UNIFIED COMMAND PLAN

General PETRAEUS. Actually, I would be happy to—on the record, 

right here, because there is a very erroneous report that went out 

in some blog that said that CENTCOM had asked, for example, in 

its Unified Command Plan recommendation—which I just made for 

Israel and/or the Palestinian territories to be added to our area. 

That is not true. I did not ask for it. The staffs did discuss it as 

they have discussed it for years, including when Admiral Fallon 

was there. In fact, he had mentioned that to somebody yesterday. 

I also did not make a recommendation—I did not send anything 

to the White House at all. I do not send things to the White House 

normally, occasionally, if truly requested, but that is quite not the 

norm. 

And in terms of, you know, what we provided to the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs and he clarified, also, his response to that, was 

basically we have people that do atmospherics out there, and they 

provided some atmospherics to him, which we thought were important. 

The fact is that the progress or lack of progress in the peace 

process is an important shaping element in the strategic context 

within which we operate, even though Israel and the Palestinian 

territories are not part of Central Command’s AOR. In fact, we 

help General Dayton. We do have some interaction, as you probably know, back and forth. 

But, again, what happens in the West Bank is one of many, 

many elements of the overall dynamics here which include, of 

course, some countries that deny Israel’s right to exist and do not 

seem very cooperative when it comes to helping establish a just 

peace. 

But if that can sort of clarify things—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. That is helpful for now. 

General PETRAEUS. I am quite concerned about that, but I would 

be happy to chat later. 

Mr. ISRAEL. I had dinner with General Dayton last night, in fact. 

General PETRAEUS. Good. 

Mr. ISRAEL. And we will follow up on some related issues at another time. 

NATO TRAINING MISSION

I do want to shift to Afghanistan in the time I have left. I was 

with Bill Caldwell in December at the NATO Training Mission, and 

he gave me a pretty good—and our delegation—a pretty good—a 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
483 

pretty comprehensive briefing on the issue of billets in the NATO 

Training Mission. 

And you, in your opening statement, alluded to the fact that 

there are unfilled billets. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. ISRAEL. We are going to talk to the Supreme Allied Commander about that. If that does not work, we are going to pursue 

other strategies. Can you just elucidate on the status of the billets 

in the NATO training mission and what needs to be done in order 

to fill them? 

General PETRAEUS. Right. I think a way to characterize it, it was 

an identification of a substantial number, as in thousands, of additional trainers, partners, and others needed to help with this. Now, 

we have some compensation in there right now, but we would like 

to back that out. So that adjustment adds to that need. That is 

part of this number. 

We have got about half of that out of the force generation process 

that Admiral Stavridis and NATO conducted. He is intent to continuing that process. We want to—we do not want to preempt that 

process by coming in and immediately saying—but, obviously, we 

have to consider what we might do if there is not forthcoming the 

numbers that we need. And we are thinking our way through that. 

We have plans on what to do, but we do not want to lead the 

pressure, candidly, until we are sure what we can get. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Of course. Well, I am glad that there is focus on 

that. That is one of the most critical missions we have. Bill 

Caldwell is one of the best generals we have—— 

General PETRAEUS. He is great. He is great. 

Mr. ISRAEL. And I am glad we are focusing on that. 

General PETRAEUS. I think you had as good a relationship with 

him when he was the CAC commander as I would like to think you 

had with me when I was the CAC commander. 

Mr. ISRAEL. He is impressive. 

General PETRAEUS. I am doing a professional reading list, by the 

way. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Are you? 

General PETRAEUS. I have to consult with you on this. [Laughter.] 

We cannot guarantee Oprah-level support but, you know—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Israel. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I do not know enough about what you do to ask a question, but I can tell you I appreciate what you do. 

General PETRAEUS. Well, thank you. 

Mr. BERRY. And the professional way that you do it. And when 

you present information to this committee, I think, we take it very 

seriously and we depend on it as you said it or gave it to us. And 

we thank you for the great service you have rendered to this country. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, sir. And thanks for what you 

render to this country. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
484 

Mr. FARR. Do not believe him when he says he does not know. 

General PETRAEUS. I was going to disagree with that characterization as well, but, you know—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BERRY. I usually start that off with ‘‘I am just a poor dirt 

farmer from Arkansas,’’ but I quit doing that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. He got tired of all of us grabbing for our wallets 

and our shirts. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Berry, for your comments. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, General. 

General PETRAEUS. Good to see you, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good to see you again. 

PIRACY THREAT

I have got two questions for you. The first one has to do with the 

piracy problem where you have responsibility in CENTCOM. Obviously, Somalia and the Horn of Africa is pretty significant when it 

comes to the threat of piracy. It is actually a real threat. 

You share some of the responsibilities with AFRICOM in that 

connection. And my question from this subcommittee’s perspective 

is with regard to infrastructure needs in combating the piracy 

problem. 

Is there anything that you have put in the budget that we need 

to pay particular attention to to help address that piracy threat? 

Is there anything that General Ward needs, in conjunction with his 

joint work with you, in attacking the piracy problem? 

For example, I know that General Ward is still waiting for his 

secure communications transportation—C–27? Do you have your 

plane for your command? 

General PETRAEUS. I do. And, you know, it is invaluable. I mean, 

this also means we never stop working, but, no, I mean, we have— 

when we go overseas, we use a C–40, and it has secure—very, very 

good secure and non-secure Internet and even we can put video 

teleconference on it. We do secure video teleconference from the 

plane as well. 

I mean, to be candid, for us he has got a huge continent. He is 

in the same time zone. We are going—the other day, we went 11 

time zones to go to Kyrgyzstan. We stayed less than 2 days, got 

back on it, and flew back—11 time zones. And we work the entire 

way, and the staff, you know, they work like dogs the entire way, 

too. God bless them. 

So, again, I do not know what transportation—I think he shares 

the European Command fleet, if you will. And I just do not know 

enough about what assets they have—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I know he is waiting for transportation. I think it 

has already been ordered, and it is just a matter of delivery for 

them. But, really, I was asking for infrastructure needs of what 

you need in your area of responsibility. 

I was particularly interested in piracy. I think you talked about 

it, I understand, in Iraq. 

General PETRAEUS. I think, Congressman, that, with respect to 

piracy for us, that is a maritime mission. Of course, for him, it is 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
485 

a shore mission. He owns the shore. We own the water right up 

to, I forget what it is, 11 kilometers or something like that. 

The whole piracy issue, of course, stems from the fact that Somalia is basically a failed state and, arguably, it does not exist anymore. I mean, you have Puntland, Somalia, land. You have this 

contested area. Mogadishu itself, of course, is being fought over between the transitional government and Al Shabab and so forth. 

And the fact is there is just no authorities there to whom we can 

give pirates when we capture them. And we have the authorities 

relative to pirates that a policeman has relative to an alleged criminal, not the authorities that we have relative to a declared hostile 

enemy with a weapon. 

Mr. BISHOP. So where do you incarcerate them? 

General PETRAEUS. Well, we have had some innovative approaches with our State Department colleagues and together with 

AFRICOM, this is an African country. Kenya is one that has—we 

have an agreement, but their jails are filling up. There is occasionally Puntland authorization but, again, we do not have the confidence there that we would have in other places. 

So that is the challenge—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Do we need to build—jails? 

General PETRAEUS. Well, that, again, is a question clearly for 

AFRICOM. I just do not have the significant—or the sufficient situational awareness on where the shortcomings are. But I mean, I 

can assure you that there are some shortcomings there in terms of 

detention of alleged pirates who are waiting to come to trial. 

It is really an overall rule-of-law capacity issue, arguably. It is 

not just brick and mortar. It is probably in the judicial arena and, 

also, in the corrections arena as well. But he would be the one, 

again, to have the knowledge of that. 

Mr. BISHOP. But you do know that when you catch them, he has 

got to—— 

General PETRAEUS. Well, he does or we send them back in a vessel. Let us say you capture some pirates. They throw all their 

weapons over the side. You do not have video. You actually have 

to have evidence, of course, as well. I mean, this is a legal process 

that we go through in this case with respect to pirates. That is 

what international law allows us to do. 

There is one pirate that you may recall who was involved in the 

Maersk Alabama hijacking who actually has been brought back to 

New York City, and he will be tried. But he is literally the only 

one. 

And we do not want to bring, as far as I understand, any more 

of these individuals back to the United States. So in some cases 

where we have good evidence and, therefore, if you will, a good 

case, we will turn them over to legal authorities in one of the countries with whom we have an agreement. 

In other cases, we will put them back in their boat with enough 

food, water, and fuel and they have to head back to shore. They 

have to because they only have enough to get back to shore. They 

cannot go back out the other way. 

And, you know, they are in open skiffs now, 40-, 50-foot open 

boats, with huge 55-gallon drums. You will have 8, 10, 55-gallon 

drums of fuel in it, nothing else, just open, and big outboard enVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
486 

gines on the back. And with GPSs and satellite cell phones, if you 

will, satellite phones, they are carrying out these operations. And 

there is really some pretty impressive seamanship and so forth if 

it were not piracy. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. My other question had to do with 

your area of responsibility—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you hold that for round two? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sir. I will. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you do that? Thank you. 

GOALS ACCOMPLISHED

General, if you were here one year from now and you were looking at what you would want to say about the progress we have 

made, what would be some of the specific, measurable goals you 

would want to say we have accomplished? 

General PETRAEUS. Well, with respect to Iraq, obviously, we 

would want to have gone through that 50,000 threshold, and we 

would want to have a plan that would take us to whatever the ultimate end state is in Iraq. As you know, right now, we will leave 

Iraq at the end of 2011. That is in the security agreement. 

But Prime Minister Malaki and other Iraqi officials have noted 

that there is a possibility of negotiating some form of security assistance relationship. After all, they have got, you know, billions of 

dollars worth of our equipment and they are buying more. 

So I think there will be some form of more traditional security 

assistance effort there potentially. And so that would be, you 

know—and then, obviously, their political dynamics and so forth. 

Iraqocracy would be functioning reasonably well. 

If I looked at Yemen, we would hope that we would have been 

able to help Yemen achieve even more capability in, particularly, 

some of their key security forces and through a variety of assistance forms and sharing of intelligence and so forth, that they will 

have been able to get a further grip on the al Qaeda in the Arabian 

Peninsula challenges that they face. 

And then, also, through the whole-of-government approach, what 

you might call preventive counterinsurgency so you do not have to 

do a counterinsurgency; that they will have been able to resolve 

some of the other security, economic, and political challenges. 

With respect to Afghanistan, we would want to have achieved 

that greater security for substantial areas of population and lines 

of communication and eight key border crossings that we are focusing on, and that the Afghan Security Forces would be on glide 

path. Right now, they are just a bit below the glide path for expansion. The Army fell just a bit below so we have got to make up 

some ground there. 

But, again, so they are progressing, Afghan governance is going 

along, we will have an election, of course, in the late summer, early 

fall of this year; that will have gone off smoothly and the provincial 

replacements will have all taken their seats. I am sorry. Not provincial, the lower house, Wolesi Jirga will have been elected—parliamentary elections. 

Then with respect to Pakistan, that, in Pakistan, the good work 

that has been done by the Pakistani army and frontier corps and 

other security force elements will have continued; that they will 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
487 

have been able to consolidate some of their gains in the northwest 

frontier province; hand off some of those two local security forces 

that they were already training. I was just there three weeks ago, 

as I mentioned. 

And then they will have been able to continue their operations 

in the federally administered tribal areas, again, consolidating because they are fairly stretched right now. They have got a lot of 

short sticks in hornets’ nests in various places. 

And that there will have been continued progress for them economically, politically; again, that the situation is reasonably stable 

and so forth. 

And then with respect to Iran, that the results of the effort at 

sanctions—the so-called ‘‘pressure track’’ to which we have now 

transitioned from the diplomatic track of last year—you know, no 

one can accuse the United States or the other countries engaged 

here in not providing Iran every opportunity. We have a very solid 

foundation on which to stand with respect to having provided the 

opportunity to Iran to build on—for the pressure track, as it is 

called; and that this will have gotten Iran’s attention and it will 

have taken a knee, if you will, on aspects of its nuclear program 

and appear to be positioned itself to develop nuclear weapons 

should the ultimate decision be made. 

And there is a debate over whether or not the ultimate decision 

has actually been made. And I think that is debatable. But what 

is not debatable is that they have taken actions so that they will 

be in position if that decision is made. So it is almost immaterial 

whether the decision has been made or not. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. We are going to have a series of votes. I hope to finish this up in this round so maybe others can speak as well especially being sensitive to General Petraeus’ time and his appearance 

here today. 

Just quick before we leave today, any MilCon related issues of 

import that haven’t been discussed? Any big-ticket items that we 

have got to be looking for? 

General PETRAEUS. I think we have surfaced every one of those. 

I mean, I am looking at my J–8 here, the designated thinker and 

brain for this—— 

SECURITY IN THE REGION

Mr. WAMP. The only other thing I would like to hear about is 

whether you are in Tennessee on a farm or in Afghanistan, you are 

really never more secure than your neighbors are. So walk us 

around the perimeter. 

You talked about Kyrgyzstan, and I was in Kazakhstan not too 

long ago and flew down to Islamabad and got a lay of the land from 

the air as we came in. Walk us around the region. You obviously 

have tremendous support now to northern access. A year ago, 

FATA is what I spent most of my time talking about. From Zardari 

to Gilani to the chief justice of Pakistan, talk about stability. Walk 

us around Afghanistan and give us a lay of the security because 

that is critical. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
488 

General PETRAEUS. Right. Again, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, 

Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, again, we have really made 

some strong partnerships there. And what we have contended is 

that the new great game, if you will, the competition for power and 

influence in the Central Asian States is not needed. What is needed is a broad partnership against extremism and the illegal narcotics industry both of which are of enormous concern to them. And 

they are also of enormous concern to Russia, to China, and really 

all of the countries in the region, including Iran. 

Mr. WAMP. May I interrupt one second and ask is Russia a 

compounding factor in the cooperation we get from the Stans because, when we were there, I know Georgia and Kazakhstan were 

still somewhat under the thumb of Russia? 

General PETRAEUS. Russia, rightly I think, given its history, its 

involvement, the ties, the language, all the rest of this—I mean, 

many of them are educated in Moscow. That is where they go. 

Again, retains considerable influence. And, frankly, that is okay. 

Again, it shouldn’t be that they have influence at our detriment or 

that if we have a transit center that it means—at Manas that it 

means that is a loss for them. 

And that is what we have tried to portray because, again, they 

also share this interest in combating extremism and the illegal narcotics flow. So that is how we have approached that. 

If you then work your way to Pakistan, you mentioned there 

again, there has been progress there but, again, enormous challenges, without question. And, certainly, areas of the federally administered tribal area contain enemies that are fighting our forces 

and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, the so-called syndicate. And 

then as you go around to Baluchistan, the Afghan Taliban as well. 

And so while Pakistan has made considerable progress in the 

fight against the internal extremists that threaten its very writ of 

government, there is no question but that there are elements that 

are still active and still going after our troops and Afghan 

troops—— 

Mr. WAMP. Sir, is Sharia law on the rise or on the decline in 

northwest Pakistan? 

General PETRAEUS. I think, arguably, on the decline because, of 

course, of the major clearance operation in the northwest frontier 

province. Swat Valley is a hugely important location for the Pakistani people. It is—you know, it is the vacation land. As I mentioned, I was in there the other day and, you know, all the old hotels are there. They are really quite spectacular. This is breathtaking scenery. You know, it is like being in the Rocky Mountains 

except they are right on you. And so it is really something. 

And to have cleared and held that is very, very important. And 

so that is critical. 

And then there has been progress in South Waziristan, Bajuar, 

some of the other areas as well. At the very least, they haven’t proceeded in that regard. 

Certainly, concerns will linger about very ultra, ultra conservative madrassas and so forth for years to come. And that is going 

to be something that Pakistan is going to have to deal with over 

the long term not the short term. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
489 

But they are conscious of it and, again, they recognize it. But, 

again, there is a limit to their resources, and that is one reason 

that it is so important that we help them with our resources, candidly, because their problem is our problem in this regard; 170 million people, nuclear weapons in between India and Afghanistan. 

As you work your way then down over to Iran, there are some 

interesting dynamics there. Iran would like to have an influence 

with its neighbor, Afghanistan. President Ahmadinejad was just in 

Kabul the other day. It does not want to see the Taliban come 

back. A Sunni extremist or ultra, ultra, ultra conservative element 

that allowed extremism on its soil yet it does not want us to have 

too easy a time of it, and so it does provide some limited amounts 

of explosives, training, and other support to those Taliban elements 

who are out in the western part of the country. 

I think that walks you around the neighborhood. 

Mr. WAMP. You honored us with your presence today. 

General PETRAEUS. Oh, thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

I was thinking of a question that my daughter asked me the 

other day. She said, Dad, is it hard to be a vegetarian in the military? 

General PETRAEUS. I think it is a lot easier than it used to be. 

[Laughter.] 

You know, my daughter is a foodie, so I am into all this stuff 

now. [Laughter.] 

GAYS IN THE MILITARY

Mr. FARR. Wait for the follow up. And she said, why should it 

be hard to be gay in the military? And I said, well, that gets complicated. But the reason I ask is that I represent the Defense Language Institute. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. FARR. We have had a lot of linguists discharged. And I know 

because I am the person they call and they want to know what 

their appeal rights and other things are. 

But I realize that we have looked at it from a national security 

standpoint. I remember a wonderful professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who did the study for the intel community of 

whether being gay was an intel risk and concluded—a Stanford 

professor—this was 20 years ago—that it was not any more of a 

risk than anything else. 

But it seems to me it is a risk if we are losing really good people. 

General PETRAEUS. Well, you know, the CIA and the FBI, if I 

could—the CIA and FBI allow and have for over a decade, in part 

because I think it makes them less vulnerable to blackmail. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, that was the reason. 

General PETRAEUS. So they have had gays and lesbians serving 

openly as a policy, and there are uniformed standards of conduct 

for all members of their organizations, and that has been going on 

for about a decade or so I think. 

Mr. FARR. If the policy is reversed, would people who have had 

to leave or been discharged, would they be eligible to reenlist? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
490 

General PETRAEUS. Well, I think—you have put your finger on 

why I have said that it is important to make any change in a very 

thoughtful and very deliberative manner. And essential to that is 

completing the review that the Secretary of Defense has directed. 

It will be led by the General Council, Jeh Johnson, of DOD and 

also the Commander of U.S. Army Europe, General Carter Ham. 

They have three tasks. They have to determine, first of all, what 

are the views in the force on gays and lesbians serving openly. Second, what would the effects be on morale, readiness, recruiting, retention, cohesion, and so forth—military effectiveness broadly—if 

gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. 

And, third, what policies would be needed if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

is repealed and what should those policies be. I think, if Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell is repealed, the key to successful implementation would 

be, again, thoughtful and well developed implementation policies 

that include uniform standards of personal conduct that, obviously, 

apply to all members of the armed forces. 

Mr. FARR. Could we take lessons learned from our NATO allies 

who have done away with this policy? 

General PETRAEUS. We could. That is one of the efforts that, I 

am sure, the review will consider. There are 25 countries that have 

done it, at least, including the UK, Canada, and then some nonNATO members of the coalition—Australia and Israel. 

And so, again, there are certainly lessons to be learned there. I 

have talked to my Canadian—the Canadian Chief of Defense Staff, 

as an example, the other day and others as well. 

So there are lessons that can be learned from this. The review 

should definitely incorporate those as it goes about its very important task. 

But I think, again, if there is to be a change, then that review 

is critical and allowing it to complete its work, make its—provide 

its findings, and make its recommendations is critical. 

Mr. FARR. How long is that review? I forget. 

General PETRAEUS. I think it is the end of the year but, again, 

you might want to check with the secretary. I forget. 

Mr. FARR. Well, that is very helpful, particularly knowing how 

many foreign countries’ military have done away with it and that 

this review is going to be done in a timely fashion. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And I hope the policy permits people to reenlist, if appropriate. 

General PETRAEUS. Well, and again, as I said, that is exactly the 

kind of issue—I mean, there are many, many what ifs that people, 

you know, want to lay out, some in a positive light, some in a negative light. And I think it is very important for that review to be 

able to ask those kinds of what ifs, work through those, again, determine the views, determine the effects. 

The problem right now is that we do not have any kind of rigorous analysis. You know, we do not have—I was asked one time, 

in fact, on ‘‘Meet the Press,’’ well, you know, what would happen— 

you know, would the soldiers care? And I said, I do not know. And 

I do not. I have some personal views. I have done personal soundings. I have looked at this pretty hard. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
491 

But, again, those are all personal soundings, and they are all anecdotal at the end of the day. You know, you might think you have 

a pretty informed view but, again, we do not have an official survey. We only have unofficial surveys. Some of those are interesting. 

You know, clearly, views have changed, as General Powell has observed. 

He was the one, of course, who was the chairman when Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in the first place. And he, himself, has said that he believes views have changed. So we will see. 

Mr. FARR. I represent a lot of universities and I have found that 

it seems to be very generational. The younger generation is not— 

not an issue for them. 

General PETRAEUS. Anecdotally, that seems to be the case. But, 

again, that is why the review, I think, is important. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one more question. And as Chairman Dicks 

probably told you, we stopped and spent the day in Pakistan. 

General PETRAEUS. Right. 

PAKISTAN

Mr. CRENSHAW. And I know we have touched on that, what is 

going on there, what you hope to see going on there. And I would 

like to ask you kind of just specifically about your view of our relationship with them because I came away with the impression that 

maybe a year ago, they thought, well, you have got a problem; we 

do not have a problem. 

But with all the, I guess kind of horrific focused attacks on ISI 

that they kind of realized they have got a problem and they are in 

the same boat we are. So I got the impression that the relationship 

is better. They are really working with us on some of these issues 

in terms of rooting out the terrorists. 

But, also, came away from the impression that it is not a great, great relationship. We help them a lot financially—$13 billion. And 

every now and then, there is a situation where they do not seem 

to have as much trust in us. And maybe that is the general population. 

But I would just—I would like kind of your perspective on just 

that, just the relationship that we have today. How could you kind 

of characterize it because I think you are right on in terms of 

where they are going and what they are doing? 

But how would you say our relationship is? And what do you 

think it is going to be like in the future? 

General PETRAEUS. I think it is a great question, Congressman. 

And, frankly, it is something that Admiral Mullen and I and General McChrystal and others have spent a considerable amount of 

time and a number of our civilian policy makers and diplomats 

have spent a great deal on. 

I think the relationship is stronger, and I think that there is better understanding of the perspectives of each side. Having said 

that, there is some serious history here. And as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, they remember what happened after Charlie 

Wilson’s War, after we provided substantial assistance for many 

years and built up the Mujahedeen and got rid of the Soviets and 

then we were out the door. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
492 

They remember, again, rightly or wrongly, the Pressler Amendment, 12 years during which they could not send individuals to our 

military courses and training and so forth. 

So there are some real wounds there, if you will, from the past. 

And we have to just work very hard to try to develop the kind of 

trust that is important in this relationship. There is a very close 

relationship in certain areas. Again, certain elements and so forth. 

They are clearly seized with going after those extremists that have 

threatened them. They are fighting their war against the Pakistani 

Taliban not our war on terror. And that is a big shift in the last 

year or so. 

But, again, having said that, there is still an understandable degree of hedging of bets, if you will. I think, again, understandably 

given the history, given their sort of geography, given that you 

have India here, a country that is many times their size, a billion 

people versus 170 million, very narrow country when you look at 

it from a military perspective and a variety of different elements 

there that they cannot deal with—all of which they cannot deal 

with simultaneously. 

And that is a challenge for them. Plus, of course, some real social 

challenges, economic difficulties, and so on. So that is sort of the 

situation that we are in. It takes a real civil-military effort working 

with them with your support. And that is why I highlighted KerryLugar-Berman and the coalition support funding—Pakistani Counterinsurgency Fund, foreign military financing, and all the rest of 

that—IMET. Every bit of that is really important to building this 

relationship further. 

Interestingly, this weekend, we will host General Kayani at Central Command headquarters. Also at SOCOM as well in Tampa. 

And then he will come up here, join their foreign minister, defense 

minister, and they are going to have a strategic dialogue, as it is 

termed, with policy makers here. 

Mr. WAMP. I will ask him to just yield to me just on a follow up 

for this because when we were there 20 months ago and the president was on his way out and Zardari was coming in, he said to us 

that, in Pakistan, if you do not have military control, you do not 

have control. It seemed really obvious, but do you think it has dramatically improved where the government of Pakistan does basically control the security of Pakistan? Because that was really the 

fear when we left, that they wouldn’t actually have the upper hand 

on security needs in their own country. 

General PETRAEUS. Well, I think the Pakistani Security Forces 

by and large are in charge of security in Pakistan. There are dynamics between the president and the chief justice that have 

played out. There is an opposition to the government. And there is, 

if you will, some degree of shifting of power between the president 

and the prime minister. 

As you will recall, when Musharraf left, he had aggregated enormous power for the presidency. Some of that shifted back and there 

has been this kind of dynamic of settling out of literally who is— 

what are the roles and missions of the two different offices, the 

prime minister and president and, also, by the way, the chief justice who has much more expansive powers than does our chief jusVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00492 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
493 

tice and has been exercising some of those in a fairly expansive 

manner as well. 

Mr. WAMP. Thanks. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Bishop. 

CONSTRUCTION NEEDS IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I just had one question with regard to 

your construction needs in Afghanistan. 

As the drawdown occurs in Iraq, I understand that many of the 

soldiers in Iraq are living in containerized housing units, CHUs, 

and in Afghanistan, on the other hand, most of them are living in 

tents. 

General PETRAEUS. They are tents, but they are generally climate-controlled tents. So this is not just a good, old general-purpose utility—GP medium, if you will, tent. And there is a fairly 

substantial number that do live in CHUs or in some other form of 

billet. We have built literally barracks, if you will, for example— 

Bagram or Kandahar—bigger bases naturally are more built up. 

But, frankly, we are trying to be very responsible with the funding, and we have what is called the CENTCOM Sandbook temporary standard, and it is fairly austere. It is adequate. It is something I would have loved to have had—tents or, again, a variety 

of hasty structures of SEA huts or CHUs, again, whatever mix that 

is. 

Mr. BISHOP. I was going to ask whether or not with the drawdown in Iraq, you were going to move some of those CHUs from 

Iraq to Afghanistan. 

General PETRAEUS. I do not think we can move the CHUs, sir. 

I think they are just too fragile. As you know, the CHUs come, literally, flattened out. And once you expand them, it is pretty difficult to flatten them back out. And, again, in the transport of 

those, I am not sure how many of those we would damage. 

And I think it is literally more economical, if we ever decide to 

go with all CHUs to literally ship in CHUs that are probably already new and just leave those other CHUs—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Were you intending to get additional new CHUs for 

Afghanistan just do you feel that that mission will be so temporary 

that you won’t require them? 

General PETRAEUS [continuing]. There are areas where we are 

building up, you know, a little bit better than temporary standards. 

But in many of the combat outposts and joint stations and so forth, 

we will still be in a fairly expeditionary setting. 

But, again, in those cases, there is at least—there are at least 

environmental-control units. There are over time—ablution units, 

as they are called and so forth. So there is an effort to get to a level 

that is certainly good enough but without taking it beyond that 

given, again, that it is going to be somewhat temporary in nature. 

Mr. BISHOP. So your requirements there are being met in the 

budget submissions and the budget you have already—— 

General PETRAEUS. That is correct. But, again, the reason the 

supplemental is important is because, again, we have got to get 

that stuff going. And, you know, we, again, have to—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
494 

Mr. BISHOP. So do you have some requests for that in the supplemental? 

General PETRAEUS. Oh, yes, sir. There is $495 million, I think, 

in the supplemental for—no, no, no. Just for MILCON. I am sorry. 

For overall MILCON. Not for CHUs. No, that would be a very 

small subsidy. That is right. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. What will those—what will that construction—— 

General PETRAEUS. It is a whole bunch of things, and I could actually show you this in a second and where it is. But, I mean, it 

is everything. It is strategic airlift, apron, SOF helicopter apron, 

munitions storage, fuel operations and storage, runway apron, 

waste management, fuel storage, entry-control point, perimeter 

fence, waste-water, and et cetera, et cetera, perimeter fence—— 

Mr. BISHOP. That is for all—— 

General PETRAEUS. This is all over. That is right. That is right. 

Mr. BISHOP. [Off mike.] 

General PETRAEUS. And all of Afghanistan, that is correct. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you anticipate all of that will be covered in the 

supplemental? 

General PETRAEUS. We do. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

General Petraeus, that is good timing. We have votes, I think 

about five pending. Thank you for your leadership. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. God speed to you and all the troops that you have 

the privilege of representing. 

General PETRAEUS. Thank you, 

Mr. EDWARDS. We stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Chairman Edwards] 

FLEXIBILITY IN THEATER MILCON 

Question. Would it be helpful to you if Congress gave you CCA-like flexibility in 

the use of MILCON funds within the theater? 

Answer. Yes, any additional flexibility is advantageous. Although CCA provides 

a level of flexibility over the regular budget process, it still requires line-item, 

project-by-project approval. 

Question. If Congress were to provide with you theater MILCON funding according to the broad facility categories used in the C–1 Construction Exhibit, rather 

than a line-item, project-by-project appropriation, would that provide an adequate 

degree of flexibility? 

Answer. Yes. The Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) MILCON programs 

are often developed 12–18 months in advance of when the funds will be appropriated. Changes in operational requirements during the 12–18 month time period 

between project identification and appropriations often require the scope or location 

of a project be changed. Under current rules, a change in location or project scope 

requires the original project to be cancelled and funds reprogrammed under Title 

10 Section 2808 of the United States Code. This process can delay project execution 

by up to six months. 

Designating OCO MILCON funding by category vice line-item, project-by-project 

appropriation would allow theater engineers to adjust the MILCON program to 

operational changes without significantly delaying project execution. 

LONGER TERM FORCE POSTURE IN AFGHANISTAN

Question. The amounts appropriated or requested for MILCON in Afghanistan 

have ramped up dramatically in the past two years. Not only have the dollar 

amounts escalated, but the operating locations requiring MILCON have also proliferated. For several years, MILCON in Afghanistan was mainly confined to 

Bagram, Kandahar, and Kabul. Now we are seeing funds requested for locations dispersed widely across Afghanistan. Because MILCON frequently requires 18 or more 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
495 

months to be completed, the Committee must necessarily think beyond the present 

situation to the force posture that may be expected two or three years from now. 

I also note that the Quadrennial Defense Review report (page 67) refers to the increased U.S. presence in the Middle East and Central Asia since 2001, stating ‘‘The 

urgency of these operations caused the Department [of Defense] to prioritize 

changes in defense posture needed for near-term operational capability. It is time 

to renew focus on a strategic architecture that better serves U.S., allied, and partner 

interests through the medium to long term.’’ For the last few years we have had 

a ‘‘strategic overwatch’’ posture plan for Iraq to layout how U.S. forces will consolidate before exiting the country in accordance with the SOFA. The Committee understands that the transfer of forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011 will be based on 

ground conditions, and that the experience with Iraq cannot be easily analogized to 

Afghanistan. Without trying to fix a timeline on you, when would you be able to 

report back to the Committee with a similar postsurge posture plan for Afghanistan? 

Answer. The Command, in coordination with U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFORA) and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), is in the process of revising 

the posture plan for Afghanistan to describe current planning for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) based on the recent changes in strategy. The MILCON requests 

forwarded to you in the FY10 Supplemental and FY11 Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) reflect the current planning to support the immediate contingency requirements of the force increase and to sustain operations through 2011 and beyond 

at these major locations. The posture plan under revision will incorporate these requests into a document that evolves as conditions in theater change; however, it will 

provide a view of basing requirements and establish a baseline from which transition plans can be developed in the future. The posture plan will outline major operating locations that include existing operating locations, existing capabilities, current and planned MILCON investments, and the logistical framework required to 

support operations in Afghanistan beyond 2011. We anticipate we could provide a 

report by Dec 2010. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(497) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

AIR FORCE BUDGET 

WITNESS 

GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF, US AIR FORCE 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I would like to call the subcommittee 

to order. This morning’s hearing is going to be on the fiscal year 

2011 Air Force military construction and family housing budget. 

General Schwartz, General Byers, thank you both for not only 

being here but for your many years of distinguished service to our 

country. And we are grateful for your leadership at a very critical 

time in our nation’s military history. And we look forward to hearing your testimony and having a chance to have a discussion on 

some of the issues facing the Air Force. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

I would like to recognize this morning our ranking member, Mr. 

Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Good morning to all and thank you, Chief, for coming 

back. 

General Byers, good to see you this morning and look forward to 

your testimony and us doing everything we can to meet the needs 

that you clearly have laid out for us. And I, too, want to thank you 

for your service at this critical time in history. 

And, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Zach. 

General Schwartz, as always, you have been through this routine 

many times. Your full testimony will be submitted for the record, 

and we would like to recognize you now for any opening comments 

you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ

General SCHWARTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Congressman Wamp. As we gather, perhaps, additional members of 

the committee, I would like to thank you for your support of our 

Airmen and our families as we chatted a minute ago. 

It is a distinct privilege to be here with you today because each 

and every day, our Airmen serve courageously, and their family’s 

sacrifice in very significant ways both during their professional efforts on behalf of the American people. 

Our Airmen bring aerospace and cyberspace power with great effect to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Currently, we have about 40,000 Airmen—of which, roughly 32,000 are 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
498 

in the area of operation. And of that, about 3950 civil engineers are 

deployed. So about 10 percent. It is very interesting. 

Over 50 percent of those civil engineering deployments are filled 

with what we call expeditionary tasking serving side by side with 

our joint teammates. And due to their wide array of skills, the Air 

Force Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational and Repair 

Squadron engineers and our prime base engineer emergency force 

personnel are in high demand in the various theaters of operation. 

Additionally, we have more than 150 civil engineers who are supporting relief and humanitarian operations in Haiti. 

I would like to thank the committee for your continuing support 

and for your work as well on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The legislation contributed very significantly to 

the status of our infrastructure. 

From this legislation, we received about $1.7 billion to support 

Air Force projects, including $1.3 billion for facility sustainment 

and restoration and modernization (FSRM). About $320 million in 

military construction and military family housing for dormitories 

and child-care centers; five dormitories and eight child-care centers, respectively. And about $75 million for research, development, 

testing and evaluation of projects to improve our energy efficiency. 

In accordance with the congressional intent to allocate the funds 

quickly, we moved expeditiously but prudently to award contracts. 

And at the end of the last calendar year, we had awarded almost 

90 percent of the funding allocated for both FSRM and military 

construction. 

Additionally, we saved sufficient money from competitively bidding these projects to fund two additional military construction 

projects—a dormitory and a child-development center. Obviously, a 

win-win. 

And our fiscal year 2011 president’s budget request contains $5.5 

billion for military construction, military family housing, base realignment and closure, and facility maintenance, which is about a 

3.8 percent increase above our fiscal 2010 request. 

Our facilities maintenance and repair account represents the 

largest portion of the request, about $3.1 billion, to maintain Air 

Force installations. About $1.5 billion of military construction requests prioritizes our requirements and ensure that new construction is aligned with new missions in weapons systems deliveries as 

well as strategic basing initiatives. 

And that is why we acknowledge that we are accepting some risk 

in aging infrastructure recapitalization. 

Additionally, we continue efforts to provide quality housing for 

our airmen and their families by dedicating about $600 million to 

sustain and modernize overseas housing and support housing privatization here in the United States. 

We also request a total of $252 million to continue completing 

our BRAC 2005 program requirements, legacy BRAC programs, 

and environmental clean up. In the course of building the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request, we had to make a number of difficult 

choices among competing priorities. And one of these was a necessary but difficult decision considering the numerous other priorities that we face in this time of conflict to continue to take some 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
499 

risk in our military construction as well as our restoration and 

modernization accounts. 

However, we have ensured that the budget request remains 

aligned to the overall fundamental priorities and that we remain 

committed to optimizing the utility of our resources, and we are 

doing our very best to maximize efficiency through effective joint 

basing, an integrated energy strategy and, of course, completing 

the mandated BRAC action. 

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force will continue to provide our unique 

and enduring capabilities delivering global vigilance, reach and 

power for Americans. Thank you for your personal, continued support of our Air Force and, particularly, of our Airmen and their 

families. 

And I look forward, sir, to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of General Norton A. Schwartz follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
500 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 56870B.126
501 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 56870B.127
502 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 56870B.128
503 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 56870B.129
504 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 56870B.130
505 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 56870B.131
506 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 56870B.132
507 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 56870B.133
508 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 56870B.134
509 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 56870B.135
510 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 56870B.136
511 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 56870B.137
512 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 56870B.138
513 

MILCON PRIORITIES

Mr. EDWARDS. General Schwartz, thank you very much. 

Mr. Wamp, would you like to begin questions? 

Mr. WAMP. I appreciate the courtesy. I did not realize when I 

welcomed the generals here that Major Juan Alvarez was in the 

room here because he so ably served me for a year here in the fellows program and Marine Corps Major Gilbert Dmeza is over my 

right shoulder now. It is a blessing and benefit to our process here 

and excellent integration of the services. 

I was with you, Chief, when you graduated these outstanding 

airmen to the fellows program, and I am so very proud of Juan Alvarez. 

Can you just lay out your top five MILCON priorities that did 

not get included? The cost for each—and I am talking about what 

you still have that could be executable in fiscal year 2011 in terms 

of MILCON specific programs? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, perhaps General Byers can address that 

more specifically. I can tell you though, at the strategic level, that 

the prime imperative, we are making sure that we have synchronized the construction efforts with delivery of new weapons 

systems or force structure changes that were dependent on that infrastructure. 

And, secondly, that each of the major commands got their first 

priority. That was a prerequisite for us. We, in most cases, did not 

get to the number two. 

And, General Byers, do you want to add more clarity or—— 

General BYERS. Yes, sir. We will like to provide the rest for the 

record. We have a whole list of priorities that the Chief talked 

about. If we can submit that for the record, we have the list and 

you can have all that. 

[The information follows:] 

Our Top Unfunded Military Construction Projects are as follows: 

Location Project $ Mil Remarks 

Kirtland AFB ................ Nuclear System Wing & Sustainment Center ............................ $55.0 AFMC #1 

St. Paul ARS ................ Aerial Port Facility ...................................................................... 9.0 AFRC #1 

Hickam AFB ................. F–22 Combat Aircraft Parking Apron ........................................ 15.5 New Mission 

Edwards AFB ............... Fitness Center ............................................................................ 30.0 Quality of Life 

Hickam AFB ................. Fitness Center ............................................................................ 24.0 Quality of Life 

Barksdale AFB ............. Mission Support Group Headquarters ........................................ 24.0 Global Strike #1 

Al Udeid ....................... Blatchford Preston Complex, Ph 4 (4 Dorms) ........................... 99.0 Quality of Life 

Total .................... ..................................................................................................... $256.5 

Mr. WAMP. Very good. 

I also wanted to look back a little because we know what incredible support the United States Air Force gives to our operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan today. But I think back on a briefing that I 

had in the middle of the night with Speaker Hastert years ago at 

Elmendorf in the middle of the Balkan liberation. And I am constantly reminded throughout our hearings and meetings with the 

leadership. I met with Admiral Stravridis, Commander of U.S. European Command, just 2 weeks ago. His allied NATO command 

had been very beneficial to freedom. It has brought liberty to an 

entire part of the world for the first time in hundreds of years. The 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
514 

culture shift and, frankly, the critical role that the United States 

Air Force played in that operation is amazing. 

They are the tip of the spear, so to speak. The preparations we 

make as a nation for the United States Air Force to respond to future crises similar to those in Afghanistan and Iraq are critical. We 

will likely face different kinds of conflicts similar to the Balkan experience where the Air Force’s superiority was the liberating factor, 

in my opinion. 

In the event of a similar mission, do we have the resources? Do 

we have the training and equipment? Do we have—and I know 

that is not necessarily a MILCON question, but we are interested 

in the entire spectrum of operational support from the Congress— 

in the event that there is a similar call to action at that high level? 

OVERSEAS READINESS

General SCHWARTZ. Congressman, two parts to that. The first 

part is—and it does really—your jurisdiction over military construction, particularly, overseas—is that that particular campaign, 

aircraft and Air Force resources were located at about 37 bases in 

and around that southern European area. 

And it gives you a sense—and it is a similar number in the Persian Gulf area, actually, large and small installations where our 

preparation, our willingness to do—to build ramps, for example, 

aircraft ramps as we have requested for—as an example, not only 

allows us to deal with current circumstances but actually postures 

us to deal with future potential contingencies as well. 

I would just like to make the point that you and your predecessors had much to do with the success of that campaign by recognizing that some infrastructure overseas enables us to project combat power. And that was the case then. 

SURGE CAPABILITY

In the larger sense, yes, we have surge capability. There are 

some aspects of our force which are stretched toward a hundred 

percent utilization. One case is intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. All the predators and reapers, all the intelligence capability that we can bring to bear in Iraq and Afghanistan is, in 

fact, deployed. A very, very high percentage. 

We still are running our school houses and so on and conducting 

essential training—because if you are not careful, you will eat your 

seed corn if you don’t maintain that training base. 

But fundamentally, should another contingency arise—and I 

think this is also true for the Navy—that we and the Navy have 

the capabilities that are most available and have the most capacity 

to surge. 

REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT

Mr. WAMP. Just to follow up, and then I will hold my other questions for the second round in deference to other members. 

But we have a 5-year-old company in Tennessee called ISR which 

is in the drone UAV industry. It is remarkable how the company 

started. A Vietnam vet leveraged his experience and started the 

company, and now they have 225 employees and it is a fast-moving 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
515 

company. Actually, their drones were utilized for surveillance in 

support of the successful mission addressing the pirate ship off the 

east coast of Somalia last summer. 

I am interested to know how the UAV industry is growing in this 

country, from your perspective. It obviously is the new paradigm of 

intelligence gathering. And it looks like it even has tremendous private-sector applications for the future of aviation. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I think that—clearly, the use of remotely 

piloted aircraft—by the way, we do not use the term unmanned 

aerial systems anymore because they are hardly unmanned. 

Mr. WAMP. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ. While they are remotely piloted, for example, 

we need somewhere around 170—operators, maintainers and, importantly, back-end intel capability—to digest the data stream that 

comes off these platforms for each 24-hour orbit. Nonetheless, they 

clearly are a major innovation which we are investing heavily. We 

have 41 orbits today. We will be growing to 50 at the end of 2011 

and then to 65 in 2013. 

I will only caution that they are not any-time, any-place platforms. You still need relatively benign airspace for these platforms 

to operate. But assuming that that is the case—which is true in 

Iraq and Afghanistan—they are terrific because, fundamentally, 

they provide the situation awareness for youngsters on the ground 

so they do not have to go around the corner or through a door or 

through a window without knowing what is on the other side. 

They would if they had to, but the question is why should we 

have them do that. And so that is the great innovation, I think, of 

the remotely piloted systems. 

Mr. WAMP. Is that the terminology? Remotely Piloted System. Is 

there an acronym now that we need to start using? 

General SCHWARTZ. RPA is what we are using—remotely piloted 

aircraft. 

Mr. WAMP. Remotely piloted aircraft. And that includes drones? 

General SCHWARTZ. It certainly does. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, General. 

I wanted to ask a little bit about the F–35, the joint strike fighter, because Jacksonville International Airport, in my district, is one 

of the, I guess, four sites being considered to base them. And I 

know that you have to do an EIS kind of study before. And I want 

to ask you just two or three questions about that. 

Number one, what are some of the factors that go into that EIS 

study? For instance, in Jacksonville, you have got three military 

bases. So you have got existing military housing. You have got 

child-care facilities. You have got dental clinics, medical clinics, a 

lot of, kind of, support services. 

Are those the kind of things—or is that one of the factors that 

kind of goes into that decision, number one? Number two, I just 

wondered about the timing. You know, will there be a preliminary 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
516 

study done, I guess, and will that include kind of a, I guess what 

you would call a recommended option or a preferred option? 

And then, finally, just in terms of the military construction part, 

I know it is going to be a while, but is there money in the 5-year 

plan for some of these military construction projects? And do you— 

is it all the money in there or just a certain amount of money? And 

do you know, like, how much it might be per base? I guess it will 

be different. 

But just those three items, if you could touch on those. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. The first question really—there are 

two processes that proceed. One is what we call our strategic basing process, which is the decision about where equipment would 

bed down. Part of that is environmental impact studies. 

And essentially, the environmental impact study (EIS) looks at 

specific installations and evaluates the addition of that force structure and what impacts that may have environmentally. For example, on Clean Air Act compliance, it is an important factor. 

But those other kinds of considerations with respect to infrastructure that might make a bed-down more achievable are really 

done within the strategic basing process. So how much military 

family housing is in the area, a very important consideration. It is 

access to airspace for training and so on and so forth, the proximity 

of tactical ranges and what have you. 

And so it is those two aspects, both environmental impact study, 

which is mandated by National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA), and then the strategic basing process which takes into account both infrastructure and operational considerations are how 

we go about making a decision. 

With respect to F–35, as you know, Jacksonville is one of the potential operational bed-down locations, one of six. The first beddown, however will be for training and test purposes. We rendered 

a record of decision for Eglin Air Force Base in accordance with 

base closure would be the first training location with at least 59 

aircraft. 

And that EIS is under way now to address things such as Clean 

Air Act compliance, noise concerns, and so on. 

Each of the candidate locations—that is, the five training locations, the six operational locations—had scoping activities at or 

near the installation or in the surrounding communities. They are 

all complete now. Each of them is done. 

And that outreach activity is part of the environmental impact 

statement process. So we are well along in that respect. 

With regard to timing, we will render a preferred alternative, 

which I think is the term of art, late this year, late summer, you 

know, or into the fall, perhaps. And then in early 2011, there will 

be a formal record of decision on the bed-down for the second training site, if you will, and the first operational site. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. How about MILCON? Is that in the FYDP already? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is. In fact, there are bed-down dollars for 

the to-be-determined locations—in the program. And that is specific to these decisions that I just addressed. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
517 

JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have got you. 

And just one, Mr. Chairman, one quick question about—we 

talked last year about the joint cargo aircraft, just kind of the overall strategic aircraft needs. Are you doing a study? I cannot remember what we talked about last year. 

But is that—where are we in looking at that? I know that is the 

kind of—because I think General Casey said that he was spending 

like $8 million a month leasing C–130s and then somebody from 

DOD kind of came in and said, well, you know, we have got—well, 

they weren’t leasing C–130s but similar aircraft. 

And then one of the DOD individuals said, well, we having adequate C–130s. And I do not know whether they are being used in 

Afghanistan or not. And that is where, I guess, this new—— 

General SCHWARTZ. A couple of quick points, sir, on this. The 

program of record now is 38 C–27s, 24 of which will be bedded 

down at six locations, four aircraft each, which have been formally 

announced. The other 14 aircraft will be bed down at three locations of four each, and then two aircraft will be for training, which 

will be associated with one of the first six locations still to be decided. 

So at the end game here, what we will have is nine four-aircraft 

bed-downs and eight four-aircraft bed-downs and one six-aircraft 

bed-down. That is what the total will be. 

Now, there is a mandated report which was in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for our game plan. I just 

talked to General George Casey, in fact, on Tuesday about that report to make sure that he was comfortable with it. And so it is 

pending Secretary of the Air Force Mike Donley’s signature and 

will be submitted to the committees here shortly. That outlines this 

eight, nine location bed-down. 

With respect to use of the assets, it is true that United States 

Central Command is contracting for—not really leasing them—contracting for some airlift capability in Afghanistan. And we are reducing that over time. C–27s will probably address some of that. 

Our other aircraft, including C–130s and C–17s, will certainly address the rest. 

For example, one of the things that the contract airplanes do is 

so-called, low-altitude, low-speed air drop, basically, bundles to remote locations in Afghanistan. And we have qualified our C–130s 

crews to do that now. And so the number of pounds delivered is 

up to almost 1.9 million pounds of aerial-delivered cargo which 

means conveyed do not have to move over the road with the, obviously, entailed risks. 

So bottom line, sir, is we are well along on this. The formal response will be submitted shortly. The Army and the Air Force, I 

think, are completely in agreement with the way forward. And the 

fundamental thing out of all this was that the United States Air 

Force is prepared and trained to do direct support whenever the 

Army requires it. 

And direct support means dedicated support to specific maneuver 

units. It might not be required all the time, probably is not. But 

when it is, we need to be agile enough to do it. And we ran a test 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
518 

in Iraq that completed at the end of December. And I think we 

have persuaded our teammates that we can do it and we will do 

it when it is needed. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. What is the new C–130, the brand-new ones? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is a J model, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me tell you. We just came back from Afghanistan and Pakistan and stopped in Ramstein. And there were 25 

planes taking off every day taking cargo down. And some of them 

were the new ones. 

We were on one. It had 227 miles on it. It smelled like a brandnew airplane kind of like when you get in the car with a—and everybody was so excited. I mean, those things are fantastic. So— 

and, in fact, I think we flew up from Kabul back to Islamabad. 

And so that is a great aircraft. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, you are right. The last new airplane that 

I experienced was many, many years ago, in 1975 probably. But I 

can still remember what it smelled like. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

General Schwartz, let me ask—this is something I like to ask 

each of our chiefs. DOD, as you know, has come out with new 

standards on the definition of inadequate housing and barracks. 

And I just want to get a metric each year where we are. 

Could you tell me or General Byers tell me, as of today, with the 

new standards, how many airmen and single airmen do we have 

and then how many families do we have living in housing or barracks that doesn’t meet DOD standards? 

General SCHWARTZ. Let me start with housing. About 6,000 is 

roughly the number of occupied inadequate homes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ [continuing]. The U.S. government inventory. 

Another 7,000 or so that currently reside in inadequate privatized 

housing. 

So total about 13,000. And that is out of the total of about 70,000 

total occupied family housing units. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

General SCHWARTZ. And the expectation is that, given the demolition, the new construction, the renovation that is occurring in the 

privatized housing sector, that we will reduce those inadequate 

homes in the U.S. to zero by 2016. 

Mr. EDWARDS. By 2016. 

General SCHWARTZ. Now, on the single Airmen side, we have 65 

dormitories that are considered tier one or inadequate. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry. How many? 

General SCHWARTZ. 65. 

Mr. EDWARDS. 65. 

General SCHWARTZ. And that is out of a total of 885, roughly. We 

have requested dormitories in the FY11 budget submission at five 

locations—Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; McGuire Air Force 

Base, New Jersey; Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico; Al Udeid 

Air Base Qatar; Aviano Air Base, Italy. So two overseas, three in 

the CONUS. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
519 

And the prospect is on the current glide path, we would get to 

zero inventory of inadequate dormitories in 2017. That is slightly 

behind the Department of Defense goal of 2015. I acknowledge 

that. Again, this is trying to keep things in balance. 

You could do dormitories faster but maybe you would have to 

slow down family housing. And this is trying to get to the sweet 

spot with all of the entire inventory. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Given the downturn in residential housing construction of the last year or so, what kind of bid savings are you 

seeing, General Byers? 

General BYERS. Sir, we are seeing pretty significant bid savings, 

especially as General Schwartz talked about with the number of 

ARRA projects, the $1.7 billion that we executed and with our current military construction program. We are seeing about a 13 percent savings as an average across the industry. 

And that has been pretty significant, obviously, to help us stay 

under budget but also, as General Schwartz talked about as well, 

go after some other projects on our priority list. So that has been 

really significant. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. 

General BYERS. We see helpful bid savings in this downturn but 

we also know that we have got some increases especially over in 

the U.S. Central Command AOR with construction increases— 

about four-fold and it has lots to do with concrete, steel, labor, and 

petroleum over there. And so we have been working real hard for 

an increase, as you know, with the minor construction limitation 

here in CONUS as well as overseas and also trying to use our P– 

341 authority that we have. And we tried to increase that for 

2010—where we have some bid savings—and then 2011, we are 

going to increase that as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. I would note, as you can imagine, sir, construction in Afghanistan is tough in lots of places. And that is one 

of the reasons for cost. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Is it raw materials or personnel? 

General SCHWARTZ. Security is workforce, and it is raw materials 

as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

General SCHWARTZ. Transportation, for example, is challenging. 

It is harder to do there than elsewhere, to be sure. And it is a landlocked country. 

Mr. EDWARDS. A lot of challenges. 

General BYERS. The infrastructure is really hard to get materials 

in and out. The petroleum products are real expensive, as you 

could imagine. And the construction costs—and it is mostly concrete steel and the labor and the petroleum related products and 

delivery. 

F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER TIMETABLE

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

My second and last question on this round would be, in terms of 

the F–35 joint strike fighter as I understand the acquisition timetable has fallen behind. Does that impact your MILCON needs? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
520 

General SCHWARTZ. We are synchronized properly for the early 

delivery of training aircraft. There are eight or so projects at Eglin 

Air Force Base to stand up the training operation. I think it is at 

least $48 million in military construction. 

General Byers can confirm the number. And what we have laid 

in is synchronized with the expected delivery of assets. It is true 

that the so-called production rate has been lowered in fiscal year 

2015 and out. We are taking 67 fewer deliveries between now and 

then. 

But fundamentally, we still have to have the schoolhouse operation, which is joint and includes a 24-aircraft Air Force unit, a 15- 

aircraft Navy unit, and a 20–aircraft Marine Corps unit. And that 

will all be at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. 

We are on track from a construction point of view on that. 

I might just mention for the benefit of the members we have restructured the program. As I mentioned to your colleague, Congresswoman Granger, the other day, that I think we are now in a 

position where we have less optimism and more realism in this program. You know, it was needed, and you are aware of the adjustments that have been made. 

But fundamentally, this machine will be the backbone of our tactical fighter fleet going forward. And it is equally true, I think, for 

the Navy and Marine Corps that we are national partners. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. 

General SCHWARTZ. An important program. We have made internal management changes. We have restructured it. And the contractor, Lockheed, has also made very significant changes under 

pressure. And that pressure will continue. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. BYERS. Sir, if I may, there were eight military construction 

projects in fiscal year 2010 request for a total of $48 million at 

Eglin. And the follow up on what we have in our 2011 request, we 

do have projects planned at Eglin and at Nellis. And those four 

projects are out there. 

As General Schwartz mentioned earlier, there are three that 

were TBD for the next locations for a simulator for squad ops and 

an academic training center. We also have programmed in our 

FYDP about $184 million for future locations as we finish the selection of our strategic basing, we will then fine tune the 2012 budget. 

We have put some military construction facilities in place to 

make sure we can support those F–35 deliveries for the next locations. Just to confirm, the projects we do have in our 2011 program 

are not early to need, they are about just in time by the time you 

lay out the military construction progress. And it is in place by the 

first aircraft start arriving at those locations. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. As of right now, you would not want to take 

the money you requested for MILCON for the joint strike fighter 

facilities in fiscal year 2011 and put any of that money into—— 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I would not recommend that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Wamp. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
521 

ENGINEERS

Mr. WAMP. Chief, one of the challenges that our country faces is 

a shortage of engineers. The United States Air Force, maybe like 

no other organization, can play a critical role in our global competitiveness going forward with 60,000 civil engineers under your command. I think 4,000 are deployed right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is extraordinary. 

In Tennessee, we have a program called American Veterans for 

Tennessee Engineers. At Y–12, the National Security Complex in 

my district—they are actively recruiting young men and women to 

serve our country, and those that may receive a purple heart or 

some distinguished citation are moved to the front of the line. 

It is a partnership to, strengthen our work force and enhance our 

competitiveness. And engineers are critical. We know that. There 

is where we are losing it. 

If you could, please speak to that because the United States Air 

Force, again, I think, may be our prime driver for many new engineers in the work force. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, it is one of those areas on which all the 

services are highly dependent. And as you know, in the broader 

sense, this is called science and technology engineering and mathematics, the so-called stem discipline. It is very, very important to 

us. 

And it includes civil engineers and includes aerospace, naturally. 

The skills that are in that area for the Navy, no doubt, and involves maritime-related engineering skill sets. 

I think this is true for us as well as in industry where good engineering talent is in high demand. And what is important, I think, 

for us—and we beat the bushes. For example, I was at an event 

a couple of weeks ago in Baltimore where the Black Society of Engineers, a very influential organization whose purpose is to stimulate interest in engineering disciplines and encourage promising 

young students to seek careers there. 

Among other reasons, my purpose was to solicit interest in careers in the Air Force or at least in the armed forces. It is vitally 

important. 

What is happening in Tennessee is a great idea. You know, this 

is vitally important. In order to run big programs like F–35, you 

cannot do this with youngsters or folks with inadequate experience. 

You need people who know what systems engineering is about. You 

need people who know what cost estimating is about. You need 

people who can run big programs. 

And, of course, you grow them over time, but they start with 

technical degrees and an interest in public service like we all have. 

And it is very important to cultivate that in our youngsters. And 

I certainly encourage continuing to do that. Even if they do not end 

up in the armed forces, it is good for the country. 

PANAMA CANAL

Mr. WAMP. This is off the beaten path, but I was interested because I lived there as a boy. What became of Howard Air Force 

Base and the Panama Canal Zone, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
522 

General SCHWARTZ. It has gone back to the Panamanians some 

years ago. We occasionally fly through there but it is no longer. We 

have no personnel assigned there and no responsibility for the installation. 

Mr. WAMP. Actually, when I was there, the iguanas really had 

control of it, not—— 

[Laughter.] 

General SCHWARTZ. It is still the case, I am sure. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMP. Is there anything else that has either come up in 

your mind while you have been here or anything else that we need 

to know before we storyboard the MILCON bill for the year? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. I think that—as I suggested earlier, 

we have some tough choices. And what you see in the 2011 program we will have an opportunity to revisit and tweak in 2012. 

And we intend to do that. 

To be candid, there were very significant close-out pressures at 

the conclusion of the fiscal year 2011 budget cycle. And to put it 

in sort of the vernacular of balancing-the-books pressures. 

We balanced some of our books, particularly after 2011 and 2012, 

and out through use of the military construction commodity. We 

will revisit that in 2012. 

So what I wanted to reassure you was that, while there were 

some tactical decisions made based on budgeting priorities at the 

conclusion of closing the books last year, that I hope that you will 

not read that as a lack of commitment toward maintaining, sustaining and keeping our infrastructure where it needs to be. 

We know we have some adjustments to make in the 2012 cycle. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BALANCING THE BUDGET

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I follow up on that? You were honest in 

your opening comments, which I appreciate. We all know, at the 

end of the day, there are tough choices you have to make. And 

when you have to make tough choices and set priorities, there are 

going to be some unmet needs. 

In terms of the MILCON decisions made in fiscal year 2011 to 

balance the budget, what one, two, or three areas had to be sacrificed the most that we need to look at in years ahead? 

General SCHWARTZ [continuing]. The OSD mandate is 2015. We 

are behind that by a couple of years based on the current projections. We probably would have done more. 

I would indicate though that we got $1.7 billion out of the recovery act. We did very well. Frankly, part of the logic of this was that 

we benefitted substantially from the recovery act investment. We 

can maybe trade some of that benefit for some near-term relief 

elsewhere in the program. 

But dormitories is the case in point. Clearly, we will need to pay 

close attention to the need for facilities related to F–35, to low-observable maintenance facilities related to F–22, and what have you. 

So I think, there is some mission military construction. There is 

some family-related and single Airmen-related issues. I would just 

like to emphasize that we intend to do better in the next cycle. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
523 

Mr. EDWARDS. And this may relate to that, but as I understand 

it, in your total force MILCON program of about $1.5 billion, I 

think only $184 million or thereabouts was dedicated to current 

missions facilities. Is that an example—I would have to assume you 

cannot maintain that level of commitment without really degrading 

the facilities. 

General SCHWARTZ. Right. We need to do better there. Another 

area is the relative distribution of projects for both the active duty, 

the Air Force Reserve, and our Air National Guard. 

Of note, about 80 percent of the plant replacement value is in the 

active duty. And actually, about 87 percent. And we—this year, we 

had about 80 percent of the investment stream going into the active duty. 

In the Air National Guard, it is actually about 10 percent, and 

we had 17 percent investment going into the Air National Guard 

needs. So they did a little better. The Air Force Reserve did not do 

as well. They are about 4 percent of the plant replacement value, 

and we ended up funding them at about 2 percent. 

And it does shift from year to year. But it is important for us, 

again, to take care of the whole family because everybody counts. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ. And the Air Force Reserve got one project 

which was a maintenance facility at Patrick Air Force Base. But 

that is another area that we have to look at carefully in the next 

cycle. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. 

GUAM

Mr. EDWARDS. And there are a number of questions we will follow up in writing to you and to your staff. But I would like to ask 

about Guam. Where are you in your MILCON plans at Guam? And 

to what extent do the complications of working out the agreements 

with the Japanese impact the timing of your MILCON concerns? 

General SCHWARTZ. The bottom line is Andersen Air Force Base 

is our flagship on Guam. We are somewhat independent of the decision of the Japanese government here. That is the relocation of 

the Marines. 

Now, there is a project on the north side of the runway which 

would bed down the aviation elements of the Marines. That is 

about a billion four project and maybe higher depending on how 

hardened the facilities need to be. 

But with respect to the Air Force mission space, we had two 

projects in 2011. One was the south ramp project that, if I recall 

correctly, about $12.2 million or thereabouts. And then another 

project called Strike Operations, which was an operations facility 

at $9.1 million. 

We are proceeding along. In 2010, we had some utilities work to 

the south side ramp and what have you. And in addition, Defense 

Energy Support Center is funding a second fuel line. Right now, 

there is a single-thread fuel line that goes from the port at Apra 

Harbor to the base. They will be funding a second redundant fuel 

line, which makes very good sense there as well. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
524 

So collectively, I think we are doing reasonably well at Andersen. 

And we will let you know what happens with regard to the May 

decision that the Japanese government is supposed to take with respect to the agreements between us and them on adjusting Okinawa bed-down. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you need to get your construction done before 

we have this massive construction with relocation of the Marines 

in Guam so we do not have a kind of inflation we are facing in Afghanistan? 

General SCHWARTZ. I think that is the path we have been on. 

And you can confirm this, but we have been fairly disciplined and 

deliberate with doing projects each year and are trying to get 

ahead of a spike in construction requirements if that is how it 

turns out. 

Can you answer that? 

General BYERS. Yes, sir. At Andersen, we have done some studies over the years to deternime the contstruction workload capability. There is a huge labor force that would have to come in along 

with bringing in the material. It is not unlike Afghanistan when 

we think about what is there from a labor force and materials perspective. 

And so we have been working real close with the Joint Guam 

program office as we work with the Navy and the Marines on the 

Guam bed-down and their timing. And as General Schwartz had 

talked, he related that we were working real close on Andersen 

proper with those two projects that pull out the utilities and then, 

of course, the strike tanker bomber squad operations. 

The other piece is over at our northwest field as well, and we 

have a request in there for three projects to really fill out our training area where we have assets coming in from Korea and Japan. 

The Commando Warrior, which is our security forces training facility, combat communications operations facility, and our RED 

HORSE engineering facilities that are being out there. And that is 

part of our request in fiscal year 2011 as well. 

Our concern is once the Marines would come in, that construction, as they go through their EIS today, highlights several concerns. Several concerns with the environment, the fish and wildlife, 

construction workload and the stress that will be on the infrastructure and, particularly, the water and sewer systems and the road 

systems. 

And so we would really like to keep on our timeline to complete 

work before the Marine beddown. That would just really complicate 

all those issues. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for that. I have no additional questions. 

Mr. Wamp, do you? 

General Schwartz, I would just finish by saying I appreciate your 

straightforwardness and recognizing that, in military construction 

thare were some tough choices made. This committee is always respectful of the fact that America is at war, and your first priority 

has to be to support your war fighters. We also know you have, as 

a priority, major recapitalization of your weapons systems. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
525 

So at the same time, I am very happy to hear that—at least as 

you look at 2012, you recognize you have to find a way to prevent 

slipping too far behind on these long term quality-of-life issues. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. Like I said, we made some tactical 

decisions consciously. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ. You know, with forethought. But was we 

want to do is what I know you all do is to take a longer view here 

as well. And we will do that as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you. Let me finish this up. 

Thank you both for your incredible service to our country and to 

the amazing men and women that you have the privilege of leading. Thank you for serving here today. 

We will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Chairman Edwards] 

F–35 BEDDOWN

Question. General Schwartz, regarding the funds requested for F–35 beddown 

projects at locations ‘‘To Be Determined,’’ when will the Air Force be able to provide 

the Committee with site-specific 1391s? 

Answer. The Air Force will be able to provide the Committee with site-specific 

1391s after the environmental impact analysis process is complete for both training 

and operations locations, and the SECAF and CSAF make a final basing decision 

in early 2011. 

STRATEGIC BASING PROCESS

Question. Why did the Air Force develop the Strategic Basing Process to make decisions regarding the stationing of force structure—i.e., what were the deficiencies 

of the previous decision-making process? 

Answer. Prior to the fall of 2008, Air Force major commands decentrally managed 

and executed our basing process. In December 2008 to obtain better control and 

oversight, the Secretary of the Air Force directed basing decisions take place at the 

Headquarters Air Force level. The Air Force Strategic Basing Executive Steering 

Group was established to oversee and ensure a transparent, standardized, and repeatable process for required basing actions across the Air Force enterprise. 

Question. What major basing actions currently are being pursued through the 

Strategic Basing Process, and what are the timelines for these actions? 

Answer. The major weapons systems currently undergoing the Air Force strategic 

basing process include: 

F–35A Training Base(s) 

• Current Status: Environmental Impact Statement ongoing 

• Release of Criteria: September 2009 

• Release of Candidate Bases: October 2009 (Boise Air Terminal AGS, Eglin 

AFB, Holloman AFB, Luke AFB, Tucson IAP AGS) 

• Final Basing Decision: March 2011 

F–35A Operational Base(s) 

• Current Status: Environmental Impact Statement ongoing 

• Release of Criteria: September 2009 

• Release of Candidate Bases: October 2009 (Burlington IAP AGS, Hill AFB, 

Jacksonville IAP AGS, Mountain Home AFB, Shaw AFB-McEntire AGB) 

• Final Basing Decision: March 2011 

MC–12W 

• Current Status: Site surveys being conducted 

• Release of Criteria: March 2010 

• Release of Candidate Bases: April 2010 

• Final Basing Decision: April 2011 

C–27J Formal Training Unit 

• Current Status: Identifying candidate bases 

• Release of Criteria: April 2010 

• Release of Candidate Bases: May 2010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
526 

• Final Basing Decision: October 2011 

C–27J Operational Bases • Current Status: Identifying candidate bases • Release of Criteria: April 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: June 2010 (First six bases announced in Jul 

08 are Martin State AGS [Baltimore, MD], W.K. Kellogg Airport [Battle Creek, 

MI], Bradley IAP AGS [Bradley, CT], Hector Field AGS [Fargo, ND], Mansfield 

Lahm RAP [Mansfield, OH], and Key Field AGS [Meridian, MS]) • Final Basing Decision: October 2011 

MQ–9 Remote Split Operations for Two Active Duty Squadrons • Current Status: Identifying candidate bases • Release of Criteria: April 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: May 2010 • Final Basing Decision: June 2010 

C–17 Basing for Eight Aircraft • Current Status: Identifying candidate bases • Release of Criteria: April 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: April 2010 • Final Basing Decision: June 2011 

MQ–9 Remote Split Operations for Creech Dispersal and Remainder of 65 CAP Requirement • Current Status: Developing criteria • Release of Criteria: August 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: September 2010 • Final Basing Decision: January 2012 

Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA) • Current Status: Developing criteria • Release of Criteria: October 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: November 2010 • Final Basing Decision: June 2011 

Light Armed Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (LAAR) • Current status: Developing criteria • Release of Criteria: February 2011 • Release of Candidate Bases: June 2011 • Final Basing Decision: April 2012 

Tanker • Current status: Developing criteria • Release of Criteria: October 2010 • Release of Candidate Bases: January 2011 • Final Basing Decision: September 2012 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IN AFGHANISTAN

Question. You mentioned some of the challenges in executing military construction 

in Afghanistan. Are there any statutory or budgetary impediments to executing 

military construction in Afghanistan in a more efficient manner? 

Answer. The Air Force requests the current Operation and Maintenance unspec- ified minor construction threshold be raised from $750,000 to $3,000,000 per project 

for Overseas Contingency Operations. This statutory change would provide a more 

timely and responsive mechanism for executing small construction projects required 

to establish expeditionary bases, particularly in U.S. Central Command’s Area of 

Responsibility. 

QDR AND ‘‘RESILIENCY’’ OF FACILITIES

The Quadrennial Defense Review report makes numerous references to the need 

to increase ‘‘resiliency’’ at overseas bases, including the ‘‘hardening’’ of key infrastructure. The Air Force FYDP includes $275 million for unspecified ‘‘resiliency’’ 

military construction at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. 

Question. What type of construction is required to improve ‘‘resiliency’’? 

Answer. The Department does not have a standard definition for ‘‘resiliency’’. As a result, DOD budgeted $25 million in Fiscal Year 2011 for a study to help determine how best to plan and program future ‘‘resiliency’’ military construction 

projects. This study is named the Hardened Installation Protection for Persistent 

Operations (HIPPO) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD). 

The HIPPO JCTD is expected to deliver a range of proven (threat-tested) sheltering methods which will improve ‘‘resiliency’’ (i.e., super hardened aircraft shelters, redundant/reinforced command and control nodes, hardened munitions storage 

facilities, etc.), a cost estimated strategy with a phased implementation schedule, an 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
527 

independent report of demonstrated operational utility, and a concept of operations 

which addresses methods to achieve the maximum combined effect. 

The Quadrennial Defense Review report makes numerous references to the need 

to increase ‘‘resiliency’’ at overseas bases, including the ‘‘hardening’’ of key infrastructure. The Air Force FYDP includes $275 million for unspecified ‘‘resiliency’’ 

military construction at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. 

Question. What other overseas bases will require this type of construction, and 

what is the cost estimate for such measures? 

Answer. At this time it is too early to know what other installations may require 

‘‘resiliency’’ and the estimated costs for such construction. Several ongoing efforts 

across the Department of Defense (DOD) will aid the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint, and Service planners in assessing what additional military construction 

will be required in the Pacific and other areas of operations. A Joint Capability 

Technology Demonstration (JCTD) is slated for Fiscal Year 2011. The JCTD will 

evaluate cost-effective measures to aid in improving ‘‘resiliency’’ at Andersen AFB, 

GU and elsewhere. Further classified analyses will enable DOD to determine 

courses of action for future ‘‘resiliency’’ construction funding. 

MANAGEMENT OF THE DORMITORY MASTER PLAN

I understand that the Air Force will centralize the management of the dormitory 

program, relieving the major commands of making the decision whether to put dormitories forward as their priority. 

Question. Why is the Air Force making this change, and what will be the impact 

on the prioritization and funding of the dormitory program? 

Answer. We are moving to a centrally-managed dormitory military construction 

program to provide an enterprise-wide analysis of the worst dorms. With a centralized program, the dormitories in the poorest condition will be replaced first. Also, 

with this centralized plan for military construction projects, an operations and 

maintenance Dormitory Focus Fund Initiative will be used to repair and maintain 

dormitories in a systematic way, ensuring serviceability and functionality until they 

are replaced. 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD & AIR FORCE RESERVE UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

Question. What are the primary unfunded MILCON requirements of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve? 

Answer. The primary Air National Guard (ANG) military construction requirements that could not be funded in Fiscal Year 2011 budget request include new 

weapon system projects supporting the beddown of the F–22, C–27, C–130, Component Numbered Air Force, and current mission deficiencies and recapitalization efforts described in the ANG Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), altogether totaling over $393 million. Additional projects that would not fit in the FYDP (as the 

Air Force continues to accept risk in infrastructure), but were eligible for submission 

as the ANG’s Title 10 Section 10543 report, total $166 million. An important element of executing these requirements is resourcing the design funding to accompany 

the construction. To execute the total of $559 million in unfunded military construction, the ANG would seek an additional $44 million in design funds. Below is a list 

of ANG unfunded military construction requirements. 

PRIORITIZED UNFUNDED AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILCON 

Priority Project Title State Installation Project Cost ($K) 

1 ................... TFI—F–22 Combat Aircraft Parking Apron HI Hickam AFB ....................... 15,500 

2 ................... TFI—F–22 Flight Simulator Facility ............ HI Hickam AFB ....................... 19,800 

3 ................... TFI—F–22 Weapons Load Crew Training 

Facility.

HI Hickam AFB ....................... 7,000 

4 ................... TFI -CNAF Beddown ...................................... MA Otis ANGB .......................... 7,800 

5 ................... TFI—CNAF Beddown Phase I ...................... MS Key Field ............................ 10,469 

6 ................... TFI—Contingency Response Group Facility KY Louisville IAP ..................... 11,200 

7 ................... TFI—Establish C–130 FTU .......................... TN Nashville IAP ..................... 6,900 

8 ................... TFI—C–27 Conversion ................................. CT Bradley IAP ........................ 9,600 

9 ................... TFI—C–27 Conversion—Construct Squadron Operations.MD Martin State Airport .......... 6,400 

10 ................. TFI—C–27 Conversion—Add to and Alter 

Maintenance Shops.

MD Martin State Airport .......... 6,600 

11 ................. TFI—C–27 Conversion ................................. MI W. K. Kellogg Airport ......... 5,700 

12 ................. TFI—C–27 Convert Maintenance Shops ..... MS Key Field ............................ 2,200 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
528 

PRIORITIZED UNFUNDED AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILCON—Continued 

Priority Project Title State Installation Project Cost ($K) 

13 ................. TFI—C–27 Beddown .................................... ND Hector Field ....................... 9,550 

14 ................. TEC Expansion-Dormitory and Classroom 

Training Complex.

TN McGhee-Tyson Airport ........ 18,000 

15 ................. Replace Fire Station .................................... OR Klamath IAP ....................... 8,300 

16 ................. Replace Operations, Training and Dining 

Hall Facilities.

PA Fort Indian Town Gap ........ 8,200 

17 ................. Dining Hall and Services Facility ................ NJ Atlantic City IAP ................ 9,300 

18 ................. Add to and Alter Aircraft Maintenance 

Hangar.

MA Barnes Municipal Airport .. 15,000 

19 ................. C–130 Aircraft Maintenance Shops ............ DE New Castle County Airport 12,600 

20 ................. Dining and Security Forces Facility ............. AL Birmingham IAP ................ 10,400 

21 ................. C–130 Squadron Operations Facility ........... GA Savannah-Hilton Head IAP 8,300 

22 ................. Replace Squadron Operations Facilities ...... NC Charlotte—Douglas IAP .... 8,500 

23 ................. ASE, Group Shops and Weapons Release 

Facilities.

IN Fort Wayne IAP .................. 7,000 

24 ................. Replace Squadron Operations Facility ......... LA New Orleans NAS ............... 9,700 

25 ................. Force Protection Measures—Relocate 

Hobbs Road.

TN McGhee-Tyson Airport ........ 6,500 

26 ................. Add to and Alter Security Police Facility ..... IA Sioux Gateway Airport/ 

Colonel Bud Day Field.

1,950 

27 ................. Add to and Alter Communications Facility AK Eielson AFB ........................ 6,500 

28 ................. Replace Fire Station .................................... WI General Mitchell IAP .......... 8,300 

29 ................. C–130 Fuel Cell/Corrosion Control Hangar AR Little Rock AFB .................. 10,700 

30 ................. C–130 Fuel Cell and Corrosion Control 

Hangar.

NJ Atlantic City IAP ................ 8,800 

31 ................. Upgrade Taxiway Juliet and Lima ............... CO Buckley AFB ....................... 4,000 

32 ................. C–130 Parking Apron ................................... RI Quonset State Airport ........ 1,800 

33 ................. Deployment Processing Facility ................... OH Rickenbacker IAP ............... 2,700 

34 ................. DRBS Storage Facility .................................. GU Andersen AFB .................... 2,000 

35 ................. Force Protection—Relocate Road ................ WV Yeager Airport .................... 13,000 

36 ................. TFI—Replace Squadron Operations Facility AL Montgomery Regional Airport.7,500 

37 ................. Range Training Support Facilities ............... KS Smoky Hill Range .............. 10,000 

38 ................. Replace Communications Training Facility WV Yeager Airport .................... 6,250 

39 ................. Corrosion Control Hangar ............................ IA Des Moines IAP .................. 4,700 

40 ................. Replace Operations and Training Facility ... SC McEntire Joint NGB ............ 6,900 

41 ................. Widen Taxiways and Arm/Disarm Aprons .... VT Burlington IAP ................... 16,500 

42 ................. Aircraft Maintenance Shops ......................... SD Joe Foss Field .................... 10,000 

43 ................. Medical Training and Security Forces Complex.CA Fresno-Yosemite IAP .......... 7,000 

44 ................. Replace Security Forces Facility .................. TX Ellington Field ................... 5,800 

45 ................. Add to and Alter Fire Crash and Rescue 

Station.

ME Bangor IAP ......................... 7,200 

46 ................. Replace Troop Trianing Quarters ................. MI Alpena County Regional 

Apt.

10,000 

47 ................. Security Forces and Medical Training ......... MS Jackson IAP ........................ 7,700 

48 ................. Replace Security Forces Complex ................ OH Toledo Express Airport ....... 12,200 

49 ................. Aircraft Support Equipment Storage ........... OH Rickenbacker IAP ............... 1,000 

50 ................. Replace Operations and Training Facility ... MI W. K. Kellogg Airport ......... 9,000 

51 ................. Replace Operational and Training Facility .. ND Hector Field ....................... 8,000 

52 ................. Force Protection Measures—Relocate Main 

Gate.

CA Moffett Federal Airfield ..... 4,756 

53 ................. Air Traffic Control Squadron Facility ........... NH Pease Tradeport ................. 7,900 

54 ................. Upgrade Vehicle Maintenance & Communications Complex.OH Blue Ash ............................ 1,400 

55 ................. Replace Troop Training Quarters ................. WI Volk ANGB .......................... 10,900 

56 ................. Solar Power Generation System ................... CA Fresno-Yosemite IAP .......... 5,700 

57 ................. Replace Warehouse ...................................... AR Fort Smith MAP ................. 8,800 

58 ................. Aircraft Conversion ....................................... NY Stewart IAP ........................ 5,000 

59 ................. Add/Alter Civil Engineer Facility .................. TX Carswell ARS ..................... 2,700 

60 ................. Antiterrorism Force Protection/Gate/Land 

Acquisition.

AZ Tucson IAP ......................... 7,000 

61 ................. C–130 Fuel Cell Hangar .............................. DE New Castle MAP ................ 11,200 

62 ................. Relocate ROSC ............................................. WY Cheyenne MAP ................... 1,900 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
529 

PRIORITIZED UNFUNDED AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILCON—Continued 

Priority Project Title State Installation Project Cost ($K) 

63 ................. Add to DCGS ................................................ IN Hulman MAP ...................... 15,500 

64 ................. Wind Power Generating System ................... MT Great Falls IAP .................. 3,700 

65 ................. Solar Power Generation System ................... NJ Atlantic City IAP ................ 3,700 

66 ................. Replace Operations and Training Facility ... NV Reno-Tahoe IAP ................. 9,800 

67 ................. TFI—B–2 Command and Control Facility ... MO Whiteman AFB ................... 6,400 

68 ................. Add/Alter Senior Scout Complex .................. UT Salt Lake City IAP ............. 23,000 

Total .... ....................................................................... ............................................ 559,375 

The Air Force Reserve has validated, and prioritized, a $1.2 billion backlog of 

military construction requirements to recapitalize existing infrastructure and remedy critical deficiencies. Of that backlog, the top 25 priority projects totaling $346.7 

million are as follows: 

1. $9M, Aerial Port Squadron Facility at Minneapolis 

2. $16.3M, Guardian Angel Facility at Davis-Monthan 

3. $14.5M, Fire Station and Security Complex at Dobbins 

4. $9.9M, Control Tower at March 

5. $7.3M, Base Operations at March 

6. $14.4M, Aircraft Parking Ramp at Maxwell 

7. $9.8M, Entry Control Complex at Homestead 

8. $34M, Air Force Regional ISO Maintenance Hangar at Westover 

9. $14.9M, Joint Regional Deployment Processing Center, Phase 1 at March 

10. $9M, RED HORSE Readiness and Training Facility at Charleston 

11. $9.5M, Tanker Parking Apron Expansion at Seymour Johnson 

12. $12M, Reserve Lodging Facility at Duke Field 

13. $2.3M, Logistics Readiness Squadron Facility Addition at Whiteman 

14. $13.3M, Operations Group Facility at Seymour Johnson 

15. $10.9M, Wing Headquarters Facility at Pittsburgh 

16. $5.8M, Aerial Port Squadron Facility at Maxwell 

17. $2.9M, Addition to 68th Airlift Squadron Operations at Lackland 

18. $11 M, Fitness Center at Dobbins 

19. $8.4M, AFRC Headquarters Infrastructure Phase 1 at Robins 

20. $34.3M, AFRC Headquarters Facility, Phase 2 

21. $4.2M, Airlift Control Flight Facility at McGuire 

22. $9.5M, Joint Squadron Operations at Niagara Falls 

23. $10.3M, Add/Alter Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Grissom 

24. $36.6M AFRC Headquarters Facility Phase 3 at Robins 

25. $36.6M, AFRC Headquarters Facility Phase 4 at Robins 

U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND, OFFUTT AFB, NE 

The Air Force’s 2011–2015 FYDP displays an anticipated MILCON requirement 

of $564 million, excluding an additional $550 million for communications and other 

equipment, to recapitalize U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) facilities at 

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 

Question. What is the Facility Condition Index rating of USSTRATCOM facilities 

at Offutt? 

Answer. The average Facility Condition Index rating of the USSTRATCOM facilities at Offutt AFB, Nebraska is at best, 72, and equates to the Department of Defense facility model as a Q3. However, this Facility Condition Index does not fully 

consider the significant communication and power infrastructure requirements necessary for successfully executing the USSTRATCOM mission. 

The Air Force’s 2011–2015 FYDP displays an anticipated MILCON requirement 

of $564 million, excluding an additional $550 million for communications and other 

equipment, to recapitalize U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) facilities at 

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 

Question. How much is budgeted for planning and design for this project? 

Answer. The Air Force has a total of $33 million of USSTRATCOM planning and 

design funds through Fiscal Year 2011. 

The Air Force’s 2011–2015 FYDP displays an anticipated MILCON requirement 

of $564 million, excluding an additional $550 million for communications and other 

equipment, to recapitalize U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) facilities at 

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 

Question. What is the FY11 sustainment budget for USSTRATCOM facilities at 

Offutt? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
530 

Answer. The approximate sustainment budget for the USSTRATCOM facilities at 

Offutt AFB, Nebraska is $2.4 million (90 percent of the Fiscal Year 2011 Facility 

Sustainment Model requirement). 

U.S. CYBER COMMAND

The Air Force FYDP also indicates the need for FY12–15 funding for ‘‘U.S. 

CYBERCOM Stand Up’’ in four increments, but no dollar amounts are provided. 

Question. How will the site selection for USCYBERCOM be determined? Will it 

proceed through the Strategic Basing Process, or some other method? 

Answer. The Air Force is committed to a repeatable, defendable and transparent 

basing process and is now executing an enterprise-wide look for all basing actions. 

Site selection for USCYBERCOM will proceed through the AF strategic basing process, with criteria developed collaboratively among applicable USCYBERCOM stakeholders. 

The Air Force FYDP also indicates the need for FY12–15 funding for ‘‘U.S. 

CYBERCOM Stand Up’’ in four increments, but no dollar amounts are provided. 

Question. When will a USCYBERCOM MILCON estimate be available to the 

Committee? 

Answer. Currently, the USCYBERCOM MILCON estimate is not available since 

no decisions have been made about its location, scope, schedule and budget. The 

USCYBERCOM MILCON requirements will be developed and vetted through the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force corporate structure during the 

development of Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The Air Force will be in a better position 

to provide information after the release of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. 

COCOM REQUIREMENTS

Question. As discussed in the hearing, there is great pressure on the Air Force 

military construction budget, limiting the amount of funding that can be made 

available for current mission needs. Given current combatant command requirements, plus large future requirements for USSTRATCOM recapitalization and 

USCYBERCOM stand up that apparently will be borne by the Air Force, are you 

concerned that combatant command requirements will further crowd out current 

mission needs in the future? 

Answer. Yes, I am concerned with the Air Force’s ability to meet both the combatant command facility recapitalization requirements and continue to recapitalize our 

existing infrastructure. Going forward, the Air Force will continue to assess our infrastructure investment requirements to ensure that we are focusing on our worst 

facilities first, and that we are addressing those facilities most crucial to mission 

accomplishment. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(531) 

FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2010. 

FY2011 DOD Overview 

WITNESSES 

ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) 

DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee to order. 

Secretary Hale, Secretary Robyn, thank you both for being here. 

We are normally very committed to starting hearings on time, but 

at least we have one vote behind us now, and I think we will be 

able to proceed for about 20, 25 minutes, and then we will have 

two additional votes. 

I also want to apologize to you. We had you scheduled before our 

committee a week or so ago, and I think there was a Democratic 

caucus called, and that interrupted all the appropriations hearings. 

So thank you for coming back. 

And, obviously, the purpose of today’s subcommittee hearing is to 

discuss the Department of Defense fiscal year 2011 budget request 

for military construction, BRAC, and family housing. I am going to 

defer any long opening comments just to allow us more time for 

your testimony and time for questions, answers, and discussion. 

But we are glad you are both here. 

And I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw for any opening 

comments he would care to make. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wave those, as 

well, and just welcome Secretary Robyn back the second time this 

week. 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And, Secretary Hale, welcome back to you, and 

look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And at this time, let me just say, you have been 

through this routine many times. Your full written testimony will 

be included in the record, but I would like to recognize you now for 

any opening comments you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT F. HALE

Mr. HALE. Well, thank you for the chance to be here. And let me 

just start by thanking the committee and you two particularly for 

all your support for the men and women in the military. What you 

do to help us means we can accomplish our national security objectives, and it is appreciated. 

I have a long statement—actually a short statement, that I am 

going to summarize. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
532 

Let me say just a couple words about the overall base budget for 

context. We asked, as you know, for $549 billion in discretionary 

budget authority, in real terms, a 1.8 percent increase fiscal 2011 

over 2010. Over a 5-year period, 2010 to 2015, our average real 

growth is 1 percent a year. 

Mr. HALE. We believe this reflects the administration’s commitment to modest real growth that we need to equip and sustain a 

military at war. 

This is a budget that builds on the Quadrennial Defense Review, 

which I think deepened and supported the themes in the budget, 

and it furthers the secretary’s three overriding goals, first, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, which 

is our highest priority; second, to rebalance this military in order 

to focus on today’s wars, as well as providing a base of capability 

against future conflicts; and, finally, to reform what and how we 

buy. 

And we have this year proposed another seven terminations or 

programs that are either unneeded or are not performing well, including the C–17 aircraft and the alternate engine. 

For military construction and family housing, as I think you 

know, we have asked for $18.7 billion, which is a decrease of, as 

compared to last fiscal year, 20 percent. That decline, as again I 

think you know, is due to the decrease in BRAC 2005 funding. As 

we come to the fiscal 2011, BRAC 2005 deadline most of the major 

capital investments have been made. 

If you exclude BRAC and family housing, military construction is 

one of the fastest growing accounts in the budget. It is up $1.1 billion, or 8.4 percent. The increase is primarily due to mainly for 

Army modular force units, the relocation of Marines to Guam, and 

recapitalization at DOD schools. 

Our family housing, request is $1.8 billion. That represents a 

small decrease, but funds the programs we believe are needed, including improvements to existing housing units, normal operation 

and maintenance, the housing assistance program (HAP). It is 

down largely because of the $300 million that Congress added in 

fiscal 2010 for HAP expansion. 

We are also requesting funds for overseas contingency operations. Our wartime budget represents a substantial funding request of $159.3 billion in fiscal 2011, of which $1.3 billion is for 

military construction. All of the DOD construction funds in fiscal 

2011 are for projects in Afghanistan. 

We have also submitted a supplemental request for $33 billion 

and another one for approximately $655 million operations in for 

Haiti. The $33 billion request covers the costs of the additional 

30,000 troops that are deploying to Afghanistan. Included in that 

request is $500 million in military construction, primarily for new 

facilities for those additional troops. 

And finally, I will briefly mention the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, in which we are currently executing $7.4 billion. 

$2.2 billion in MILCON primarily for we are executing two large 

hospitals, as well as a number of other projects. 

In conclusion, we believe this is a budget that is the right budget 

for our time. It asks for the minimum resources we need to meet 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
533 

our critical national security objectives, including a strong military 

construction program, and I urge your support. 

Let me thank you again for your support of the Department. 

After Dr. Robyn concludes her testimony, I would be glad to answer 

any questions. 

[Prepared statement of the Honorable Robert F. Hale follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
534 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1003 here 56870B.139
535 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1004 here 56870B.140
536 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1005 here 56870B.141
537 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1006 here 56870B.142
538 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1007 here 56870B.143
539 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Hale. 

Dr. Robyn. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY ROBYN

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you very much. 

Bob gave you the overall numbers on military construction, so I 

want to just say a word about three of my priorities in the overall 

budget. 

The first is Guam. I am deeply involved in the department’s effort to move 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to 

Guam. Like any international effort this large and complex, the 

build-up of Guam faces an array of challenges, but no single realignment or effort generally has higher profile within the department. The deputy secretary is personally overseeing the effort. Our budget includes $452 million for military construction on 

Guam. These are projects that will yield long-term benefits to all 

the military forces on Guam, including the ones that are there now, 

as well as the Marines who are scheduled to go there. And these 

projects will also demonstrate our commitment to working with the 

governor of Guam, whose strong support has been absolutely critical to our effort there. 

I very much appreciate the support this committee has given to 

our past investment in Guam. And we look forward to working 

with you on this year’s investment. 

Second, let me mention energy. Management of installation energy, it is important to the department for two reasons. One is cost. 

We have more than 300,000 buildings, 2.2 billion square feet of 

space. That is a footprint 10 times that of GSA, four times that of 

Wal-Mart. So our corresponding energy bill is high, roughly $4 billion annually, and we need to manage that and get it down. 

The second reason installation energy is important is mission assurance. Our installations support operations more directly than 

ever before. We are piloting UAVs in Afghanistan from a building 

in Nevada, for example, and many, many other ways. And these 

bases in the U.S. in turn rely on an electricity grid that is fragile 

and vulnerable to cyber attack and a variety of other problems. 

Our energy security strategy has two main thrusts: lowering demand through investment in energy efficiency and conservation 

and increasing local supply through renewable energy projects. 

This subcommittee is helping us make significant investments in 

energy efficiency. One is through, most directly, the ECIP program, 

Energy Conservation Investment Program, where we have $120 

million in the budget for ECIP, which is a significant plus-up over 

the request a year ago. It is down from the overall amount, but 

ECIP benefited from stimulus funding last year. 

And then, more broadly, the military construction money is critical to our energy efficiency strategy, because it allows us to incorporate more efficient design material equipment into our facilities. 

And then, finally, our spending on sustainment and restoration. 

And let me just say that is the third issue I want to highlight as 

a priority, better managing our sustainment and recapitalization of 

facilities. For sustainment, which is the regularly scheduled repair 

and maintenance, we use industry standards for different types of 

buildings to estimate what our annual investment should be. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
540 

We require the military departments to invest at 90 percent of 

that level. Our budget is consistent with that, and that is a very 

good story. 

For recapitalization, which is the less predictable, really big-ticket items, we are moving toward a new approach that targets investment in facilities that are in poor or failing condition. That 

seems very logical to focus on the condition of individual buildings, 

but we actually did not do that in the past. We had a target for 

the overall inventory, and we have good data on condition of individual buildings, so we are developing a methodology that will 

allow us to get rid of buildings that are in poor or failing condition 

over a relatively limited period of time. 

So those are my highest priorities. I look forward to working 

with you all on those and to answer any questions today. 

[Prepared statement of Dorothy Robyn follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
541 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1012 here 56870B.144
542 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1013 here 56870B.145
543 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1014 here 56870B.146
544 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1015 here 56870B.147
545 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1016 here 56870B.148
546 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1017 here 56870B.149
547 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1018 here 56870B.150
548 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1019 here 56870B.151
549 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1020 here 56870B.152
550 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1021 here 56870B.153
551 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1022 here 56870B.154
552 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1023 here 56870B.155
553 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1024 here 56870B.156
554 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1025 here 56870B.157
555 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1026 here 56870B.158
556 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1027 here 56870B.159
557 

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW AND BRAC COMPLETION

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Robyn. 

Mr. Hale, let me begin with regard to the QDR. The QDR recommendations came in pretty late in the budget process. You referenced some of this, but if you could go into more detail—apparently, you were able to incorporate some of those recommendations 

into the MILCON budget for 2011, but did you have to leave others 

out? Will the 2011 budget fully reflect the QDR priority? 

Mr. HALE. Well, first of all, the QDR report was submitted with 

the budget. The QDR was very much a part of the entire budget 

formulation process. And I can tell you, since I sat through all the 

budget meetings—and there were many of them—that the QDR 

was discussed in virtually every one. How are we doing? Is it consistent? Is the budget consistent with that? 

In terms of military construction, the major QDR item is the 

Mayport proposal. We were planning to have a proposal on the Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in Europe, however there—the final 

decision was we needed some time to work with our allies, so I 

would anticipate that decision may be reflected being in the fiscal 

2012 budget request. 

I think the major items, as they relate to MILCON and, indeed, 

policy in general, are in this budget, and there may be more as we 

go along. 

Mr. EDWARDS. While there will be additional expenses in Europe 

because of the decision to keep two more brigades there, there 

should be some cost savings at Bliss and White Sands, shouldn’t 

there? That is where those two brigades were supposed to go. 

Mr. HALE. I do not want to prejudge that decision. It is still an 

open issue as to what is the final—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. HALE [continuing]. Decision with those one or two BCTs. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Let me ask you also, when Dr. Robyn was 

here during our BRAC hearing, we talked about the commitment 

to implement all of the BRAC recommendations by September 15th 

of 2011, and that is the law of the land, and we salute you. Congress appreciates it when the executive branch respects congressional priorities set into the law. 

But in this particular case, there have been some briefings that 

have identified up to $189 million of costs just to try to follow 

this—maybe I shouldn’t say arbitrary, but this specific deadline. 

At what point do we say, ‘‘Look, we are just not going to spend 

this many more dollars in order to meet September 15th of 2011. 

If there are two or three projects that need to be pushed back 6 

months and we can save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars that we could put into higher-priority needs for our servicemen 

and women, we ought to do that’’? 

Have you thought at all about that? Or are you completely committed at whatever cost to implement the September 15th deadline? And I understand that would require congressional change in 

the law if you reconsider that, but I would like to hear your recommendations. Do we stick to September 15th no matter the cost? 

Or is there some point at which we need to look at a couple of 

projects and provide some flexibility there? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
558 

Mr. HALE. Well, we are committed to September 15th. As you 

said, it is the law of the land. I think it is very important to us 

that we maintain that deadline so that all or almost all—projects 

makes it by then. 

I hear your concerns on the extra funding we have for temporary 

solutions to meet the deadline. In some cases, it is for things we 

can use afterwards. I am less concerned about that. There are potentially a few cases where we are spending money solely for the 

purpose of meeting the deadline. And I think that it is something 

we have to work with the Congress on, but, overall we remain committed to meeting that deadline for all of the projects that we possibly can. And if there are any that are not, I hope it is a very tiny 

number. 

Did you want to add to that? 

Ms. ROBYN. No, I think I—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. She was very eloquent the other day in terms of 

arguing that we—— 

Mr. HALE. We talked a lot about this—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, she argued that the plus of keeping the discipline, and we understand that. That is why Congress set a deadline in the law. And we have got to be careful. We do not want to 

open the floodgate. 

I would just urge the two of you to look at this. And if, at some 

point, there are just a couple of very limited examples of where we 

could save a lot of money that could be used to build a new barracks for our troops or better family housing for our military families rather than meeting the September 15th deadline and one or 

two or three examples, just please keep an open mind on that. And 

I know you watch over the tax dollars carefully. That is your job. 

At some point, we had a threshold where we go, ‘‘Jeez,’’ you 

know. I do not know if it is $189 million or I do not know if it is 

$500 million, but let us just keep talking, if we could, on that. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

MAYPORT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Hale, you mentioned, when you said ‘‘Mayport,’’ my ear 

kind of perked up. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HALE. Yes, right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But I just want to kind of just ask a couple of 

questions, because I remember when you were here last year, we 

talked about the—decision that had been entered and everything. 

And we have gone through the QDR and the final decision, I 

think—I guess I want to ask you—does that sound like the final 

decision to you? 

Mr. HALE. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And is that something that you were part of? As 

best you can tell, that is the final decision? 

Mr. HALE. Yes, it is the final decision by the Department of Defense. We understand there is a separate branch of government 

that may have differing opinions. 

I was involved as a senior DOD leader, and it was considered at 

the most senior levels in the Department of Defense. The Navy 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
559 

took the lead on the risk assessment and the funding of that 

project, but it was considered fully. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You know, I have seen some of the military construction projects laid out over—kind of a good part of the 5-year 

plan. And I know that—I guess you could either put it all in at 

once or space it out. Spacing out, was that more of a budgetary 

constraint or was it kind of an operational constraint, to say, ‘‘We 

have got to build a road before you build this,’’ or just based on our 

budget constraints, you said—the decision was that, ‘‘Let us 

phase—you know, put the money—kind of phase it in over that period of time?’’ 

Mr. HALE. Well, I would urge you to address that question to the 

Navy, because I think the secretary’s decision was to review the 

risk assessment and the overall goal and then make a decision, but 

the United States Navy is responsible for the funding. 

My understanding is, they needed some time to plan. But I also 

think that once that planning is done, they may want to reconsider 

the pacing of the Mayport project. So I think it would be good to 

ask them; maybe you already have. 

GUAM

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think it tends to be more budgetary, just because, you know, these are difficult times, and rather than put a 

lump sum in there, say, well, if we are going to spend it little by 

little, then we will do that. And that kind of brings me, maybe, to 

a question for Secretary Robyn real quick. 

You know, when you look at Guam—and you mentioned—I think the number was like $500 million plus—— 

Ms. ROBYN. $452 million. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. $450 million—just in military construction, what 

is the overall cost, have you figured out, to do that move? It is 

going to be expensive—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, the number that is commonly referred to is $10 

billion, of which the Japanese government would pick up 60 percent, or $6 billion, so that is—you know, maybe it would be more 

than that, but that is typically the number—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And, I mean, you know, when you talk about 

budgetary constraints, that is a lot of money. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And I just wondered, you know, in general, is 

that something you all are kind of looking at kind of day by day? 

I know you have got the council that kind of oversees that. But it 

seems to me there is a lot of questions in terms of planning, in 

terms of training, that are still up in the air. 

And so where are we in that process? I mean, what is your view? 

I know you are relatively new, but if you look at this, if we are 

going to commit that much money, is that the best way to spend 

all these dollars? I mean, we got the Japanese government. We are 

kind of—we do not know exactly how it is all going to work out. 

Give us kind of your overall assessment of that plan. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think Guam is a tremendous strategic asset. 

It is ours. It is U.S. territory. And it is one of a number of islands. 

Whatever happens with the Japanese, Guam will remain an enormous strategic asset to the U.S. military. And it is hard to imagine 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
560 

a scenario in which we are not very much present on Guam and 

even more so than we are currently. 

So it is a challenge. We are on a little bit of a pause with respect 

to the Futenma Replacement Facility, while the Japanese government deals with their internal politics, but we are moving ahead. 

And the projects that we are proposing for this year are projects 

that have long-term benefit. Some of them are at Andersen Air 

Force Base. Some of them are for the wharf where we need to be 

bringing in materials. So it is a—you know, this is a long-term big 

deal. From a strategic standpoint, it is extraordinarily important. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But it has put some strain. I mean, some of the 

questions—like the Navy, for instance, in terms of upgrading the 

wharfs and making sure you have got ship repair, maintenance facilities, all those kind of things. That is all being considered? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, no, that is all—that is very much part of it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. 

Ms. ROBYN. But just keep in mind that 60 percent of that $10 

billion figure would come from the Japanese government. And the 

reason that we are—that it is so important to continue to fund 

these military construction projects is because that also then says 

to the Japanese government, ‘‘You need to continue to put your 

money into this.’’ 

We have gotten—I do not remember the exact number—from the 

Japanese government, $300 million, $400 million, $500 million. We 

are scheduled to get another tranche of funding from them this 

year. We need to continue to invest in Guam in order to keep 

their—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So far, they have been keeping their end of the 

bargain? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Good. 

Mr. HALE. May I underscore what Dorothy just said? And that 

is, we need your help to appropriate those funds so that we do not 

send the wrong decision to the Japanese—the wrong signal, I 

should say, to the Japanese. I understand there are some delicate 

negotiations going on, but we want to prevail in this case, and we 

hope that you will support us. 

It is 5-year money. If there were to be changes, we could accommodate them in the future. So I would ask your help. I know it is 

a tough one. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So your point—if I could piggyback—is if we underfunded the administration’s request, the Japanese would see 

that as a signal where we are in the negotiations, that would be 

a bad signal to send, in your opinion? 

Mr. HALE. I believe it would. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

We are privileged to have the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee as a longtime member of this subcommittee, 

certainly no stranger to you. Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. 

And let me continue on this Guam issue. What are the major 

projects that have to be done? And I am a big supporter of this, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
561 

and Madeleine Bordallo is a valued member, who has talked to me 

repeatedly about this. 

What I am worried about is there appears to be some things that 

the government of Guam is supposed to do—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. That may be difficult for them to do, to 

deliver on. And I see that you have got this up to the deputy secretary, which is good, but what are the major projects that have 

to happen to make this all happen? And I realize the Japanese are 

putting up part of the money, but kind of describe the major elements. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, there is funding within inside defense, if you 

will, and the $452 million is for projects inside the fence this year. 

It is for existing wharf infrastructure, which has been degraded by 

typhoon damage, utilities in ramp improvements at Andersen Air 

Force Base, which, of course, is an enduring facility. Existing roads 

are limited, do not support the construction traffic associated with 

the wharf improvements and the Andersen improvements. I think 

those are the main areas—— 

Mr. DICKS. For this year? 

Ms. ROBYN. This is for the $452 million within the fence and 

the—— 

Mr. DICKS. What about the rest of it? What are the other elements of this? 

Ms. ROBYN. And some of the Japanese money will go for upgrading the utilities in the Guam infrastructure. And that is the outside-the-fence piece. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

Ms. ROBYN. And that is the delegate—Delegate Bordallo—has 

been very articulate about Guam’s needs, and we recognize those. 

The infrastructure in Guam is not in good shape. The military 

build-up will add to the problem. And so we need to work with the 

governor, the government of Guam, to upgrade and expand its infrastructure, power, wastewater, water, sewage. 

Mr. DICKS. Those are all pretty important issues. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, absolutely. And we want to do it—we have to 

do this in what we call—there are two terms. One is a one Guam 

approach. We do not want to have a—you know, everything nice inside the fence and then less so outside the fence. We do not want 

to have a fortress DOD approach. We need to do this in a way that 

we are drawing on the infrastructure of the broader island and 

helping to upgrade this. 

So this has the potential to be a very positive thing for the island, which is why the governor is supportive. 

Mr. DICKS. Is there a written document that lays out what is 

supposed to happen, like a 5-year plan or a 10-year plan? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. I believe the Navy has that sort of a document, 

which I would be happy to share with you—— 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. I think this is very important—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I mean, the—— 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. For us to understand, you know, what 

the Japanese are supposed to do, what—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay, yes. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
562 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. The U.S. government is supposed to do, 

and what is expected of Guam. That is the part that I am worried 

about. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think the U.S. versus Japan piece is pretty 

clearly laid out in the AIP, the agreement between the U.S. and 

Japan. I think the financing plan for the infrastructure is not as 

clear, and that is where the governor and the delegate, Bordallo, 

spoke to the Economic Adjustment Committee, the EAC, which the 

deputy secretary chaired 2 weeks ago. 

And the Defense Department agreed to take the lead on identifying and costing out the needs for infrastructure improvement outside the fence and for coming up with a plan—and this is the other 

term—a whole-of-government approach. That means an approach 

so that the Defense Department is paying its fair share, but other 

entities are contributing, as well. 

Mr. DICKS. But other agencies, for example, EPA, would be—you 

know, there could be some help to the clean water revolving 

fund—— 

Ms. ROBYN. EPA, Interior—— 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. The safe drinking water revolving 

fund—— 

Ms. ROBYN. That is right, yes. 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. That they would be eligible for. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. That is right. 

Mr. DICKS. We did have a Trident submarine base at—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. At Kitsap County. I was heavily involved 

in this. We had an impact aid program. And actually, at the time, 

that we not only had the impact aid program, but also the president said to all of the regional agencies that they were supposed 

to try to help. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. DICKS. So there was really a team effort, and there were— 

you know, someone came through transportation, and it was a 

pretty substantial—but I think something like that is going to be 

needed here. I am just worried that—because I know Guam is worried, I know Madeleine is worried that the government of Guam 

itself may not be able to do some of the things that are currently 

being expected of it. So—— 

Ms. ROBYN. They are limited in their capacity. And the governor 

has made a very compelling presentation—— 

Mr. DICKS. Like states are all over the country right now. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, they are limited by the Organic Act of 1950. 

They cannot take on debt over more than—I think it is something 

like 10 percent of the value of their real estate. So their borrowing 

capacity is limited. 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, well, I have got over my time here, but this is 

a—Mr. Chairman, I really believe that this is something we really 

have to look at—one other thing. 

Ms. ROBYN. Sure. Sure. 

Mr. DICKS. Quickly. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
563 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR GUAM

Mr. DICKS. I am told that there are some concerns by the Department of Interior on the environmental impact statement. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. DICKS. They feel that it was not the strongest statement that 

they have seen on the environment. 

Ms. ROBYN. That is a fair statement. The EPA gave it the lowest 

grade possible, the draft. This was the draft, not the final. 

Mr. DICKS. And this is Interior, too? This is EPA and Interior, 

I guess. So all I am saying is, it makes—you know, we try to do 

as good a job as you can in looking at the concerns that they have 

raised about the EIS. 

Ms. ROBYN. The Navy has no choice—— 

Mr. DICKS. This administration—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right, no, no, no, we—— 

Mr. DICKS [continuing]. Standards on the environment. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, yes, absolutely. And I think when the president 

gets to Guam in June, I think you will hear him say that. No, we 

are very committed. 

The EIS was weak. I think there are some legal differences of 

opinion over how much analysis needs to be done regarding—or the 

nature of the analysis regarding coral impact and then, even more 

importantly, the impact of what is called the induced growth, the 

growth on the island, the impact from having a large number of 

construction workers and then all of the—— 

Mr. DICKS. Cumulative effects. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. The cumulative effects. And I think the 

Navy had one view of what level of analysis was required. EPA and 

the research agencies have another view. All that needs to be 

worked out in the next couple of months so that we can get the 

record of decision and the final EIS—— 

Mr. DICKS. Who is in charge of that? 

Ms. ROBYN. That is Navy. 

Mr. DICKS. That is the—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I mean, the Guam Oversight Committee—— 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. Which the deputy secretary chairs, 

we—— 

Mr. DICKS. But the Navy is doing—— 

Ms. ROBYN. But the Navy is doing the EIS, yes. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. ROBYN. It is all being done out of Hawaii. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you for—— 

WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACH FOR GUAM

Ms. ROBYN. And can I just say one other thing? Because I think 

we have talked about BRAC, and I think BRAC is actually a good 

model for this whole-of-government approach. Non-DOD federal 

agencies contributed roughly $2 billion to reuse assistance for base 

closure communities between 1988, the first BRAC round, and 

1995. That doesn’t include the 2005 round. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
564 

That was a very, very nice model. I was very involved in that 

during the 1990s when I was in the Clinton White House. And 

EPA, Department of Labor, Interior—— 

Mr. DICKS. HUD. I am sure HUD—— 

Ms. ROBYN. HUD, HUD was huge, yes. AG. I mean, it was a 

wonderful effort by all of these agencies. It is tougher now because 

the economy is difficult, but we need sort of a whole-of-government 

approach. We do not have the authority to do a lot of this, and it 

is better done collectively. So that is what we are shooting for. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would hope, just following up on the analogy— 

and then I will recognize Judge Carter, but I think one of the 

shortcomings of BRAC is the investment in transportation infrastructure outside the fence. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are obviously seeing that at Bethesda and at 

Fort Belvoir. And if we do have another round of BRAC someday, 

I hope we take that into account. We cannot just ignore the fact 

there is going to be massive traffic congestion, but it is going to be 

outside the fence. And our DOD dollars have been limited, haven’t 

they, in terms of—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. You have the Defense Access Roads program, 

which we run together with federal highway, has put a relatively 

small amount of money into BRAC bases in the—or BRAC communities. We do have—the National Academy of Sciences is actually 

looking at this issue because of some language in last year’s 

approps bill. 

So we will have a report—we will have an interim report in May 

looking at the DAR criteria, which are the basis for determining 

how much money is appropriate. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. 

Judge Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS

I am sure you are aware of my bill, which provides up to $6,000 

for military spouses for job training, a wildly successful program. 

But my offices are being flooded with angry phone calls, from 

spouses and some college administrators. 

As a member of the Military Family Caucus, I signed a letter to 

join with my colleagues asking for an explanation for the program’s 

suspension and that it be reinstated. And it, in fact, was ultimately 

reinstated. However, the program was only reinstated for the current 136,000 enrollees, leaving thousands of military spouses out of 

luck. 

What is the department’s plan, if any, to reopen this enrollment? 

I will just give you an example: it seems like one of my children 

has been in college for the last 40 years. And one problem is that 

if you had not been to a university recently, it doesn’t take long for 

schools to say, ‘‘You have got to retake that credit.’’ 

If you are taking an English class and you cannot pay for it, and 

you have to drop out of that class, by the time you get readmitted, 

maybe it is another 18 months before you get back into class, you 

may find out you have to start over and take the class again. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
565 

I think this is wrong, but they do that. And so the longer we 

delay, people that are in the process of this degree, the harder it 

is going to be and the more money it is going to cost for them to 

attain that degree. And I hope that the department takes that into 

consideration. And what are your plans—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am going to interrupt here. And this is your call. 

We have probably about 2 minutes left on the second vote. 

Do you want to go cast the second vote and then allow them a 

full answer? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, that is a great idea. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. What I am going to do is call the subcommittee 

back to order. And pending Judge Carter’s return, hold off on your 

answering his question until he gets back. We can take advantage 

of a few moments. 

BID SAVINGS

Could I ask this question? In terms of your fiscal year 2011 

MILCON projects, did you build into those cost estimates for each 

individual project an estimated savings based on lower contract 

bids? Or were these numbers project by project built on past models of cost and construction per square feet? 

Mr. HALE. We did assume some overall reduction. I mean, first 

off, the projects are costed independently, but overall, about 5 percent below where we were in 2008. In 2009, we saw that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Five percent? 

Mr. HALE. We saw that reduction in 2009. We are seeing bid savings in 2010. It is too early to know how much. It is a projection 

in 2011, and we will have to watch it carefully. But let me just 

check. That is right, yes, 5 percent? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Okay. Because we actually in our bill for 

fiscal year 2010 was an assumption of the certain percent of savings. And I want to be sure we do not—— 

Mr. HALE. We are seeing savings. I think it is just too early to 

be sure that we will utilize them all, but we are seeing savings. 

Mr. EDWARDS. At least we should take into account, you have already assumed a 5 percent reduction over fiscal year 2009 execution. So if we think it is going to be 10 percent, that could be an 

additional savings, but 5 percent is already—— 

Mr. HALE. But I would urge caution, Mr. Chairman. We do not 

know where the construction industry is going. We all hope the 

economy recovers. It is a problem. It may be easy to realize bid savings. We can do something else with your permission. If we do not 

get the savings, and we have to add money, that is a problem. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right, okay. Okay. 

All right. Judge Carter is here. We will want to recognize you to 

answer Judge Carter’s question. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay, thank you. 

TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS

Mr. HALE. Sure. My CAA surprised us, to be frank. It had been 

going on some months. We were not getting high take rates. SudVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00565 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
566 

denly, I think due to some better publicity, the take rates just 

soared. 

We were running out of money and facing even a potential AntiDeficiency Act violations. So I think we had to stop. But I apologize 

for the inconvenience we caused to people. 

Mr. HALE. As you know—and as quickly as we could—we have 

reopened the program—call it phase one—for all of the spouses 

who actually signed up, the full $6,000 is now available again. We 

found another temporary funding source. We will have to submit 

a reprogramming request to the Congress to fill in the holes that 

were created, but that is back in place. 

Phase two is under review now. There are about 136,000, as you 

said, that were affected by phase one. There is a total of around 

750,000 spouses, so we have another 600,000 potential folks out 

there. 

This time, we need to do a more careful job of the cost estimates 

and thinking of the funding. And it is not just 2010, although that 

is a great concern. We have a problem in 2011, as well, so we are 

going to have to work with the Congress on a solution. 

That is under review—quick a review. The Secretary of Defense 

is fully committed to this program. I can speak personally to that. 

And so the personnel readiness staff, working with comptroller 

staff, are looking carefully at options. We need to develop—a good 

cost estimate and a funding approach and get back to the Secretary. I hope that occurs within weeks. It better be, or you may 

have a new comptroller. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CARTER. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any additional questions? 

Mr. CARTER. I have got another question. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Go ahead. You have some time. 

TRICARE

Mr. CARTER. Okay. The Secretary of Defense rolled out the 2010 

QDR—2011 budget. It says in a statement, ‘‘There have been no increases in TRICARE premiums for 15 years.’’ For a family of three, 

the out-of-pocket expenses are $1,200 per year for the federal—and 

for a federal employee, $3,300 a year. Congress has disapproved 

DOD’s request for modest increases the past 2 years. 

The military health care program costs have gone from $19 billion to $50.7 billion. I think everybody knows that health care is 

on everybody’s mind right now. I will give you an example—town 

hall meeting the day before yesterday. I did a webcast last night. 

And, of course, I have a huge amount of military folks in my district. 

Whenever I do one of those things, I get at least five to ten people saying, ‘‘What is going to happen to TRICARE? What is on the 

road to TRICARE?’’ And I tell them, this bill has nothing about 

TRICARE in it, so this is not about TRICARE, and I think that is 

an honest answer. 

But they said, ‘‘Well, yes, but’’—and I said, ‘‘Well, yes,’’ but I do 

not know the answer to it, because they are hearing there are 

going to be increases. They are concerned about it. And so I am 

asking for information. What is the reason for the tradeoff? How 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
567 

do you propose to figure out this tradeoff? And how will it be implemented if it happens? 

Mr. HALE. Well, first, let me say, we are fully committed to the 

TRICARE program, to maintaining high-quality care both for active-duty dependents and retirees. As the comptroller, I also recognize we have seen, as so many businesses have, great increases in 

our health care costs. 

And we have not proposed either this year or last year any 

change in TRICARE premiums—we continued to look for efficiencies in the TRICARE program. We are implementing several 

right now. The most important ones which we are still working to 

implement concern our ability to use the federal ceiling on drug 

pricing that is available to the Veterans Administration, and we 

have recieved authority to implement that efficiency. We were also 

sued by the drug companies. So far we have won. We have about 

$840 million built into our budget for this efficiently. I think we are 

going to succeed there. 

There are two small efficiencies in this budget for TRICARE, one 

dealing with supply chain, better buying, and an effort also to find 

better ways to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. There are no fee 

changes in co-pays. It is a tough year for health care initiatives. 

But I have to tell you, we need to continue to work with the Congress to look at ways to slow the growth of health care costs. Efficiencies are our first goal, but I believe that we will also have to 

work with the Congress on fees, as well. I do not think we can 

leave them fixed in nominal terms forever. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, and I am going to ask you the question that 

I get a lot. As you look down the road, and if you assume that 

maybe this Sunday we pass this bill and whatever comes out of 

this bill, when it gets completed, it is going to be the next national 

health care system for the country. 

People ask me, maybe it is not happening now, but will 

TRICARE be eliminated and thus be put in the national—singlepayer system. 

Mr. HALE. I do not think there are—there are certainly no plans 

that I know of—— 

Mr. CARTER. They are very upset that that might happen. 

Mr. HALE [continuing]. To have that happen. It is the personnel 

and readiness folks who are the health care experts, and I think 

I would be aware if there were any plans to—— 

Mr. CARTER. That is the answer I give, and so I want—— 

Mr. HALE. We are committed to TRICARE. It is not, as you said, 

directly affected, to the best of my knowledge—it may be indirectly 

aided, if we are able to contain overall health care costs in the 

country, because they influence what we pay for health care. So 

there may be some benefits. 

The Department of Defense is committed to high-quality care 

and to TRICARE. As the comptroller, I think—as I said before— 

we need to work with the Congress to slow the growth as much as 

we possibly we can, while not sacrificing the quality of the care. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Judge. 

Mr. Israel. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
568 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And forgive me for being 

late. 

DOD ENERGY CONSUMPTION

I have a question for Secretary Robyn about energy consumption. 

I spend a considerable amount of my time trying to help figure out 

how the Department of Defense can decrease its energy costs. We 

borrow money from China to fund our defense budgets, to buy oil 

from the Persian Gulf, to fuel our weapon systems, to protect us 

from those that would do us harm in the Persian Gulf. And that 

is not sustainable. 

I think that the total number last year for full DOD energy consumption was about $14 billion for everything, and the Air Force 

spent about half of that on one thing, and that is jet fuel. We also 

have a Defense Science Board report that was done by Jim Woolsey 

and Dr. Schlesinger that said that one of the biggest vulnerabilities 

we have is hundreds of military installations in the U.S. that are 

entirely reliant on the electrical grid. And so we have got to work 

on that. 

So during my research, I actually was going to propose, Mr. 

Chairman, to the subcommittee that we create a fund to allow commanders of military bases to tap into new financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. And imagine my surprise 

when, after several months of research, talking to base commanders, I learn that you actually have an energy conservation investment program. 

Great program, about $100 million. It seems to me that the problem is that hardly anybody knows that it exists. And so what do 

we need to do to educate base commanders and DOD officials as 

to the availability of these funds? Is $100 million enough? And how 

would you suggest that we improve and strengthen this program? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, it is the ECIP program. It is a terrific program. 

Actually, I do not think lack of awareness of the program is an 

issue, because we get the services put forward portfolios of projects. 

My office selects them based on a variety of criteria, including the 

payback. So the services are well aware that the ECIP program exists, and it is very oversubscribed. This is a program, by the way, 

that OMB loves. And my first meeting with OMB in July, after arriving on the job, they said, you know, we love this program. We 

are always trying to get DOD to up this program. 

Last year, ECIP was several hundred million because $120 million in stimulus funding went into it. ECIP—it is important to see 

it as part of a broader portfolio of how we tackle both the demand 

side, reducing consumption—I refer to that as energy efficiency, 

conservation—and then the supply side, tapping into renewable 

and alternative energy supplies. 

ECIP does both, typically, small projects, a couple of million dollars, a lot of it on the both renewable and energy efficiency 

projects. It is by no means enough money to get us to where we 

need to be, in terms of an improved energy profile. It is a key piece. 

I am trying to figure out whether we want to target ECIP differently. I think historically it has been—and the reason OMB 

loves it is because it is—the money has been awarded based on the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
569 

potential for payback. So we advertise that for every dollar that 

goes into ECIP, we see returns of $2.16. 

That may actually not be the right criteria. We have another 

mechanism called energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, 

performed by ESCOs, energy savings companies or contractors, like 

Honeywell, Johnson Controls, where we use—we draw on private 

money. We have Honeywell come into a facility, say an airplane 

hangar or some other facility, and say, ‘‘We think you can reduce 

your energy consumption and your utility bill by X amount if you 

do the following things,’’ and we then draw up a contract. 

They carry out those improvements, and they are paid out of savings. So it is an alternative financing mechanism that is absolutely 

critical to—and about 20 percent of our energy efficiency improvements come from—from ESCOs or ESPCs. 

There are some issues which I could go into with that. It is not 

a perfect approach. But I think—and, you know, that tends to— 

there are real, relatively early payback tend to get done using 

ESPCs, and we probably want to use the ECIP program to tackle 

some of the higher-hanging fruit, some of the things with the 

longer-term payback, such as renewables. But we are trying to figure out exactly what the niche should be for the ECIP program so 

that it isn’t just another pot of money. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Well, I would love to work with you on this. 

Ms. ROBYN. Great. 

Mr. ISRAEL. And I am not sure whether ECIP is in this subcommittee’s jurisdiction—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ISRAEL [continuing]. Or HAC–D—it is in this subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes, it is. I oversee it. 

Mr. ISRAEL. So I think I am happy to hear that it is oversubscribed. I do think that, from my own research, there are still people who do not know about it, and if it is oversubscribed and OMB 

loves it, then we ought to just increase the investment, because we 

save money and enhance our security in return. 

So if we could have a meeting, you know, separately to talk 

about what we need to do to—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I would love to. 

Mr. ISRAEL [continuing]. To focus on the program, I would be 

grateful. 

Ms. ROBYN. I would love to. And I am just going to use this question as an occasion to tout something that I think is tremendously 

important to the Defense Department’s ability to improve its facility energy profile, but also to the national effort on energy. 

As I have said, we have 300,000 buildings, 2.2 billion square feet 

of space. Unlike Wal-Mart, which has a bunch of big box stores— 

they are all the same—we have incredible variety. We have data 

centers. We have commissaries. We have airplane hangars, barracks, office buildings, tremendous variety in every imaginable climate and tremendous size. 

Our facilities are a phenomenal test bed or can be a phenomenal 

test bed for the technology coming out of DOE labs, out of industry, 

out of universities. We are doing this on a small-scale with our energy security technology certification program. Using about $20 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
570 

million in stimulus funding, we awarded about nine or ten projects, 

typically a consortium of industry, universities demonstrating 

something at a particular facility, micro-grid project at Twentynine 

Palms, for example. 

DOE, the Department of Energy, is very excited about this. This 

is such an ideal marriage, because historically, DOE’s weakness 

has been that when technology comes out of their labs, it is all 

technology push. There is no customer there to hand it off to. 

The reason DOD has been so successful historically in developing 

new technology is that it is both the performer of the R&D and the 

customer, going back to interchangeable machine parts for musket 

production and Eli Whitney in the 1800s. I mean, we sponsored the 

R&D, and we were there as the customer, and that hand-in-glove 

relationship is absolutely critical. DOE has not had that, and that 

has been the major source of their weakness. So they are actively 

looking to DOD to be their customer. 

Mr. ISRAEL. But if I may, briefly, you have a new culture at DOE 

right now. You have a team in place. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. No, no, no, it is terrific. 

Mr. ISRAEL. And they are very aggressive, Secretary Robyn—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. ISRAEL [continuing]. About wanting to create these partnerships. You are the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, which is the largest consumer of energy in the United 

States of America. You are the commercial platform for these technologies, and they get it, I think. 

Ms. ROBYN. They do. No, they absolutely do, from Steven Chu on 

down. And they have, as you know, a new program, their RPE, 

modeled after DARPA, run by a former colleague of Steven Chu’s 

named Arun Majumdar. And someone introduced Arun and me 

electronically and said she has these facilities which you should, 

you know—and he followed up within 15 minutes, and we met during his first week, and we are deep into talking about partnering. 

And I think this potential exists outside of just facilities, but I 

am focused on the facilities piece. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good—work with the Department of Energy and 

encourage them to work with you. So I am thrilled to hear you say 

those—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, no, this is a huge potential. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Israel, I look forward to your pursuing that and seeing what 

we can do in our fiscal year 2011 bill. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry. 

Okay, thank you. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MILITARY TRAINING FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION

I want to just follow up on Mr. Israel’s comment. A few budgets 

ago, the Navy wanted to upgrade their energy facility at Guantanamo at the prisoner camp, and they wanted a big diesel plant, 

and it was multi-millions of dollars. And this committee said this 

is a foolish expense. Have you examined solar? Have you examined 

wind? Have you examined alternatives? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
571 

Being that isolated and then having to get all the fuel from 

mainland, it was just not cost-effective, and the committee knocked 

it out. 

Ms. ROBYN. Interesting. I was not aware of that. 

Mr. FARR. What was interesting was Admiral Fargo was here, 

and he came up to me afterwards, and he said, ‘‘Congressman, we 

do not really have any place to train the people that are giving you 

those recommendations.’’ 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. He said, Our architects and engineers are not being 

trained in green construction.’’ And then he said, ‘‘Why don’t you 

open up a center at the Naval Postgraduate School to train them 

all?’’ 

I thought about it, talked to Admiral Oliver out there, and nothing came of it. But I think that issue is valid—people who are in 

construction have been doing these things the same way for years, 

and they haven’t got any modernized training, and you might want 

to look at your capacity to do that. 

NATIONAL SECURITY INVOLVING DEPARTMENT OF STATE

I am learning in all the years that I have spent in public life— 

county supervisor, state legislator, and a congressman—and in 

each one of those, you learn the entire mission of that government. 

And you really begin to realize how many silos are out there. 

And essentially, what government is is just a bunch of silos and 

they are not even connected. They are not even connected to the 

top level because these layers do not talk to each other. 

And it seems to me that where we are in now and what has happened since Iraq and Afghanistan is a whole new posture, the 

quadrennial review that the DOD does, which is phenomenal. I 

think it is a great process. 

And I understand that now State is doing something similar and 

homeland security is doing something similar. So the question goes 

is, what about doing a quadrennial national security review that 

would examine the budgets of all three agencies? Because I think 

there is going to be a lot of savings and duplications of effort. 

Congress has adopted this legislation to put this cadre of professional people who are coming out of State Department and USAID 

into stabilization and reconstruction assignments—and essentially 

bridging the gap between State and USAID. 

And they are right there in Afghanistan along with the soldiers, 

so we are more integrated and overlapped than we have probably 

ever been in American history. And perhaps a unified national security budget would really achieve the goal of looking at our defense and foreign policy. 

You have the resources and I am just wondering whether you 

think the Pentagon could begin that dialogue. 

Mr. HALE. Well, I wish I had Michele Flournoy here, our undersecretary for policy, so I could defer to her, but let me try to be 

helpful and, if I could, see if we should expand. This is not an area 

I work on day to day. 

I think there is an organization charged with doing this on the 

National Security Council. They are quite active in terms of overVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00571 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
572 

seeing—and on the budget side, there is the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

I also think this administration is blessed by a secretary of defense and a secretary of state who work very well together, and so 

I think the coordination between State and the Department of Defense is pretty good, not to say it couldn’t be better, but it starts 

from the top, and there is a tone at the top that says you have got 

to work together on these projects, for example, getting more people on the provincial reconstruction teams. 

I would have no problem with coordinated budgets. At some 

point, budgets get so big, they are hard to administer. It is already 

a problem with the Department of Defense. To greatly expand, to 

say there would be a department of national security that was even 

bigger, I would worry about our ability to execute, frankly. 

But coordination, another issue, your point is well-taken. We 

probably could do better. The National Security Council would be 

a good place to start. 

I am not sure I have answered your question. 

Mr. FARR. Well, in part. I think the point is that each of the departments are now using these quadrennial reviews concepts which 

you initiated—— 

Mr. HALE. Right. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And, DOD has to be the most experienced—— 

Mr. HALE. It was the Congress—well, we initiated it. It is in the 

law now, as you know. 

Mr. FARR. And they came to you to find out how to do it. And 

it seems to me this is the next step. Basically, you would have to 

have those quadrennial reviews inclusive of all three. From therein, your budget policies would develop. 

Mr. HALE. I think it is an issue worth discussing—but I am not 

sure I am the right person to give you a definitive answer on it. 

Mr. FARR. Well, can you, with your colleagues, just talk about 

it—— 

Mr. HALE. Sure. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. And see if there is any—— 

Mr. HALE. Let me commit to getting some comments from our 

policy folks to add to the record for this—extend my answer to this 

question. 

[The information follows:] 

Fostering greater integration across department/agency strategies and budgets— 

regardless of the specific mechanism that we use—is an important goal. The White 

House emphasized the importance of interagency collaboration throughout each of 

the quadrennial reviews ongoing and undertaken over the past several years—the 

Quadrennial Defense Review, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 

Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review—as well as the National Security Strategy, Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the Space Posture Review. 

We have conducted these reviews collaboratively across departments and agencies, and with the guidance of the White House and the National Security Staff. The 

2010 QDR was much more transparent to the other departments and agencies than 

previous QDR efforts, through both formal and informal mechanisms, participation, 

and input than any of its predecessors. With a greater degree of this kind of coordination and cooperation among departments and agencies on programs, there is more 

synergy, and consequently, a more comprehensive and balanced approach to national security. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
573 

A quadrennial national security review that examines the resources available for 

national security programs could be beneficial and might refine agency roles and responsibilities, highlighting gaps and recognizing potential synergies. However, certain existing bureaucratic and budgetary considerations in the executive and legislative branches may be obstacles to such a review. Department and agency equities 

tend to be viewed in zero-sum terms. Also, given the cross-jurisdictional nature of 

a quadrennial national security review, it would be important to ensure clear requirements for delivering the report to Congress and for engagement after the review. Finally, the resulting budget, should it be comprehensive in nature, would be 

extremely difficult to execute. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

PRIVATIZED FAMILY HOUSING

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you all a little bit about privatized housing. Probably 

Secretary Robyn, I think this committee—I have certainly been a 

big proponent—and I think the committee has. I think if you look 

at the numbers, we have got like $27 billion involved with the 

housing, for investment, about one-tenth of that. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So it is kind of a 10 to 1 leverage ratio. And I 

have seen some of the married housing. I mean, it kind of makes 

you want to join the military—when you go to San Diego and see 

the outstanding work they have done out there. [Laughter.] 

And I know that there is a little different issue when you talk 

about bachelor housing, but as I understand it, there was a pilot 

project in San Diego, then a pilot project in Hampton Roads. There 

was going to be a pilot project in Washington state. That was kind 

of the third pilot project. And then I think eventually they were 

going to do one—they have done some married housing in my area. 

But do you know—I haven’t heard anything about the third pilot 

program. Is that going to happen, not going to happen? Does anybody know? 

Ms. ROBYN. I am told by Joe Sikes, who runs our housing office, 

that the authority for that one expired. But I certainly am interested in—as a policy matter—in seeing us extend this more broadly 

for—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does anybody know why it expired? Once it expires, does it have to get reauthorized? And why did it not happen 

on time? Does anybody know that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you come up and identify yourself for the 

transcription, please, if you would? 

Mr. SIKES. I am Joe Sikes, the director for housing for Dr. Robyn. 

The authority allowed us to pay a partial allowance. That was the 

key to it, so they did not have to pay a full allowance to the members that live there to make the project work. 

Then the Navy tried to do it in the third place that you mentioned, that I think they had two attempts at it. They were unsuccessful in getting that executed. The authority expired. We actually 

asked to extend the authority. The Congressional Budget Office 

scored it because of what they said would be the extra expense 

based on the inflation that had happened since then, and so it 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
574 

dropped out. And right now, we do not have authority to do it with 

partial allowances. 

We are doing it for senior enlisted, where it is appropriate to pay 

the full allowance and build an apartment. The Army is doing a lot 

of that, and the Navy, I think, is going to pursue that, too. But that 

is the problem right now. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is it a partial basic allowance? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Somebody would have to authorize that? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. The key to the Navy authority was that, 

when you are going to put them in a real barracks, as opposed to 

an apartment, the regular allowance is too much, and so the economics do not work. And that is what the Navy did in both in Norfolk and in San Diego. And they cannot do that now. 

So it is hard to do it for the junior enlisted, where you are actually trying to privatize the barracks as opposed to build—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Who makes the decision about whether the— 

have the authority to do that? Is that something the Navy decided 

or do we decide that? Who decides about the partial basic allowance? 

Mr. SIKES. Congress grants that. There is a partial allowance 

that is paid for a different reason that was leveraged off—when it 

was originally passed, and it allowed the flexibility to set it at the 

proper amount to make a project for it. It is normally only about 

$10, but we had authority to increase it to be appropriate to whatever the project needed to make it work. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And Congress took away that authority? 

Mr. SIKES. It expired. And it did not get renewed, partly because 

of the budget scoring issue, I believe. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I mean, from you all’s standpoint, has it 

worked well in those first two? Because it certainly works well on 

the—different economics when you have got a family housing, but 

did it work at Hampton Roads? And did it work at San Diego when 

you had that authority to do the partial allowance? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. It worked great in both of those places, and 

those are great projects. I—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is it something you all think is worth pursuing? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Because it seems to me, you know, when you 

talk to some of the people, even the single guys and gals that live 

in those kind of facilities, it is a whole lot nicer than the kind of 

typical barracks or living on the ship or whatever, so it seems like 

something we ought to pursue, Mr. Chairman, if that is the reason 

it is not going forward. 

We ought to think about that, if you all think it is worked, if you 

have learned some lessons from doing the first two pilots. 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. And the Navy definitely wants to do it. Some 

of the other services have been watching. And since it expired, they 

did not pursue it, obviously, but—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I imagine—and maybe on that—the point of 

privatized housing—you know, when we started this, the economy 

was in better shape, housing was in better shape. And I know 

there have been, you know, some isolated incidents where it had 

not worked out the way we hoped it had worked out. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
575 

But on balance, would you say overall the privatized housing has 

been successful? And in the midst of these difficult times, is that 

creating any particular problems that we ought to be aware of and 

deal with? Can you give us—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I said the other day—and I am not sure if you were 

in the room at the time—and I say this everywhere I go. Housing 

privatization is the single most effective thing my office has overseen. It was an effort started in the Clinton administration, and it 

faced enormous resistance from the services, from OMB on scoring 

grounds. 

And my predecessors kept at it. Their successors in the Bush administration continued to push it. I think it is a tremendous success story. Everywhere I go, I hear from people who live in that 

housing, but also from officers or from senior military officials. The 

ACMC, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, says what 

a fabulous thing this is, and he acknowledges that he opposed it 

initially. But I think it is tremendously successful. 

Joe reminds me that we really are still at an early stage and we 

cannot let up the oversight and the attention to it. These are 50- 

year contracts. We are at most 10 years into those. So it is a great 

success story, but we have got to continue to attend to it carefully. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. There are not any particular problems that you 

have identified, you know, that we ought to deal with, other than 

the bachelor housing? I think, Mr. Chairman, in terms of quality 

of life, if there are things we can do to kind of help those pilot 

projects go forward, I think we will find them just as successful on 

the bachelor side, single side, as we have on the married side. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would encourage you to push that, if you want 

to take that initiative. 

You know, because it took this subcommittee 8 years working 

with the Clinton and the Bush administrations to change the method of building family housing. And it might take some cooperation 

and pushing. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, and apologies for not acknowledging your all’s 

role. I tend to have—you all played a huge—you were, I know, 

huge advocates for this, without which we could not have done it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is a great, great success story. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PRIVATIZED UNACCOMPANIED HOUSING

Mr. EDWARDS. You know, lessons learned—as you said, I know 

it is not apples to apples, but it is a little different economic situation when you are talking about single housing. But maybe we can 

make it work. 

Ms. ROBYN. Sir, it is really important to the men and women. 

Just as a historical note, I want to point out that the basic concept of housing privatization really began in Congressman Farr’s 

district, with a visionary commander named Fred Meurer, who 

traded real estate for construction of some housing. And that was 

the genesis of the program. And he is now city manager at Monterey, and I draw on him continually. He is—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. What year did that happen? 

Mr. SIKES. That was in the 1960s or 1970s—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
576 

Ms. ROBYN. Right, yes. 

Mr. FARR. It was about 1985. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. 1980, was it? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. It was before anybody ever talked about base closures. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. And the genesis for that was something Fred 

did, where he brought in a shepherd—he was having problems on 

some of their grassland at Fort Ord—fires in the fall, when they 

would have training exercises—and the smoke would bother the 

neighbors. He brought in a shepherd to graze in these areas in exchange—and in exchange for that, the shepherd would do fence repair for him. 

So it was that barter arrangement that gave him the idea for 

what became the genesis of housing privatization. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is very—Clinton administration and Ray 

DuBois in the Bush administration deserved Purple Hearts 

and—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. For their—— 

Mr. FARR. And Chairman Hobson with his background in real estate development. He really understood—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, just one last question. On that point, do 

you all know that pilot project that expired—does anybody know 

the cost if we were to reauthorize that? Is that something handy? 

Can you get back to us or let us know? 

[The information follows:] 

In FY 2010, the Administration endorsed the Navy request to extend their UPH 

privatization pilot authority (10 U.S.C. 2881a) from September 30, 2009 to September 30, 2011. This provision authorized up to three pilot projects, of which the 

Navy had only awarded two projects (at San Diego, CA and Hampton Roads, VA), 

before it expired. As such, an extension was needed to provide additional time to 

award the third pilot project. The CBO Cost Estimate, dated July 14, 2009 (pages 

17–18), scored the third project at $45 million. Unfortunately, as a result of this 

scored cost, the UPH privatization pilot authority was not extended and expired on 

September 30, 2009. 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. There was a number that went with 

it. I just do not remember it right now. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many years out is CBO forcing us to count 

revenues? 

Mr. SIKES. In this particular—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Expenditures rather than—— 

Mr. SIKES. Well, it would be the whole life of the project, so it 

would be 30 years. In that particular case, it was less because it 

was an incremental score since we actually already had the authorities. I think what would happen if we started the authorities 

over again, they probably would try to score the whole amount. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is something we are going to have to figure 

out, because 30 years of rental payments counted in year one. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And that is the reason we do the privatization, 

so we can leverage the dollars—make people understand that it is 

better to pay for it over 30 years than pay for it upfront. 

Mr. CARTER. Do they treat—the same way on the private side? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I do not know if I would say—housing, because 

they changed the costing for 801 housing, and it wiped that program out. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
577 

Mr. CARTER. I do not think we do. 

Mr. FARR. Our communities require what they call include sharing housing, so if you are a developer and you are going to build, 

say, 10 houses, 30 percent of those, three of them would have to 

be marketed at an affordable level, and the developer absorbs the 

cost. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You might have to work with CBO and see—Yes, 

sir? Do you have any thoughts on how we can get together and 

work with CBO to figure out a new approach on that? 

Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir, I am very much in favor. And I first met you 

when John Goodman brought me over here, so you have been a big 

supporter from the beginning. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, congratulations to you on all your work. 

Ms. ROBYN. He has done a great job. 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is a great success story. 

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, sir. I will go back to my place. [Laughter.] 

TOUR NORMALIZATION IN KOREA

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask about Korea. I have been long concerned that, with the OPTEMPO, Judge Carter’s constituents at 

Fort Hood and other military installations, you can go to Iraq, 

come back home, get reassigned to Korea, and with such a small 

percentage of our troops there that are allowed to bring their families with them, then spend a year in Korea, and then you could be 

sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan. I mean, theoretically, you could 

end up spending 3 years away from your family and your children. 

I know the Department of Defense is making some effort to increase the capacity of accompanied tours in Korea. Can either of 

you tell me where we are in that effort? 

Mr. HALE. Well, we are implementing phase one of Korea’s tour 

normalization, as it is called. It will affect slightly less than 5,000 

families, and involve fairly modest MILCON costs at this point. 

There are other phases, two and three, that are under consideration. The costs for these phases will be substantially higher. 

And I have learned from long experience that you need to consider these decisions in the context of our overall resources. So I 

can tell you that that is an issue under active consideration; I am 

not prepared to indicate what decision the Department will make. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And, obviously, you are having to make tough 

choices every day and cannot meet every need, but given the 

OPTEMPO of these families, I just hate the thought that you could 

end up spending literally 3 years away from your family. 

Are the cost drivers the housing? Or is it school factor or 

what—— 

Mr. HALE. It requires a major investment in infrastructure in 

order to support families, and we do not want to do it unless that 

infrastructure is there. And so there are a variety of considerations. 

Scoring is an issue that comes to play again in terms of the cost 

of these—we are looking at public-private partnerships, there are 

a lot of issues being discussed. 

I would expect there would be a further proposal or a decision 

not to in next year’s budget. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Once phase one is completed, what percent of our 

troops in Korea will be accompanied? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
578 

Mr. HALE. I want to say that it is 5,000 families. Anybody have 

any ideas—a third-ish? Can I supply that for the record? 

[The information follows:] 

Phase I of tour normalization is currently being implemented. There are 4,923 

military families programmed for Korea at the completion of this phase. The infrastructure is in place to support these families. 

Full implementation of Phase II and III are projected to have an end-state of 

14,250 families in Korea upon approval. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure, that would be fine. Let me also just commend you, Secretary Hale I think DOD finally came up with a 

standardized definition of what adequate housing is. I have always 

been bothered by service—and the definition changes from year to 

year. And the definitions, some of them just simply were inadequate. I mean, saying if we spent $50,000 more to improve a house, and 

that is all it would take to improve to standard, then it meets 

standards, whether you ever spent a dime of that $50,000 or not. 

So I commend the administration for this new standard, but now 

we can look from year to year and see if we are making progress 

or falling further behind. 

Mr. HALE [continuing]. Although I get blamed for a lot of things 

I do not do—I cannot take credit for this year. I think it is more 

to—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I salute you, Dr. Robyn. We have to know what 

a problem is, you have got to be able to identify it. And now we 

can at least compare apples to apples each year to see if we are 

moving ahead or falling backwards on that. 

Same thing on DOD schools—I think our committee required a 

report to be done, and DOD saw that report and is taking action. 

What would it cost to bring all of our overseas DOD schools up to 

standard? 

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DOD SCHOOLS

Ms. ROBYN. This year, we are putting a down payment, about 

$500 million, to—I think that covers 10 schools. I believe 134 of the 

194 DODEA schools are considered inadequate, which is to say 

they are in poor or—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry. What were those—— 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. 134 of 192 are considered inadequate, 

which would be poor or failing condition. And that could be for a 

variety of reasons. In a lot of cases, I think the buildings have simply outlived their normal life expectancy. 

Mr. HALE. I think my memory is correct, but we will submit for 

the record. Over the 5 years, we will fix all of those with failing 

infrastructure under our current plan, and about two-thirds of 

those with poor infrastructure. We may need to get for the record 

the total cost. 

[The information follows:] 

Over a 5-year period beginning in FY 2011, the Department will replace or renovate with military construction funding 103 schools at a total cost of $4.0 billion. 

Of that amount, $2.3 billion is for 60 overseas school projects. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be great. And—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, it is $3.8 billion. 

Mr. HALE. That is for all of them. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
579 

Ms. ROBYN. That is for all. That is for poor and failing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Well, I salute you for that. We all know 

that we are at a time of war, and the first thing you have to do 

is support the troops in harm’s way. But I know how I would feel 

if I were on my second or third tour of duty and then my kids were 

in a DOD school that was dilapidated and too small and falling 

apart, so thank you for that. 

Judge Carter. 

MILITARY PAY RAISE

Mr. CARTER. This year, we got the budget—the president’s budget—a very, very minimal pay increase: 1.4 percent, I think, is what 

is being proposed, which I believe is going to be the lowest pay increase—of course, since the 1970s, anyway. 

And, you know, these people are—at least where I have got my 

soldiers, or most of them have deployed three times and are in 

their fourth deployment now. I am concerned that they do not feel 

appreciated at that level. I do not know if there is anything we can 

do about it, but they do ask questions about it. 

When I go to Fort Hood, I have spouses especially ask questions 

about pay increases. And I think part of that is because they are 

at home taking care of the finances while soldiers are at war. And 

even though they are talking on the telephone, not a whole lot the 

soldier can do about their economic situation back home. And some 

of them are getting in some pretty dire straits with loans and 

loan—I would call them sharks and other people like that. And we 

are working on that. 

But just curious if you see any light at the end of the tunnel on— 

situation—they are not getting rich, but they are sure taking a lot 

of chances on our behalf. 

Mr. HALE. Well, Judge Carter, the pay raise is based on the full 

increase in the employment cost index over the last year. So it will 

make, on average, military and civilian personnel their salaries 

equal to the private sector. It is low because the economy is tough 

and pay raises and inflation are quite low. 

I would ask your help and the Congress’ in considering the following problem that we have. The last 3 years, Congress has added 

0.5 percentage point to the military pay raise. I agree with you that 

we need to provide the military with generous pay, but we should 

also provide them training and equipment so they can carry out 

their mission. Each extra 0.5 percent is about $500 million, and it 

is cumulative, so over the last 3 years it is now $1.5 billion. 

Because our total resources are inevitably fixed, what we spend 

on the pay increase we cannot spend on equipment. I will mirror 

what the Secretary said in his testimony, we ask you to approve 

the full raise, but we also ask that you not increase it in order that 

we can maintain the balance of sustaining and equipping a military in tough economic times. 

Mr. CARTER. It is a frank answer. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HALE. I hear you. 

Mr. CARTER. I think you would get a standing ovation, I am sure. 

Mr. HALE. Oh, I do not think so. [Laughter.] 

Comptrollers are not used to standing ovations. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
580 

Mr. CARTER. And this is a little off the subject, but we are a little 

bit candidly—having a conversation. We still drill for those terrible 

things called hydrocarbons in our part of the country, and a very 

interesting thing. If you would have bet money a year-and-a-half 

ago if there was anything to be drilled for in the Fort Hood area, 

they would have laughed you off the face of the Earth. 

They just drilled a test well in Gatesville into the gas shale, natural gas shale is going to be one of the great things that happens 

to this country—have since developed it, and they hit hydrothermal 

water. And so they are putting together—and it is all done by private industry. It is not government involved. 

They are putting together a solar-boosted, hydroelectric power 

plant attached to the well head of that gas well. They are going to 

produce natural gas through the shale process, but they are going 

to use this super hot water that they hit as they were going to the 

gas to drive a hydroelectric plant—I mean, a thermal electric plant. 

And I think they could produce an awful lot of electricity that 

way, and they are going to keep it going, keep the water hot with 

solar panels. It is a really interesting concept, so you may have all 

the power you need right there in the—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is great. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I have a couple questions. 

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION TRAINING

I have been a big fan of IMET, international military education, 

and obviously, a school that I represent, the Naval Postgraduate 

School, is a big beneficiary. 

We learned from the officers that it is the longest time that a foreign officer spends in the United States, because they come there 

to get a master’s or PhD degree. They live in the housing with the 

military families. Their kids all go to this wonderful public school 

there that speaks 67 languages. It is just amazing. 

And it is a very, very positive program. And it has been, I think, 

one of the most successful programs in promoting our national security by recognizing the value of our allies and their ability to be 

co-partner with us, and so we learn a lot about them and them 

about us. 

The problem with the IMET funding—and the military would 

like to expand this—is it is in the State Department budget. And 

it is in the 150 account, I believe. And it competes with—Peace 

Corps, foreign aid, everything that is in that same account. 

Defense Department has got a lot of money, so why are we paying for it out of the State Department? The State Department 

wants to keep this program. But I would hope that you could begin 

a discussion with them, because I think we are going to get a better bang for the buck if we can fund that out of the Defense Department. 

The benefit goes to the Defense Department. It is scaled so if you 

are a wealthy country, you pay the full cost. If you are a poor country, we help pay for it. But I hope that you would look into that 

and see if we could get that budget into the Defense Department. 

Mr. HALE. I will look into it. I confess, I am not looking for more 

things to pay out of the defense budget, but I understand. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
581 

Mr. FARR. It is a small item, but it is important to the Defense 

Department. 

STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

The other issue I want to understand is how to get something in 

the Defense Department. Last year, Secretary Gates said—I have 

got his quote here—he says that, ‘‘It has become clear that America’s civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been 

chronically undermanned and underfunded for too long, relative to 

what we spend on the military.’’ 

Chairman Mullen just recently said, ‘‘Defense and diplomacy are 

no longer discrete choices, one to be applied when the other fails, 

but must complement one another throughout the messy process of 

international relations.’’ 

And given that the senior leadership has recognized the need for 

stabilization and reconstruction education and training—and we 

have a program to do that, and officers are studying to get that— 

but it has always been an earmark. 

And the question is, how do you get that POMed? How do you 

get it into the Defense Department budget? It is certainly consistent with directive 3005.05 and 05. What is the process? 

Mr. HALE. Well, there is certainly a process in our overall budget 

review process. I confess, I do not know where that specific program is in the process, but perhaps I could get back to you, if I 

could. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, we would really appreciate you taking a look at 

it, because I think it warrants being in your budget. Again, it is 

a very small item. But Congress keeps having to put the money in, 

rather than you ask for it. 

Mr. HALE. I will check it out. 

[The information follows:] 

The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program falls under 

the responsibility of the Department of State. Therefore, DoD cannot legally fund 

the IMET program. The Department strongly supports the IMET program. 

In fact, the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, on page 20, pledges that 

‘‘U.S. Armed Forces will continue to require capabilities to create a secure environment in fragile states in support of local authorities and, if necessary, to support 

civil authorities in providing essential government services, restoring emergency infrastructure, and supplying humanitarian relief.’’ In building the FY 2012 budget, 

DoD Components and the Secretary’s staff must decide how best to meet this QDR 

pledge. Additionally, Secretary Gates and other DoD leaders have continued to urge 

strong funding for State Department and other budgets to increase expertise and 

capabilities for stabilization and other vital non-military elements for strengthening 

America’s long-term security. 

We will continue to encourage the Department of State to adequately fund the 

IMET program. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. Crenshaw, do you have any additional—— 

MILCON IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one more question. As the subcommittee 

knows, I just came back from Afghanistan and Pakistan with 

Chairman Dicks. And when we met with General McChrystal, we 

did not really get into the military construction projects. We talked 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
582 

about how incredibly difficult a job he has got. And I am sure he 

is focused more on the operation side. 

But in the budget that you all submitted, I think it is $1.2 billion. Most of that is going to go to Afghanistan. And, number one, 

kind of highlight where—you know, that is a lot of money to be 

spent very quickly, I guess, if the operation is supposed to end next 

July. 

And, number two, are there any—when you submit a supplemental, which I guess in the next few weeks, will there be some 

money there for MILCON projects in Afghanistan? Well, just highlight, what are those projects? 

Mr. HALE. Well, let me give you a general answer. The supplemental request that is before you right now, the $33 billion, contains $500 million for military construction. A majority of those 

projects are in Afghanistan, and the majority of them are to build 

facilities at new forward operating bases for the increase of 30,000 

troops. I think we need those funds in order to support those 

troops, and so I would urge your support. 

The $159.3 billion for the fiscal 2011 overseas contingency operations includes the $1.3 billion of which $1.2 billion is DOD money. 

All of the $1.2 billion is for projects in Afghanistan. 

You say the operation is ending next summer. That is not quite 

true. That is not true, really. We will begin an inflection point and 

some sort of withdrawal, but the pace of that withdrawal remains 

to be seen, and so there will certainly be a period of time when we 

will need facilities for troops over there. 

Some of the facilities that are there now that are being replaced 

by projects in that $1.3 billion request are temporary facilities 

reaching the end of their lives. Some of them do not have adequate 

force protection. 

I understand the concerns about MILCON and a situation where 

we know our stay there is temporary, but I also know all of us 

want to be sure the troops get all the protection they need, so I 

would urge your support for that $1.2 billion. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, and there is nobody that supports that effort any more than I do, and I think this committee—I was just curious as to what—you know, if there are one or two critical projects 

that are really—— 

Mr. HALE [continuing]. One or two. I have looked at the sheet. 

I do not remember them all. We can certainly get them for you. 

There is a couple dozen maybe? How many? 

VOICE. Fifty-seven. 

Mr. HALE. Fifty-seven projects. I mean, there are a number of 

them. There are—— 

Mr. HALE [continuing]. Airfields. I mean, it is a lot of different 

things that are going on. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. One of the things I know—we were in Germany. 

And there are 25 C–130s taking off every day with—I cannot remember what they call them, but they are kind of temporary housing units that sound like—you know, they are all stacked up, and 

you kind of put them together. It is a whole lot better than a tent. 

They are doing a lot of that. I mean, there is a lot of temporary 

stuff going—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
583 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But I can tell you, after sleeping in what they 

call the hooches at Camp Evers, they could use some additional 

housing units over there. 

So, anyway, again, just curious, and glad to hear that it has been 

well thought out and going to be critical to our success there, because that is an incredibly difficult situation, but I think I came 

back very encouraged, from talking to General McChrystal and our 

folks over there. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great, thank you. 

I know the two of you have noon appointments here in the Capitol. Any additional questions I have I will submit in writing. 

Judge Carter, anything else? 

Mr. CARTER. No, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If not, thank you both for being here today. 

Ms. ROBYN. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Chairman Edwards] 

QDR AND ‘‘RESILIENCY’’ 

Question. The QDR report makes numerous references to the need to improve the 

‘‘resiliency’’ of our overseas posture, including the ‘‘hardening’’ of key facilities. Does 

the Department have a detailed investment plan to address this requirement? What 

is the MILCON cost estimate for ‘‘resiliency’’? 

Answer. The Department does not yet have an investment plan or a cost estimate 

for resiliency. As articulated in the QDR, the Department is studying options to increase resiliency in selected theaters. Various options are being considered in this 

study to address this issue—from hardening of key facilities and critical infrastructure to dispersal and redundancy of critical assets. These results of the study will 

then inform the process of establishing requirements. 

GUAM

Question. What has been requested in fiscal year 2011 by non-DOD agencies for 

costs associated with the relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam? What are 

the key non-DOD milestones to be achieved? 

Answer. Based on information obtained by Office of Management and Budget, 

there has been no specific requests in the fiscal year 2011 budgets for non-DOD 

agencies associated with the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam; however, 

below details proposed non-DOD federal funding for Guam in FY11 as well as prior 

years: 

Agency, subagency or bureau FY2008 

(actual–$m) 

FY2009 

(actual–$m) 

FY2009 ARRA 

(actual–$m) 

FY2010 

enacted est–$m) 

FY 2011 PB 

(est–$m) 

Department of Commerce ................. $4 $5 $0 $5 $5 

Department of Education .................. 65 73 121 71 70 

Department of Energy ....................... 0 0 46 0 0 

Department of Health and Human 

Services ......................................... 45 48 10 53 50 

Department of Homeland Security .... 35 34 2 53 55 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development ................................. 41 42 5 46 48 

Department of the Interior ................ 66 68 2 73 74 

Department of Justice ....................... 4 5 7 5 5 

Department of Labor ......................... 6 6 4 6 7 

Department of Transportation ........... 83 53 24 46 47 

Department of the Treasury .............. 0 0 27 0 0 

Department of Veterans Affairs ........ 22 23 0 24 25 

Environmental Protection Agency ...... 7 7 5 20 19 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................... 18 18 0 16 16 

National Endowment for the Arts ..... 0 0 0 0 1 

National Science Foundation ............ 0 0 0 0 0 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
584 

Agency, subagency or bureau FY2008 

(actual–$m) 

FY2009 

(actual–$m) 

FY2009 ARRA 

(actual–$m) 

FY2010 

enacted est–$m) 

FY 2011 PB 

(est–$m) 

Social Security Administration .......... 102 112 3 119 123 

Small Business Administration ......... 7 7 5 8 8 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ......... 96 111 184 130 134 

TOTAL ........................................ 602 612 445 676 686 

FAMILY HOUSING

Question. Please provide a snapshot of where each of the services stands with respect to current inventories of inadequate family housing units, and the program 

each service has to replace or otherwise eliminate those units. 

Answer. In FY2009, OSD changed how we define inadequate family housing 

units. Instead of the previous threshold of $50,000 of work required on a family 

housing unit, OSD is reporting the Quality-rating (Q-rating) for family housing 

units, using the Real Property Inventory Database. Facility Condition Indices or 

Quality (Q) Ratings are developed for budgeting purposes and are consistent with 

guidance from the Federal Real Property Council (FPRC). A Q-rating is a relative 

comparison (from 0 to 100%) representing the work required to restore a facility 

compared to the cost to replace it. A 100% rating means the facility is in excellent 

condition and needs no work. The Q-rating bands are as follows: 

Q1—100% to 90% (considered adequate) 

Q2—89% to 80% (considered adequate) 

Q3—79% to 60% (considered inadequate, but not necessarily uninhabitable) 

Q4—59% to 0% (considered inadequate, but not necessarily uninhabitable) 

While there are Q3/Q4 government-owned family housing units in the inventory, 

these units are often still safe and habitable units. In addition, there may be a Ql/ 

Q2 unit which needs critical but relatively low-cost repairs before it is habitable. 

The vast majority of the Services’ housing inventories have been revitalized 

through privatization. According to the FY 11 Budget Estimates, the Services’ government owned inventories of Q3/Q4 units are as follows: Army, in FY10 has approximately 4,500 (27%) Q3/Q4 government-owned units mostly in foreign locations. 

The Air Force, in FY10 has approximately 6,500 (19%) Q3/Q4 government-owned 

units, the majority of which are located in the U.S. The Navy, in FY10 has approximately 3,300 (32%) Q3/Q4 government-owned units, mostly in foreign locations. The 

Marine Corps, in FY10, has one (less than 0.5%) Q3/Q4 government-owned unit, located in the U.S. 

As published in the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request 

Overview, by FY 2012, the DoD will maintain at least 90 percent of governmentowned Family Housing inventory in the United States at good and fair (Q1–Q2) condition. 

UNACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL HOUSING

Question. Please provide a snapshot of where each the services stand with respect 

to current inventories of inadequate unaccompanied personnel housing spaces, distinguishing between permanent party and training/transient UPH, and the program 

each service has to replace or otherwise eliminate those units. 

Answer. Starting in FY 2009, OSD changed how the Military Services report on 

the condition of their unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH) inventory. Instead 

of allowing the Services to establish their own definitions of adequacy and inadequacy, OSD now requires reporting based on Quality-ratings computed per guidance from the Federal Real Property Council (FPRC). A Q-rating (0 to 100%) represents the work required to restore a facility compared to the cost to replace it. 

A 100% rating means the facility is in excellent condition and needs no work. The 

Q-rating bands are as follows: 

Q1—100% to 90% (considered adequate) 

Q1—89% to 80% (considered adequate) 

Q1—79% to 60% (considered inadequate, but not necessarily uninhabitable) 

Q1—59% to 0% (considered inadequate, but not necessarily uninhabitable) 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
585 

Percentage of UPH considered adequate (Q1/Q2) 

Military service 

Permanent party (active component) Training (active component) 

U.S. Outside 

U.S. Worldwide U.S. Outside U.S. Worldwide 

Air Force ............................................................................... 88 82 86 100 N/A 100 

Army ...................................................................................... 79 89 81 65 100 66 

Navy ...................................................................................... 41 9 31 36 N/A 36 

USMC .................................................................................... 65 48 62 43 N/A 43 

The Military Services all have substantial funding (MILCON & SRM) programmed through their future year defense plans to repair, replace, and modernize 

existing inadequate UPH, and build new footprint construction to support initiatives 

such as Grow the Force, BRAC, global restationing, Homeport Ashore, and other 

force structure initiatives. 

TOUR NORMALIZATION IN KOREA

Question. Is the Department committed to full tour normalization for U.S. Forces 

Korea, and if so, is there a target date for completion? 

Answer. As stated in the QDR, the Department’s goal is to phase out all unaccompanied tours in Korea. In support of this goal, the Department has already begun 

implementing tour normalization, and we are assessing the most effective and sustainable manner to continue implementation in the long-term. The Department has 

not determined a target date for its completion. 

MILCON FOR ‘‘ENDURING’’ BASES IN AFGHANISTAN

Question. The Department has designated two bases in Afghanistan, Bagram and 

Kandahar, as ‘‘enduring.’’ There are other indications that the Department and 

CENTCOM have longer-term expectations for these two locations that go beyond the 

immediate operations in Afghanistan. MILCON associated with ‘‘enduring’’ functions has been programmed into the base FY 11 request. Yet when we look at the 

service FYDPs, particularly Army and Air Force, we see no Afghanistan MILCON 

programmed beyond FYII. How do you explain that? 

Answer. Our intent is to maintain a long-term relationship with Afghanistan, and 

Bagram and Kandahar are enduring locations that are best suited to sustain ongoing and planned DoD operations. We anticipate our presence at these two key locations to continue through the FYDP, and we will issue guidance to the Military Departments to plan and budget accordingly. 

CYBER COMMAND

Question. The Department plans on standing up a new Cyber Command as a subunified command under STRATCOM. The Air Force FYDP indicates a future requirement for CYBERCOM standup, but provides no funding estimate. What is your 

short-term plan for locating and housing this new command, and what is your longterm plan? Do you expect Air Force to accommodate the cost of facilities for this 

new command within its current MILCON program? 

Answer. We have established Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and it is currently 

operating in existing National Security Agency facilities made available on Fort 

Meade. The NSA personnel displaced by the command’s standup will be accommodated through a private sector lease arrangement. The Department is continuing to 

work out the details for the permanent location and required facilities for this new 

command. The review will also result in the funding and timeline to implement the 

CYBERCOM’s permanent siting. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp] 

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

The Department released the QDR on February 1, 2010. I believe that the Department has testified that the QDR, among other things, revolves around the imperative to fight both the wars that we’re in today and also prepare for future contingencies and to reform how and what we buy. 

Question. In what ways does the QDR represent a forward-looking document? 

Answer: In addition to a focus on prevailing in current conflicts, our analysis and 

scenarios looked into the future: 2016 was the mid-term snapshot; 2028 was the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
586 

long-term. This is the first QDR to look beyond the traditional security lens, including strategic trends that exacerbate conflict, such as demographics and economics, 

and to evaluate the effects of energy and climate change on the Department’s operations. The 2010 QDR has gone to great lengths to account for defense of the homeland, defense support to civil authorities, and prevention activities in its force analysis, as well as concurrent overseas contingencies. This review also recasts global 

defense posture. 

The 2010 QDR is especially forward-looking in elevating the need to preserve and 

enhance the All-Volunteer Force—the most important pillar of America’s defense. To 

take better care of U.S. forces and their families over the long-term, the Department 

is focusing on several fronts: wounded warrior care; sustainable deployment tempo; 

recruiting and retention; supporting families; and developing the total defense workforce. 

The 2010 QDR strategy balances the risk of near- and longer-term resource allocations, taking into account the aggregate military capacity needed to prevail in a 

series of overlapping operations. The QDR employed several scenario combinations 

to represent the range of likely and/or significant challenges anticipated in the future, and tested force capacity against them. Combinations of scenarios assessed in 

the 2010 QDR included the following: 

A major stabilization operation, deterring and defeating a highly capable regional 

aggressor, and extending support to civil authorities in response to a catastrophic 

event in the United States. This scenario combination particularly stressed the 

force’s ability to defeat a sophisticated adversary and support domestic response. 

Deterring and defeating two regional aggressors while maintaining a heightened 

alert posture for U.S. forces in and around the United States. This scenario combination particularly stressed the force’s combined arms capacity. 

A major stabilization operation, a long-duration deterrence operation in a separate 

theater, a medium-sized counterinsurgency mission, and extended support to civil 

authorities in the United States. This scenario combination particularly stressed elements of the force most heavily tasked for counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations. 

Question. Specifically, how does the QDR address the need for preparing for future contingencies? 

Answer. Although the 2010 QDR recognizes and places the highest priority on 

prevailing in today’s conflicts, specific emphasis has been placed on reflecting the 

complexity of the security environment and the need for flexible and adaptable 

forces to address the need to prepare for future contingencies. The 2010 QDR moves 

beyond the two major theater war construct, and includes plans for a wider range 

of challenges, based on analysis of key geopolitical trends and the shifting operational landscape. The 2010 QDR strategy balances the risk of near- and longerterm resource allocations, taking into account the aggregate military capacity needed to prevail in a series of overlapping operations. 

The QDR employed several scenario combinations to represent the range of likely 

and/or significant challenges anticipated in the future, and tested force capacity 

against them. Combinations of scenarios assessed in the 2010 QDR included the following: 

• A major stabilization operation, deterring and defeating a highly capable regional aggressor, and extending support to civil authorities in response to a catastrophic event in the United States. This scenario combination particularly stressed 

the force’s ability to defeat a sophisticated adversary and support domestic response. 

• Deterring and defeating two regional aggressors while maintaining a heightened alert posture for U.S. forces in and around the United States. This scenario 

combination particularly stressed the force’s combined arms capacity. 

• A major stabilization operation, a long-duration deterrence operation in a separate theater, a medium-sized counterinsurgency mission, and extended support to 

civil authorities in the United States. This scenario combination particularly 

stressed elements of the force most heavily tasked for counterinsurgency, stability, 

and counterterrorism operations. 

The Department seeks to acquire and maintain capabilities that are applicable 

across a broad range of contingencies, and not optimized for one specific future. The 

QDR sets a long-term course for DoD to follow and will provide a strategic framework for DoD’s annual program, force development, force management, and corporate support mechanisms. Our analysis of future security challenges has brought 

about greater investment in multiple capability areas to include counter anti-access, 

counter-WMD, space and cyber capabilities, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and other key enablers. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
587 

Question. The QDR focuses ‘‘to reform how and what we buy’’. Please put this into 

a Military Construction context. Has the QDR identified ways that could improve 

the way that we budget and appropriate dollars for Military Construction? 

Answer. The QDR did not specifically address the way that we budget and appropriate dollars for Military Construction, but focused on improving processes for acquiring weapons systems and information management systems, reforming security 

assistance, strengthening the industrial base, reforming the export control system, 

and managing the effects of climate change. 

However, while the QDR did not explicitly address military construction, the Department has been pursuing process improvements that will provide quality facilities in less time and at lower cost. An example of this is the Army’s Military Construction Transformation initiative, which includes efforts such as standardizing design for certain facility types, building to meet life-safety requirements as well as 

energy saving goals, and the adoption of private sector best practices. 

COMPETITION FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/LABOR

Question. Obviously we all want to see the economy improve. Because of the current state of the economy, we are in a pretty favorable environment for military construction, and I understand that the FY’ 11 Military Construction request reflects 

a five percent reduction due to the favorable construction climate. Do you feel confident that this will be the case throughout the next fiscal year and are you seeing 

any changes in the construction economy that we should be concerned with as we 

move this bill forward? 

Answer. The five-percent reduction in FY 2011 project estimates reflected the difference between the escalation we originally assumed for FY 2009, and the negative 

escalation that actually happened (as we measure it) for the same period. The sharp 

FY 2009 market drop has not continued through FY 2010, and construction prices 

have generally stabilized. We are projecting modest escalations for FY 2010 and FY 

2011, which have held up through the first half of FY 2010. 

GUARD/RESERVE OP TEMPO/BUDGET REQUEST

As I look over the President’s budget request, I have to wonder if there are some 

holes in the budget as it relates to our men and women who serve in the Guard 

and Reserve. The President’s budget request is $185 Million below last year’s enacted level of $1.623 billion for the Guard and Reserves. 

Question. What would be the impact to the Air Guard, and the Reserve forces of 

the Army, Navy and Air Force if this subcommittee approves the President’s budget 

request, as submitted, for these key components of our Nation’s defense? 

Answer. The impact to the Reserve Component (RC) will be the ability to execute 

their MILCON programs. The question refers to the $1.623 billion for the National 

Guard and Reserve, which seems to relate specifically to the Military Construction 

program. The President’s FY 2011 RC MILCON request of $1.44 billion supports 

those construction projects necessary to enable the RC to provide sufficient facilities 

for their members to complete their assigned strategic and operational missions. 

Question. What is the projected op tempo for guard/reserves in FY II? Are you estimating that it will increase, decrease or stay the same? 

Answer. The estimated force OPTEMPO is expected to remain the same. Achieving the defense strategy articulated in the Quadrennial Defense Review requires a 

vibrant National Guard and Reserve which is seamlessly integrated within the 

Total Force. With the recurring and predictable nature of many of the requirements 

we face today, the National Guard and Reserve are ideally suited to the future and 

are anticipated to remain relevant. With this steady OPTEMPO level we continue 

to make progress toward achieving the Secretary of Defense goal of a 1:5 deployment ratio for the Reserve and National Guard. Continued judicious use of the Reserve Components, under the established utilization guidelines, will increase Active 

Component dwell to deployment ratio and help to sustain that force for future use. 

Question. What are some things that this Committee could do to help the guard 

and reserves meet their operational tempo that did not make it into the budget and 

what is the cost? 

Answer. The National Guard and Reserve are being utilized at higher operating 

tempo levels than a decade ago in performing missions at home and overseas. The 

FY 2011 President’s Budget request provides funds to facilitate current OPTEMPO 

levels in a way that closely integrates the Reserve and Active Components. As operational situations change we will work with Congress to address any shortfalls or 

issues. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
588 

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Congress has provided $855 Million to the Department for the Homeowners Assistance Program. The bulk of this money has been available since February of 

2009. 

Question. How much of these funds have been expended, and what is the current 

obligated balance of the program? 

Answer. As of March 31, 2010, $133.5 million has been expended and the obligated balance is $146.4 million. 

Question. What is the fiscal year 2010 projected end-of-year balance for this program? 

Answer. We expect to expend $329 million by September 2010. 

Question: Have the 4,652 homeowners, based on Dr. Robyn testimony, that are 

currently eligible for the HAP applied for assistance or is that just the potential 

total universe of eligibles? 

Answer. The ‘‘4,652 homeowners’’ refers to the number of applicants who were eligible to receive benefits as of March 3, 2010. 

Question. The testimony notes that the National Academy of Science is undertaking a BRAC Transportation study. Has the NAS been in contact with the Department yet to initiate this study? What kind of questions are they asking? 

Answer. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) initiated their study in March. 

They are finalizing the formation of their committee and held their first meetings 

on April 8th and 9th. The meetings were open to the public. The NAS’s contact with 

the Department has included establishing the contract (i.e. obtaining the BRAC account funding as directed by Congress), an initial meeting with me and my staff, 

and establishing contact with the Defense Access Roads program office. The initial 

discussions have, therefore, been focused on organizational issues. 

JOINT BASING

It has been a remarkable achievement that the DOD is well on their way to operating joint bases, and by October of 2010 all 12 joint bases will be fully operational. 

Question. How long before we know, based on actual data, that this effort has provided the efficiencies that everyone hopes this will provide? 

Answer. While we are always looking for efficiencies, we are shooting for the long 

term, 3–5 years from now, for finding and institutionalizing efficiencies in the delivery of installation support services. 

Question. Has the Department developed a set of metrics in order to measure the 

efficiency and effectiveness of joint basing? Please provide for the record. 

Answer. Yes, we have developed 274 metrics, called Common Output Level Standards (COLS) for measuring performance. Performance at each joint base is reported 

quarterly, and the senior installation leadership reviews performance data regularly. Our office also holds semi-annual program management reviews. A copy of the 

COLS is provided for the record. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
589 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1119 here 56870B.160
590 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1120 here 56870B.161
591 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1121 here 56870B.162
592 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1122 here 56870B.163
593 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1123 here 56870B.164
594 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1124 here 56870B.165
595 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1125 here 56870B.166
596 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1126 here 56870B.167
597 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1127 here 56870B.168
598 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1128 here 56870B.169
599 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1129 here 56870B.170
600 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1130 here 56870B.171
601 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1131 here 56870B.172
602 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1132 here 56870B.173
603 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1133 here 56870B.174
604 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1134 here 56870B.175
605 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1135 here 56870B.176
606 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1136 here 56870B.177
607 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1137 here 56870B.178
608 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1138 here 56870B.179
609 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1139 here 56870B.180
610 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1140 here 56870B.181
611 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1141 here 56870B.182
612 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1142 here 56870B.183
613 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1143 here 56870B.184
614 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1144 here 56870B.185
615 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1145 here 56870B.186
616 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1146 here 56870B.187
617 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1147 here 56870B.188
618 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1148 here 56870B.189
619 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1149 here 56870B.190
620 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1150 here 56870B.191
621 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1151 here 56870B.192
622 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1152 here 56870B.193
623 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1153 here 56870B.194
624 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1154 here 56870B.195
625 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1155 here 56870B.196
626 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1156 here 56870B.197
627 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1157 here 56870B.198
628 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1158 here 56870B.199
629 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1159 here 56870B.200
630 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1160 here 56870B.201
631 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1161 here 56870B.202
632 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1162 here 56870B.203
633 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1163 here 56870B.204
634 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1164 here 56870B.205
635 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1165 here 56870B.206
636 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1166 here 56870B.207
637 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1167 here 56870B.208
638 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1168 here 56870B.209
639 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1169 here 56870B.210
640 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1170 here 56870B.211
641 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1171 here 56870B.212
642 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1172 here 56870B.213
643 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1173 here 56870B.214
644 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1174 here 56870B.215
645 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1175 here 56870B.216
646 

BRAC 2005 ACCOUNT UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

Question. According to the budget appendix on page 305, the BRAC 2005 account 

is projected to have an unobligated balance carrying forward from 2010 into FY 

2011 of $1,185,000,000 and $1,185,000,000. What is the explanation for this high 

level of unobligated balances at the end of FY 2010 and FY 2011, and in the exact 

same amount? 

Answer. As reported in the Section 2906A Report to Congress on BRAC 2005 Obligations and Expenditures for FY 2009, which was delivered to the Congress on December 3, 2009, the total unobligated balance for the BRAC 2005 account at the end 

of FY 2009 was $2.025 billion. This represents a 92% obligation rate for funds available from FY 2006–FY 2009. The difference between this amount and the FY 2009 

figure on page 305 of the budget appendix is attributable to a data entry error in 

the database used to estimate obligations and expenditures. The formula for calculating the obligations and expenditures uses the prior year unobligated amount, 

therefore, the error compounds and contributes to the amounts for FY 2010 and FY 

2011 shown in the budget appendix. The error will be corrected for the submission 

of the FY 2012 President’s Budget. 

The most recent accounting data (February 2010) indicates the total unobligated 

balance for the BRAC 2005 account is $1.299 billion or an obligation rate of 95%. 

The Department anticipates the funding necessary for the implementation of BRAC 

2005 actions will be obligated by the September 15, 2011 deadline. 

[Question for the Record submitted by Congressman Carter] 

FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

Question. As I understand it, the President’s Executive Order No. 13514 on sustainability of federal agencies, also applies to federal contractors. Is that correct? If 

so, how will the DOD get these contractors to report their greenhouse gas emissions? Is there a reporting requirement that has to be written into the contracts? 

Are these reporting requirements in place? If not, when will they be in place? Will 

the reporting requirements include specific data protocols? What are they? Does the 

Department have to include the reporting requirement before the contracts are executed to give contractors some notice? Isn’t such data essential to the DOD getting 

any leverage on the private sector? 

Answer. Section 13 of E.O. 13514 requires the General Services Administration, 

in coordination with the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and other agencies, to review and provide recommendations to the Council 

on Environmental Quality and Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP) regarding the feasibility of working with the Federal 

vendor and contractor community to help Federal Agencies track and reduce the 

scope of greenhouse gas emissions related to the supply of products and services to 

the Government. These recommendations will address the feasibility of: 

(a) requiring vendors and contractors to register with a voluntary registry or 

organization for reporting greenhouse gas emissions; 

(b) requiring contractors, as part of a new or revised registration under the 

Central Contractor Registration or other tracking system, to develop and make 

available their greenhouse gas inventories and descriptions of efforts to mitigate 

greenhouse gas emissions; 

(c) using Federal Government purchasing preferences or other incentives for 

products manufactured using processes that minimize greenhouse gas emissions; and 

(d) other options for encouraging sustainable practices and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Department of Defense will implement any policies issued by OFPP. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(647) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

VA MENTAL HEALTH 

WITNESSES 

TODD BOWERS, DEPUTY POLICY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, IRAQ 

AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA (IAVA) 

IRA KATZ, M.D., PH.D., DEPUTY CHIEF OFFICER, MENTAL HEALTH 

SERVICES, OFFICE OF PATIENT CARE SERVICES, VETERANS 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. INSEL, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL 

HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Good morning. I would like to call the 

subcommittee to order and thank all of the witnesses for being here 

today. The purpose of today’s hearing is to focus on an issue that 

is so vitally important to all of us and every American veteran, and 

that is how we are doing in terms of mental health-care services 

to our vets. We look forward to exploring what the V.A. is doing, 

where we are making progress, where there are gaps. And I think 

this will be a very, very productive hearing. 

We have a number of witnesses that are scheduled today. Someone is apparently stuck in the process of trying to get into the Capitol, Mr. Todd Bowers, who is with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Mr. Bowers is a staff sergeant in the Marine 

Corps Reserves and has served two tours of duty in Iraq. 

Dr. Ira Katz is the deputy chief officer for mental health-care 

services with the V.A. 

Dr. Katz, thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

We also have Dr. Thomas Insel, who is the director of the National Institute of Mental Health at NIH. 

And thank you. We look forward to your testimony as well. 

Not testifying—is that correct—Dr. Batres will not be testifying 

but is here to address questions. And we know—and we know there 

will be interest in talking to you, Dr. Batres, about our vet centers 

and how we are doing there. But he is the chief readjustment counseling officer with VHA and oversees our vet centers. 

As is our process, we will submit for the record your entire written statement but would like to recognize you now for opening comments of approximately 5 minutes. We are a little bit informal in 

this committee. We are not going to keep you on a timer. 

But, Dr. Katz, if we could begin with your testimony and then 

Dr. Insel. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
648 

STATEMENT OF IRA KATZ

Dr. KATZ. Thank you. Chairman Edwards, Mr. Crenshaw, and 

other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear today to discuss V.A.’s response to the mental health needs of America’s veterans. I am accompanied today by 

my colleague Dr. Alfonso Batres, chief readjustment counsel officer, 

and Mr. Paul Kearns, chief financial officer for the Veterans Health 

Administration. 

In the time that I have available, I want to make three key 

points. First, VA’s clinical programs are improving the lives and 

well-being of veterans with mental health conditions. To demonstrate this, I can point to several objective outcome measures to 

support this claim. 

To begin, the number of homeless veterans has declined significantly over the past 2 years from 154,000 in 2007 to 131,000 in 

2008 and 107,000 in 2009. The decline will be continuing and accelerating with the secretary’s 5-year program to end homelessness 

among veterans. But the numbers thus far already demonstrate 

that those veterans most in need are receiving the care and services necessary. 

Further, veterans with serious mental illness who use V.A. services do not have the mortality gap that is present elsewhere. In 

this and other countries, individuals with serious mental illness 

have an average life expectancy more than 20 years less than those 

without mental illness. However, in V.A., the difference in life expectancy is less than 2 years. 

Finally, the suicide rate among veterans using V.A. health care 

has declined since 2001, translating to about 250 fewer suicides per 

year. Rates for young veterans, aged 18 to 29, who use V.A. services have declined since the start of mental health enhancements 

in 2005. 

In 2005, those young veterans who came to us had suicide rates 

13 percent higher than those who did not. However, in 2007, they 

had suicide rates that were 30 percent lower. Looking at one key 

component of our suicide prevention programs, in 2009, our suicide 

prevention hotline intervened to rescue more than 3300 veterans 

judged to be at imminent risk for suicide. 

Based on this evidence, we know that our programs are working 

for those who use them. To extend these benefits, we need to reach 

still more veterans. We have a variety of outreach initiatives, and 

we are enhancing them. 

More fundamentally, at the same time, that we continue to enhance our clinical programs, we are implementing a broader public 

health model for mental health care. 

My second point is that V.A. is committed to a robust research 

program that identifies causes and effective treatments for mental 

health conditions. Our current budget for research in mental health 

is more than $100 million a year, and we are using these resources 

to determine biological, genetic, psychological, and social factors 

that increase a person’s risk. 

We are also investigating treatment strategies and using the results to improve care. For one example, V.A. research has determined that suicide rates are especially high during the time immeVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00648 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
649 

diately after veterans are discharged for mental health in-patient 

care. And this led to system-wide requirements that all patients 

must have follow up within 1 week of discharge. 

For another example, other V.A. research provided evidence that 

exposure-based psychotherapies were effective treatments for 

PTSD. Even before these findings were published, the results led 

V.A. to implement training programs to ensure that our staff 

throughout the country were able to administer these treatments 

to our patients. 

My third main point is that V.A. offers veterans meaningful alternatives for accessing care for mental health issues that goes beyond that which is available in medical centers and clinics. V.A.’s 

Vet Centers embrace a veteran-centric model program that makes 

personal and empathetic connections to help veterans overcome 

stigma and other barriers to care. 

About 80 percent of all staff members are veterans, 60 percent 

are combat veterans, and one-third are OEF–OIF veterans. 

Through the end of 2009, Vet Centers made contact with over 

420,000, almost 40 percent of all separated OEF–OIF veterans, 

providing outreach usually at the demobilization sites to about 

320,000 and readjustment counseling usually in Vet Centers to almost 110,000. 

Very significantly, within hours of the shootings at Fort Hood, 

Vet Centers deployed staff, including four mobile vet centers, to the 

Fort Hood community where they provided readjustment counseling services to more than 6,600 veterans, active-duty service 

members, and families. The vet centers are a very substantial national resource. 

In conclusion, V.A. has used its appropriations aggressively to increase the resources available to address the mental health needs 

of veterans. We are also working closely with our partners on the 

DOD to improve the access, quality, and continuity of care for veterans and service members alike. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, this is work we can all be 

proud of. And we thank you for your support. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to appear. My colleagues and I are prepared to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ira Katz follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
650 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1185 here 56870B.217
651 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1186 here 56870B.218
652 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1187 here 56870B.219
653 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1188 here 56870B.220
654 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1189 here 56870B.221
655 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1190 here 56870B.222
656 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1191 here 56870B.223
657 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1192 here 56870B.224
658 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1193 here 56870B.225
659 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1194 here 56870B.226
660 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1195 here 56870B.227
661 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Katz. 

Dr. Insel, before we go to you, I got one step ahead of myself. I 

did not recognize our ranking member, Mr. Crenshaw, for any 

opening comments that he would care to make. 

And my apologies, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No problem at all. I am just a stand-in ranking 

member. 

Mr. EDWARDS. He is the ranking member today. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No. I just wanted to welcome everyone and 

thank you for being here. Thank you for the work that you are 

doing, and I look forward to asking some questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Dr. Insel. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. INSEL

Dr. INSEL. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Crenshaw. Thanks for having me here. 

Let me explain a little bit about why I am here. I am from the 

National Institutes of Health, which is probably not an agency that 

you meet with very often on this subcommittee, but it is really the 

nation’s investment in biomedical research. 

And my particular role is as director of the National Institute of 

Mental Health, which cares greatly about issues around PTSD, depression, TBI, suicide. Those are all very much within our domain. 

I have submitted for the record written testimony. I think rather 

than going through that, if I can just very quickly give you the 1– 

minute schedule of where we are with the science in this area because that is really what my role is here. 

You will hear from others about the tremendous service needs 

and the importance of providing evidence-based care and access to 

care and all of the service and supports that veterans will need. 

Our piece in this is to make sure that we have got the right evidence base to determine how we improve the diagnosis and the 

treatment—and even the prevention—of a disorder like PTSD so 

that we can do a better job when we do provide services, by making 

sure that our services are more effective. 

If we were talking about cancer, I would say the same thing. It 

is very important to provide really good services for cancer and 

heart disease and diabetes. But the reality is that even with the 

very best treatments we have today, people with cancer die, and 

that is true for PTSD as well. 

And we do not have the best treatments, the treatments that will 

make the greatest difference for every individual. We have things 

that help, but we are still not where we want to be. So there is a 

very important role for science in trying to move the agenda so that 

we can always provide better services going forward. 

So very quickly, where we are in terms of the science, there are 

probably three things that you could take away from reading the 

entire literature of the last 2 or 3 years. And it is a vast and very 

exciting literature. 

So first point to make is that this is an area of huge progress, 

and—in the area particularly of PTSD—I think this is the best 

area that we cover in my institute for understanding a disorder 

from the molecular level to the cellular level, the systems level, and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
662 

as a brain disease because we have animal studies that have been 

incredibly powerful and instructive and because so much of what 

we learned from those map beautifully onto what we are learning 

from human imaging and from studying patients. 

The bottom line from that is that it has become very clear that 

all of the work that we had done on fear and anxiety is not quite 

right here; that this is much more about understanding how people 

recover from fear; and that the biology of the recovery from fear is 

very different. It is an active process. It is not just forgetting that 

you had a traumatic event. It is an active process of recovery. And 

that has its own specific neurobiology that we now can begin to 

map out in exquisite deal. It is really kind of an extraordinary 

story that we can now tell. 

In fact, there is a piece out yesterday, I think, in Scientific American where I try to lay this out as what I call a faulty circuit. The 

faulty circuit is the problem of PTSD, why the circuit is not working. It is not that different than if we were talking about heart disease, and I talk to you about arrhythmia. That is the way we think 

about these kinds of disorders now. 

So point one is that we have got this very exciting, what we will 

call translational, science that is informing this area. 

The second point to think about is that in the same way that I 

said this is the kind of difference from learning fears, about getting 

over fear, extinguishing fear, what we are understanding now is 

that the problem of PTSD is really a problem of recovery. All of us, 

every one of us with a traumatic event, will have stress responses, 

nightmares, sleep disturbance, hypervigilance, that whole package. 

But for most of us, after a few weeks, it goes away. 

What we do not understand is what it is that does not allow that 

to happen in some 10, 20, 30 percent of people exposed. So a lot 

of the research now, both from the V.A.—and Dr. Katz described 

the $100 million that they are investing every year trying to understand this—and also from the NIH where we have a very big investment in the same question, is trying to understand how much 

of this is due to the nature of the trauma, and how much of it is 

due to the nature of the individual. 

And do people come into these traumatic events with some specific susceptibility? You know, it could be genetic. It could be based 

on their past experience. It could be something about their brains 

that are wired a little bit differently. 

But trying to pin that down so that we could predict who is most 

vulnerable and, at some point, just as we do with heart disease 

where we identify risk because of cholesterol level or maybe family 

history and maybe something about genetics, that you are somebody who may be at risk for—heart disease. We would like to be 

able to do that as well for PTSD and for the response to stressors. 

And the final point where I think we are making some of the 

most exciting progress is not only in trying to understand this 

question about vulnerability, but also in thinking about treatments 

and trying to come up with better treatments. As Dr. Katz mentioned, we do have effective treatments that are both psycho-social 

and psycho-therapy and, increasingly, the use of medications. 

But what we would like to figure out is a package that really is 

more of a cure than just a treatment; something that we know we 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
663 

can predict—as we have done in the rest of medicine—will really 

be a game changer. And there are amazing leads in that respect. 

There are a couple of things that are a little bit counterintuitive. 

I mean, there is a piece out about a month ago in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggested that those soldiers who 

have combat trauma and are treated are morphine do better than 

those who are not treated with morphine in terms of PTSD. The 

effects are not huge, but they are significant enough to make us 

think that is something we ought to look at. 

We need to know if there are aspects of the very acute phase of 

this and how we intervene in the first hours after a traumatic 

event that might tell us how we can greatly reduce the consequence of PTSD or TBI later in depression? 

The second is thinking—and this maybe is the most unexpected—that there is apparently just a specific pathway that seems 

to be important, and specific molecules that are really key to recovery from trauma. And there is one now that we are looking at in 

several different studies that does really show promise. It shows 

promise for overcoming other kinds of phobias, and other kinds of 

anxiety responses. And it looks like it may have some real value 

here. 

We will not know all of that for about another year, but that is 

certainly an area of great interest. There is a compound that is 

now being developed specifically just for helping people overcome 

nightmares. So there is a whole range of things that look like they 

may be able to really give us a better toolkit, a better set of interventions. So even when we cannot do the prevention piece, we can 

at least look for better therapies. 

Let me close by saying that the agency I work for, the National 

Institute of Mental Health, was actually founded almost 65 years 

ago—about 63 years ago—by Harry Truman specifically for this 

problem. He was very concerned about men—at that point, it was 

almost exclusively men—coming back from World War II, particularly the European front with—they didn’t call it PTSD or TBI. 

They called it at that point, ‘‘traumatic neurosis’’ or ‘‘combat neurosis.’’ 

But it was very much the same problem. And we have been at 

this a long time. The problem has changed in a number of ways, 

but this is a tough, tough problem. I mean, it is not one that—I 

would like to be able to say that we have invested enough and that 

we have been at it long enough to solve it. But we are not there. 

I continue to think that research is going to be a critical piece 

of the way forward here. We do want to make sure that people are 

getting the very best services, but just as in medicine, we want to 

make sure that we are getting better and better services to provide. 

And that is where the science comes in. 

Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Thomas R. Insel follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
664 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1204 here 56870B.228
665 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1205 here 56870B.229
666 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1206 here 56870B.230
667 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1207 here 56870B.231
668 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1208 here 56870B.232
669 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1209 here 56870B.233
670 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1210 here 56870B.234
671 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1211 here 56870B.235
672 

RESEARCH BUDGET

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Insel. 

Let me begin the questions by following up, Dr. Insel. Can you 

tell me again how much money you are investing in PTSD or mental health care research that applies directly to veterans? I know 

probably everything you do in some way, directly or indirectly, 

could apply to veterans. But maybe PTSD specific. 

Dr. INSEL. Yes. If you just pull out PTSD specifically, it is $63 

million, 170 grants. TBI runs $59 million in 2008 with about 302 

grants. So the TBI work is done largely through the National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Strokes. It is our sister agency. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is your total annual research budget? 

Dr. INSEL. It is $1.4 billion, a little more than that, but it is in 

that range. With Recovery Act funds, it goes up to about $1.5 billion. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If we had additional funds and were not facing 

tough budget challenges—we may not end up with additional 

funds—but if you had additional funds, where would we want to 

put more research efforts to try to specifically address the PTSD 

issue? 

Dr. INSEL. Well, that is a question that we should probably talk 

about together. I think one of the things that we always look for 

is the kind of match between necessity and opportunity. The necessity is there because of the huge public health burden. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. INSEL. The opportunity is not always as evident. So where do 

we have the most traction in the science? I would say that one 

large area right now is this business of translation, of trying to understand—PTSD is a brain circuit problem and trying to really 

identify what are the targets there that could be critical for the 

next generation of medications that we might develop. 

And I would give you the same answer if you asked me about 

cancer of the pancreas or if you asked me about heart disease. I 

would probably just say the same thing. We want to fund mental 

health-related basic science right so we know how to move forward. 

I think the other—which is maybe not expected—is that we do 

not do well enough on the delivery of the things that we know work 

now. And that may not sound like a scientific question, but it is. 

There is a question about where we failed and how do we do apply 

science to do a better job to make sure that those people who really 

could benefit from the treatments we have today are getting those 

treatments in a way that has optimal impact. 

And that gets into a number of issues. It will get into issues of 

stigma, issues of access, issues of disparities. And some of them do 

not sound like the kind of hard science of brain imaging or molecular biology, but they are as complicated and they need just as 

much energy behind them to make sure that we not only translate 

from bench to bedside but from bedside to practice. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How do you interact with the V.A. if you have a 

new area of research where you are beginning to gain confidence 

that a certain treatment or medication or a combination thereof 

can really make a positive difference—the data begin to show that? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
673 

How do you interpret that new idea into policies or procedures at 

the V.A.? 

Dr. INSEL. Well, there is a lot of conversation between the V.A. 

and, in my case, NIMH. Dr. Katz sits on my Advisory Council. 

That is one thing. So he is actually involved in every stage of what 

we do. We also have a number of joint projects. And we have even 

released joint requests for applications with the V.A. 

On the TBI front, there is even now a joint task force between 

V.A., DOD, and several other agencies to try to come up with common language and common efforts. And then, frankly, our biggest 

project that we are doing—I think it is the biggest project my institute has ever taken on—is a joint effort with DOD. It is called the 

STARRS Initiative, which stands for Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Soldiers. 

It is a study that actually came from the Secretary of the Army 

who asked us to get involved in helping them with the challenge 

of the increasing rate of suicide in the Army. So we have launched 

together what you could call a Framingham study. It is a very 

broad study that will look at all incoming soldiers over the next 4 

to 5 years to try to understand this issue of risk and resilience, who 

is vulnerable, how we can identify upfront who might become the 

person who we will worry about later, and how do we drive the suicide rate from where it is now to where it used to be. And so we 

are interested in looking at that as well. 

In case you have not heard of the Framingham Study, this was 

a study that started back in the 1950s and 1960s when the nation 

was struggling with the problem of sudden cardiac death. It is actually very analogous. And at that point, someone came to NIH and 

requested help to reduce the rate of sudden cardiac death. And this 

is still, believe it or not, a fairly rare event but to understand it, 

you are going to have to step back and understand who is at risk. 

And so the people of Framingham, Massachusetts, became a 

large laboratory, basically. And that entire community was studied 

for two or three decades. But even in the first few years, it became 

clear that hypertension, high-blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity were all risk factors that we didn’t know about. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. INSEL. We have had a 63 percent reduction in the rate of 

mortality from sudden cardiac deaths, largely because of that kind 

of approach. So we are looking for the same kind of impact for suicide in the Army. And that is what we hope we will be able to do 

over the next 3 to 4 years with this overall lab and this very large 

project. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. I would like to have additional questions, 

but let me go to Mr. Crenshaw and then we will continue on. 

TEMPORAL SEQUENCE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up, Mr. Chairman, one thing I would say is it is 

pretty encouraging to hear both of you all talk about the homelessness is down, suicide rates are down, making some great strides. 

I was going to say to you it sounds like, since we focused on this 

in the last, really, about the last 5 years, that may be one of the 

reasons everything was so exciting in terms of research was beVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00673 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
674 

cause everything was kind of brand new. Then I heard you say we 

have been doing it for 63 years. 

But so I appreciate that, but I imagine, just as we focus on different aspects, you would say that is kind of a new and exciting 

field because we didn’t talk about PTSD maybe 60 years ago. It 

was a different kind of reaction. 

So I am curious, you know, some of the things that you talked 

about, you know, one of the things, like, maybe in terms of treatment, if you can reach somebody right after kind of you find out 

they have had this kind of situation. What does that mean in terms 

of timeframe? Is that when they recognize they have got a problem, 

or you recognize that they should have a problem? How does that 

timeframe fit into that early treatment or detection or whatever in 

terms of long-term solutions? 

Dr. INSEL. That is a great question, and this has to do with trying to understand what is actually the process involved here. Is 

that traumatic memory, which is what we are talking about, the 

result of a different kind of memory? Or is it something that becomes a problem because you just cannot let it go? 

And in about the last 6 to 9 months, we have had a revolution 

in the way we understand memory. We used to think that you had 

an event, good or bad, and that event stayed in memory in a kind 

of storage that was like putting something in the freezer and then, 

a year later, when the question comes up, you can take it out of 

the freezer and revive it or defrost it. 

The last year or two, the revolution that has taken place is we 

have realized that memories, in a way that we hadn’t quite understood, are always being reconsolidated. They are always coming out 

of the freezer on a regular basis. 

And what we think is happening in PTSD is that they are coming out and getting intensified as if you are re-traumatizing yourself over and over again. So to get to your question, the interesting 

piece is that we have begun to realize that the key is not so much 

getting there right after the impact but getting there right after 

the reconsolidation takes place. 

Each time this thing comes out of the freezer, you have an opportunity not only to make it worse but to make it better. And so we 

are trying to map exactly what that temporal sequence. And a 

piece that was just published in the last few weeks showed that, 

if you intervene at the right time, you can show the impact of that 

even a year later without any more interventions taking place. 

These are not in people with PTSD but just healthy volunteers 

who were given a fear memory and are shown how they can overcome that within just a few minutes in one of these reconsolidation 

experiments. 

So this is an area of great interest—just trying to actually get 

the temporal map of how fear memories come back over and over 

again and how we can turn down the gain on these so that they 

ultimately go away. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And that gets into kind of a question I was going 

to ask Dr. Katz about just outreach and access. Maybe you are a 

better person to answer it. 

But I would think if timing is important, one of the things I 

know that, you know, people that live in rural areas, they do not 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
675 

have the access, always, to all the services. And I wondered, like, 

with the Internet and with phone-based, you know, counseling, is 

that something you see maybe, Dr. Katz as well, one way because, 

you know, you read stories about somebody that lives 80 miles from 

the closest, you know, clinic really cannot get there. They have to 

wait several weeks or whatever because of their own personal timing. 

Does that fit in? I mean, are there things that you all are doing 

that—in terms of the Internet, in terms of the phone to kind of 

help in that timing aspect so that, if you really need help, you can 

kind of get it? 

Dr. KATZ. There are two barriers that are very linked in our ability to reach veterans and they are time and space. And we have 

got to get to people across the country as a whole, including very 

rural areas as soon as we can. We do this. We have, between vet 

centers, medical centers, and clinics substantially over a thousand 

points of contact. We cover a substantial part of America, but, of 

course, not the whole country. 

And there are geographic areas that are beyond our reach or beyond convenience for veterans in getting to us. 

One of the most exciting things that we are doing is using electronic communication ranging from a full-bandwidth tele-mental 

health to plain-old telephone to overcome the geographic barriers. 

There is some research that is ongoing now in the Pacific Islands 

division of our National Center for PTSD that has shown highly 

promising results with tele-mental health, that good bandwidth 

communication from one island in the Pacific to another still lets 

people deliver exposure-based therapies effectively. 

That is a big deal and a key for moving forward to really reach 

veterans where they live no matter where they are. The translation 

of that to real life for real people in real places is complex. We are 

developing strategies to allow credentialing and privileging of 

PTSD experts around the country so that our expert in Vermont 

can provide services for the veteran in New Mexico or Montana or 

Guam. These are the challenges that we are facing. 

But the principles seem clear that electronics as well as face-toface contact can really help us get the care where the veteran 

needs it. 

Al, you are a big part of VA’s outreach efforts too. 

Dr. BATRES. A few things that we have done is we have hired a 

lot of the OEF–OIF veterans in our program, as Dr. Katz said. 

Over 34 percent of all of our staff are combat veterans who served 

in OEF–OIF. I cannot tell you how important that is. 

The fact of the matter is that understanding the culture of the 

military, what it is like to be a warrior and having served in a combat zone, especially with their age is important. I am a disabled 

Vietnam veteran. My son served in Iraq. I am not as good at making contact with the young separating troops as a young OEF–OIF 

veteran would be. 

They know their music, and they can understand a lot of it is 

what the veterans or the soldier brings back to the unit because 

they get to select where they access care. And I think that is one 

of the best systems we have for fighting stigma; to make that connection. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
676 

Stabilizing and getting warriors into a system as early as we can 

and working closer with DOD. We have 50 mobile vet centers that 

are driving out to rural areas. We have a GWOT veterans, what 

we called them because we started before there was an OEF–OIF 

actually recruiting the younger cohort of warriors. And we have a 

counselor on board. 

The mobile vet centers have VSAT units where we can do telehealth and connect to rural areas when we go out and do outreach. 

One of our targets is going to National Guard units and their families where they are and partnering with the family centers to work 

jointly with the military and the National Guard units to meet 

with them, make contact with them, and provide information. Then 

we offer our services through contracts, community resources, or 

out of the V.A. So there is a lot of community resources in rural 

areas and trying to get the warriors to where they need to be at 

that particular time. 

We are doing all this at demobilization and we have done most 

of the National Guard and Reserve assessments but we have 

partnered with them and are there. And what I would like to stress 

is there is multiple contacts that we make with the soldier at different times. So much of it is timing. 

When I got back from Vietnam, the last thing I wanted to do was 

to be held up in processing when I wanted to be somewhere else. 

So it is a continuum of services from VA to include everything from 

phone calls, screening, and then follow up at every level so we can 

make connections with them and make the services available. 

A lot of times, it is not PTSD. A lot of times they may have family problems. They may have employment problems. 

So we approach it from the whole-person psychosocial approach, 

and biology is important, and research is important. But also making contact in a relevant way with these troops to include their 

whole family and their home situation is very critical. 

I think that is where we play a role. And those are a few of the 

things that we are doing that I think are improving what we are 

doing with providing a whole person approach. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, that is encouraging because I think, you 

know, when you hear about this exciting research that is being 

done, you hear about the way you utilize your personnel, but the 

bottom line is making sure that these folks know what is available 

to them because you can have the greatest treatment in the world, 

the greatest facilities in the world, but if you are not really specifically reaching out—it sounds like you are, because if you look at 

the homelessness, that is coming down. And suicide is coming 

down. 

And then you are spending the money that, in the last few years, 

has been sizeable doing a better job with the treatment part but 

also making sure that folks—that is what I would just stress with 

you all that everything you can do to specifically make sure that 

they know what is available to them. You mentioned the stigma. 

We will probably talk about that. 

We found that, historically, so many people felt like, well, I do 

not want to kind of tell somebody I have got a, you know, mental 

problem; I am a soldier, I am a warrior and I cannot be looked 

upon as being weak. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
677 

And so somebody has got to reach out to them. And it sounds like 

that is what you are doing. So I would just encourage you to continue that and keep that in mind as you do all the wonderful 

things you are doing in terms of treatment to make sure that, more 

importantly and maybe most importantly, is to make sure that 

when folks come home that they know what is available to them 

and that you can reach them and get them help. 

Dr. BATRES. What Dr. Insel said is very critical. The early intervention is very important as is making sure that they have support 

and if there are multiple resources and multiple ways to get support that is being communicated. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. I have got some other questions. I 

will wait, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Bowers, let me just say, while I regret the inconvenience the lock-down caused you, it makes me feel safer knowing 

that a combat-tested Marine could not get into the Capitol. [Laughter.] 

But thank you for being here. We understand completely what 

happened, and sorry for that inconvenience to you. But we are 

thrilled that you are here, and we had decided earlier we wanted 

to put our two panels together and combine them so we could have 

just an informal dialogue and interaction here. So your timing is 

perfect now that you are here. 

And I just want to thank you for your service in Iraq, your two 

tours of duty in Iraq. And as I understand, you are continuing on 

in your military service even as you represent the Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans, you are serving as a reserve sergeant in the 

Marine Corps. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOWERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, we thank you for that service and for your 

leadership on mental health care issues and other issues on behalf 

of our Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. 

What I would like to do is recognize you at this point for any 

opening comments you would care to make. You have been through 

this process before, so we will submit your full testimony, as you 

know, for the record. 

But I would like to recognize you if you would like to take 5 minutes or so to summarize your key points, then we will continue on 

with the questions and conversation. 

Mr. BOWERS. That would be fantastic. Again, I apologize to everybody for not—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could you pull that microphone up a little bit? 

STATEMENT OF TODOL BOWERS

Mr. BOWERS. Certainly. I apologize for taking so long to get here. 

I am very glad this is being done informally because I feel much 

more comfortable being able to do that. 

I actually just returned 2 months ago from a tour in Afghanistan 

since I last saw you. I spent 9 months in the Farah Province. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for that. 

Mr. BOWERS. And the big piece that I kind of pulled away from 

this deployment was, this being my third combat deployment, I 

thought it would get easier to readjust. And I will be very candid 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
678 

in this room and tell everybody this was the hardest one to readjust from. It caught me very off guard the difficulties that we ended 

up facing on the ground and, more important, what was difficult 

for me was that, having been here on Capitol Hill, worked with the 

committee so closely and really understood veterans issues, I felt, 

hey, I am going to be a pioneer and be able to take care of my team 

when we get home. 

Fifty percent of my team right now is facing charges. One, a domestic assault charge; one, a drunk-in-public charge; one, an assault charge. It is an extremely daunting task, and I think a lot 

of credit is due to these individuals to be able to understand how 

hard that is because here I was on the ground with them, bringing 

them home and readjusting. And I found that it is a task that I 

could not even fully fulfill. It is extremely difficult. 

The hardest thing I think, though, that we see in regards to reintegration for service members is the communication aspect. It is 

very difficult for them to understand and know what resources are 

out there in regards to mental health. The second piece being that 

the stigma that is included in regards to mental health is apparent 

across the board. 

It was very strange for me, within a 2-week period, I went from 

wading through, you know, 11 dead bodies in Afghanistan to sitting on my sofa by myself. And you go through those sort of adjustment periods where you say, I really do not know what to do with 

myself. I do not know, do I pick up the phone right now? Do I pick 

up the bottle of Jack Daniels? What is the best course of action to 

deal with that? 

And no matter how many deployments you go through, it just 

gets more and more difficult. I am very fortunate—and I think you 

hit it on perfectly, sir—is that I have a good support network, both 

my family, my co-workers, my fellow Marines. They are there, and 

they are the key element from the outside that can say we are seeing changes in you. 

I cannot identify changes in myself. I cannot identify that I am 

staying up later than I used that; that I am having difficulty sleeping and things like that. 

But when I show up with bags under my eyes, my co-workers 

say, what are you doing. You know, are you having a hard time 

sleeping? They are the ones—they are that first—almost the firstresponder, if you will, to a lot of these mental health transitional 

issues that people end up facing. 

The big piece that I have noticed with younger service members 

is—I met a Marine, actually—excuse me for going back. I met a 

Marine on my deployment who was 25 years old. He was finishing 

up his fifth deployment. And that just blew my mind. It blew my 

mind. And I asked him, I said, you know, how is it been; you know, 

it has been difficult; has it gotten easier. He said it just does not 

get any easier. 

He has been through a divorce already. It is just extremely difficult for these transitions. I asked him, I said, what is the biggest 

piece that you think is missing. And he surprised me when he said, 

well, I am a reservist. And I said, okay, well, what is the problem 

with that? He said, well, when I come home, I have got my 96 

hours of leave, and then I have got my week, and then I am off 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
679 

to the wind again. And it all falls on my shoulders and on my 

friends’ and family’s shoulders to make sure that I put my foot in 

the door at the Department of Veterans Affairs and/or Department 

of Defense, depending on what their status really is in the military. 

The V.A. has taken outstanding steps in the 2 years that I have 

been working with IAVA to increase their outreach. They are on 

Facebook. They are on Twitter. I just followed your guy’s Tweets 

a few minutes ago, actually. 

They are reaching out on this new generation of social media. 

And more importantly, they are involving veterans from this generation in the many pieces that are going to be critical for effective 

outreach in the future. 

Just yesterday, we met with—the Department of Veterans Affairs and private consultants on how they are going to move forward with their suicide prevention hotline campaign and actually 

did focus groups with a lot of our veteran members here in the 

Washington, D.C., area, wanted strategic input, wanted to know is 

it flyers, is it TV—what works best. 

It has taken some time to get to this point, but they are making 

outstanding strides and just making that little step to be able to 

say what is it you understand. And our hope is—you are aware of 

the Ad Council campaign that we have been doing as outreach to 

OIF and OEF veterans. It is almost as if that model—we are very 

pleased that that became sort of a model on how to do effective 

messaging for this new generation of service members. 

Not saying, ‘‘you are home from a war, you have dealt with a lot, 

and so you are different’’, that is a bad thing. But identifying you 

are different. These are natural responses to unnatural circumstances. And here is ways you can go forward. 

You know, the Marine Corps has a very good saying where we 

say, ‘‘Pain is weakness leaving the body.’’ And I think it is very 

true. It is very difficult to make these transitional phases, and it 

is very difficult to step up and say ‘‘I need some help.’’ 

But by doing it, it makes you stronger. And these new campaigns 

seem to really focus on that messaging, which I think will draw 

more people in. It is a culture change that has to happen. It is happening slowly but surely at DOD. I think it is happening a little 

quicker at the Department of Veterans Affairs, that changing that 

sort of mold. And it is just going to take time, and it really ultimately fast down on the individual. There are always other circumstances that make it difficult. 

While I was deployed, I received a ‘‘Dear John’’ letter from a 

girlfriend who didn’t want to deal with me being deployed anymore. 

I always thought that was just stuff you saw on movies. I did not 

think it would be so emotionally tasking. And it ultimately made 

it very difficult for about a month or so while I was over there because you have no way to deal with it other than to talk to your 

Marine buddies, smoke some cigarettes, and, you know, eat an 

MRE to try and lighten the mood. You know? 

So it gets difficult. I think that the biggest thing that we are seeing right now is that, as we are seeing more people go into Afghanistan, the DOD is doing a great job on the ground to identify some 

of these problems. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
680 

And case in point was the last 2 weeks that one of the infantry 

battalions that I was supporting was there, they took all of their 

squad leaders and did a stand-down on operations for 72 hours. 

Those squad leaders went down to a main base—Camp Leatherneck in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan—went through a 2- 

day suicide prevention training course. 

And it was not completely token military where it was just 

PowerPoint presentations and things like that. They were taught 

how to socially interact with their junior Marines, with no rank on, 

to discuss some of the things that they may face when they get 

home. This was in theater. This had to be completed within 14 

days before they pulled out of theater. 

I was extremely impressed to see the way the squad leaders 

dealt with this issue. There was always that token, ah, you know, 

if you are crazy, do not deal with it. But they did it behind closed 

doors, so it was Marines that they had deployed with, that they 

had served with, and that they were going to be able to ultimately 

connect with when they come home to identify these things. 

It was extremely impressive. I was really blown away by it, and 

I do not think that the Department of Defense—and I guess it is 

the Marine Corps as a whole—has really gotten the pat on the 

back that they deserve for making these advancements. 

The transition home has to start while you are in theater. That 

is one of the key elements. You cannot just pop people out and 

throw them back in. My first deployment to Iraq in 2003, it was 

within a 48-hour period that I went from the streets of Al Kut to 

sitting on my sofa here in Washington, D.C. 

It was mind blowing. It just blew my mind, and it was very difficult to get back into the swing of things. So, again, I hope that 

was constructive. I am sorry that I pulled away sort of from my 

written testimony, but I hope that these pieces as to what DOD is 

doing and the way V.A. is transitioning as an institution, I believe, 

as a whole, it is just fantastic, and we are very excited to be involved in the process. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
681 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1233 56870B.236
682 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1234 56870B.237
683 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1235 56870B.238
684 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1236 56870B.239
685 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1237 56870B.240
686 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1238 56870B.241
687 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you. And thank you for your open and 

honest testimony. 

As I listened to you, I cannot help but think that one of the challenges we face in congressional hearings across the committees is 

that we usually hear from federal agencies who are providing services. I think sometimes we do not hear enough from those from the 

customer—the person being served. And so your firsthand testimony is extremely valuable, and I would like to follow up, if I 

could—— 

Mr. BOWERS. Sure. Yes, sir. 

TRANSITION PROGRAM

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. With a question on that. 

When you came back home from Afghanistan, were you given 

any brochure that said, if you are having mental health care or 

PTSD problems, you can call this number at DOD or the V.A.? So 

you are given these? 

Mr. BOWERS. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Were you given that in theater? Were you given 

that when you came back? 

Mr. BOWERS. We were given this—this is one of the issues that 

I should have highlighted is that there is outstanding transition 

program for service members when they come back regardless of 

them being a reservist, a Marine, an airman, a sailor. It is not the 

same across the board, though. So I can only specifically speak to 

what it was like transitions as a Marine Corps reservist. 

I was blown away by the Marine Corps order and how efficient 

it was in regarding to us transitioning. As reservists, we were required to have 96 hours leave the second we came home. We then 

had 5 days of transitional training with V.A. representatives there 

for three of those days. Those days were half days. There were no 

physical fitness requirements at all. 

And they were done in a casual atmosphere, a classroom-like atmosphere. One of those days was supposed to be a family day 

where we had our family members come in. And I will say the one 

flaw was that it was a Tuesday morning, so it is very difficult to 

get your families to come in for that. 

We also were not aware of it until the day before, so it was hard 

to coordinate it. But the correct steps are being made. 

The V.A. representatives that were there were outstanding in regard to providing us with an overwhelming amount of information. 

It does, as you can see by the amount of pamphlets that are handed to us, which also come from other VSOs, can be a little bit overwhelming. 

You are looking at this mountain going, this is great, but, you 

know, which is the most important piece. But the key element was 

the interaction that the Marines were having directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs representatives who are the smartest 

people I have met in my life in regards to moving through the system at the V.A. 

They also were well-versed in what services were there, and they 

did not throw out there and say, ‘‘If you have PTSD or you are 

thinking about killing yourself, do this.’’ It was almost as if they 

had had communication training to be able to talk to the Marines. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
688 

And I think some of this is they were probably OIF and OEF veterans—to be able to engage us and say, here is some pieces here; 

if you guys want anything, it is over here. Grab it at will. 

But everything was provided in print-out resources for us that 

we all got to take home. One of the V.A. representatives that was 

there, I think, came up with the single-best handout that I have 

ever seen in my life. It was something that he had done on his 

own. I hope I do not get anyone in trouble for this—on V.A. regulations. [Laughter.] 

But it was outstanding. He put together a single-page to put on 

your refrigerator when you get home that said, basically, along the 

lines, I have just gotten home from combat; I might do this. And 

it had checkboxes that said, ‘‘I may not sleep well. I may snap over 

ridiculous things. ‘‘ 

And it was not meant to be a tool for the service member. It was 

meant to be sort of a PSA for family and friends that might be in 

the kitchen and see that and say, oh, okay, you know, these are 

some issues that he may be facing when he comes back. 

And then at the bottom, it says, ‘‘If any of this is getting way too 

out of control, tell me to call the V.A.’’ Simple, to the point—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. And that is on a one-page—— 

Mr. BOWERS. He did it on his own. You could tell he had done 

it with Microsoft Word. It was just outstanding. 

So I think the quality of the materials that we receive is very important and really does need to come from OIF and OEF veterans 

because they have an ability to sort of think out of box and know 

what some of the issues are when they come home. They are little 

things, but they mean so much. Just that specific messaging, I 

think, resonates much further. 

But in regards to the materials that we received, they were outstanding. We all got our initial claims forms to be able to register 

with the V.A. We, at IAVA, have always wanted to—you have to 

opt out of registering with the V.A. when you come out instead of 

always being required to opt in. 

Fortunately, we had a gunnery sergeant who was pretty firm and 

said, ‘‘You all will opt in, no questions asked.’’ So all the Marines, 

you know, we all filled out our paperwork from our detachment. 

And I think that is extremely important because, now, the Marines, whether they want it or not, are receiving information from 

the V.A. and knowing what resources are out there. And that is the 

first key to doing effective outreach to everybody. We follow orders. 

That is what we do. 

OUTREACH

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you for that. 

Dr. Katz, could I just do a follow up, and then we will go back 

to Mr. Crenshaw? 

When the V.A. puts together publications to let veterans know 

what is available to them, what process do you have of bouncing 

those brochures or potential brochures off of the customers, the veterans who perhaps have just come back from combat? Is there an 

informal or a formal process of doing that, having them look at the 

brochures and say, wait a minute, this is confusing to me or does 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
689 

not tell me what we need to do? Or why not put a—give me a onepager to stick on the refrigerator? 

How do you have that interaction? 

Dr. KATZ. Both formal and informal. And we are recognizing it 

more and more. A number of people pointed out recently that one 

of our posters pointing the way to the suicide prevention hotline, 

an extraordinarily important message, had the servicemen with archaic uniforms that really didn’t mean very much or meant way 

back when to people who are returning now. 

We are learning, as you pointed out, and we are learning the 

best way to serve our customers is to work with them about what 

they want. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have advisory committees, or is there a 

formal process to reach out and seek input? 

Dr. KATZ. All of the above. And I would like to ask Dr. Batres, 

too. 

We are a national department, a national health system, but we 

are also an aggregate of 21 Veterans Integrated Service Networks 

(VISNs) and 153 medical centers. And there is input from the community from returning veterans, others, from families at each step 

of the way, really, impacting on, hopefully the VISNs and medical 

centers. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Dr. Batres, how do you—with the vet centers and in your responsibility, do you get that input in 

Dr. BATRES. We rely a lot on our OEF-OIF combat veterans that 

run the program. They have input from focus groups. So we get 

feedback from our Veteran clients and their families. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So you have actual focus groups? 

Dr. BATRES. Yes but rather than starting from scratch it is important that we are recognizing what is available and developing 

something useful. But I would like a copy of that kind of stuff so 

that we can promote more of that. That is very useful. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. BATRES. And so we have invested a lot of—in fact, we have 

a video that we are going to post pretty soon that was developed 

by our group of GWOT or OIF-OEF combat veterans actually done 

by a combat veteran, Marine Corps, who is now at USC in a film 

school, and he has produced a 60-second spot that we hope to post. 

All the actors are OEF–OIF combat veterans. They tell us what 

is effective and what is not effective. I think at the vet centers especially at the point of contact where it is simple, they can get to 

the place. But, you know, in all honesty, it is a very complex system. 

So narrowing it down to what is useful for them and then giving 

them an access point is really critical. And he gave a perfect example. That is what we try to do. 

But the federal benefits programs and the agency that we put together is unbelievably large and complex, and it is just very difficult to provide information that applies to everyone so the benefit 

also varies by case. Some people may have different things. 

So his one-pager that he hung is what we are striving for, but 

we do focus groups and listen to what they say and their ideas and 

we have them develop it and then we roll them out. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is a great idea. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
690 

Dr. BATRES. And we try to make them uniform and standard 

across the country, but they are adaptable locally. Sometimes, we 

will change the language depending on where we are. We have 

them bilingual for Puerto Rico and those kind of things. But we try 

to adapt it to the target audience and in all honesty, sir, the Marine Corps has its own language. I do not know what ‘‘ooh-rah’’ 

was, until I met a Marine. [Laughter.] 

Now, I know what it is. [Laughter.] 

But also, you know, when they talk about real-time, when they 

talk about their challenges and providing information which they 

need to get, we have a lot of work to do in that area to make it 

more usable for them to get instantly and be more user-friendly. 

I am not saying we are there, but we are working on that message. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. You know, it is a good perspective, 

as the chairman said, to hear from the end user. And before you 

came in, Staff Sergeant, we were talking about the information and 

the outreach. And I think they talked about what they are trying 

to—not just make information available because, you know, that is 

one thing, but to really encourage people. And it sounds like, hearing you firsthand, there is that encouragement. When you held up 

all those pamphlets, my first thought is, well, you know, you get 

a lot of pamphlets in a lot of places. And if that is all you get, you 

tend to look at them and kind of chuck them. 

But if somebody is encouraging you—the V.A. is out actually 

reaching out—that is what I hear you saying. And that is awful encouraging. A, the information is there. And, B, you are being encouraged. So I think that was kind of part of your testimony. 

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE

The same kind of question—I would love to hear all of you all 

say—hear your response, even the research of the doctor. What do 

you think the number-one issue is that faces you all in terms of access? I mean, what they would say—I would be interested in what 

they say and what you say. 

Maybe it is we have got to wait too long. Maybe—whatever it is, 

I would love each one of you all to kind of answer from your perspective. What do you think the number-one issue with really dealing with access to mental health is, you know, in our system? 

Dr. INSEL. So I am going to tell you something you probably 

would not expect to hear. But that is, it is not the V.A. It is not 

DOD. It is the civilian side. 

A lot of soldiers who separate, for one reason or another, are not 

going to the V.A. And some of that could be access, but some of it 

is personal choice, and there are many other factors. 

To be candid, the civilian sector has not ramped up to deal with 

this in the way the V.A. has. What you have just heard is unique 

for mental health care in America. I deal very closely with DOD 

and the leadership in the Pentagon. And I have said on multiple 

occasions that if I could get the passion that Secretary Gates or 

now Secretary McHugh or his predecessor—Secretary Geren—had 

for this issue, we would not have 33,000 suicides in the United 

States. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
691 

This is the tip of the spear that you are hearing. The focus on 

making sure that mental health is a priority, that we make it easy 

instead of difficult, that we make sure there is access in one form 

or another, and that we have this consumer focus—you do not see 

that outside of DOD and the V.A. 

And this is, frankly, a place where the military is going to serve 

the country in a way that they may have never expected. We are 

going to get here a model that, if we can generalize it to the civilian sector, really will reduce the rate of suicide and really will improve health care in the United States. 

But we are not there yet. So what I worry about is on that side. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Can you comment on—that is an interesting 

point that I was going to ask you all the same question in terms 

of what can the private sector do—I think that what you are talking about, you know, the non-military, non-V.A. part. 

What do you see—you know, we talk about public-private partnerships and things. It sounds like this would be just a perfect situation at least in the sense that when you say civilian—and I 

would say the private sector—somehow is there a way to get that 

message to the private sector whether it is hospitals or private doctors or whatever. Have you got any thoughts on that? 

Dr. INSEL. It is tough to do. There is no real system for mental 

health care in the United States. That is the problem. You have a 

system in the VA so you have a way to approach it. 

Every state has its own approach to mental health care. It is still 

separated out even though we have parity. We still have a separate 

system for mental health versus the rest of medicine. 

So we have got a mountain to climb here. My hope is that we 

will learn the lessons through V.A. and DOD that we can then 

apply. But the ‘‘we’’ in that sentence is who is going to do this. And 

is it going to be done by a state mental health commissioner in 

Tennessee, or is it going to be done in some more broad way across 

the country? 

Right now, it is a state-by-state effort. And mental health care 

in the United States is not something we can be terribly proud of. 

We do not do a good job of this, particularly, for people with severe 

mental illness. 

You heard Dr. Katz say that life expectancy for someone with severe mental illness is more than—it is about 56 years in the U.S., 

which is about the life expectancy in Bangladesh. We do not want 

to be there. 

And this is the way forward. And honestly, in the same way that 

we sometimes talk about how it was—what happened in the military in World War II was the beginning of the civil-rights movement and the beginning of providing better access and more liberty 

for the whole country. We may see the same thing here, but not 

now for ethnic minorities but for people with mental health problems who, for the first time, can be treated without the stigma, can 

be treated with open access, and can be treated as if they have a 

medical problem that requires health care. 

That has not been where the United States has been. 

Dr. KATZ. I want to resonate with what you are saying. The other 

scientific advantage of World War II was recognizing that penicillin 

was not just something in the laboratory but something that could 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
692 

be produced in large quantities and used to help people. That was 

a profound health services outcome of research in World War II 

And we truly believe that translating what you and V.A. research are learning in the laboratory to real care for real people 

throughout America can be one of the outcomes of this war that 

can leave our country better. 

What are we doing to improve access? A lot. As you have heard, 

almost half of all returning OEF–OIF veterans are now coming to 

us for care. That means that half are not. And that is something 

extraordinarily important to VA that needs to be understood. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. May I please interrupt? If half of them come, you 

are obviously reaching out. Maybe you can talk about why it is that 

the other half do not get reached or do not—— 

Dr. KATZ. Well, I have a good-news story about that and a really 

important one. About 3 months after servicemen return, they get 

the post-deployment health reassessment that does screening for 

PTSD, depression, and other conditions, and referrals for those who 

screen positive. 

What we have learned at looking at PDHRA reports over the 

past couple of years is that those who screen positive for PTSD at 

the PDHRA are about three times more likely to come to us for 

care than those who screen negative. The good news is that we are 

seeing the people who need us the most, a real success. 

We are not seeing them all, though, and that is why outreach 

and improving access remains an important story. 

What are we doing? I am a psychiatrist, and who knows why, but 

people would rather not come to me. We come to them. And a 

major V.A. initiative based on NIH as well as V.A. research is integrating mental health with primary care. We are strengthening the 

role of the primary-care practice and the primary-care provider to 

be able to deal with most of the day-to-day mental health problems 

so people can get care for mental health problems where they are 

most comfortable in the health system, in primary care. 

Another approach is Vet Centers being a point of entry; it is not 

coincidence that we are sitting side by side representing two very 

different strategies for the delivery of mental health care. Which is 

the right one? They are both right. If people go to Dr. Batres and 

they need whatever we can do in medical centers and clinics, he 

will send them over. 

If people come to us and, in addition to the biomedical evidencebased stuff, they need peer support, we send them to Al. There is 

a real reciprocal interaction between the two different strategies. 

Here are two. Should we develop a third? Should we be developing V.A. chaplains and, through relating to them, community 

clergy as a third path into care for those who prefer to view their 

experiences in that way? It is an alternative that we are developing. 

And finally, our returning veterans and all of the rest of us 

would just as soon solve our problems on our own, thank you, independent of any professional. So one of our evolving strategies is to 

develop self-help materials taught by seminars, through printable 

materials on the Web that people can access too as well as possibly 

deal with problems that are important to them. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
693 

Our next step in that path would be self-help with coaching. And 

if that was not enough to deal with the problems, then people 

would be coached over to care. 

Our strategy to enhance access is to make many paths available 

for getting from where veterans are into our system. And make 

them all available to veterans so there is no wrong door. People 

who need care have to start somebody else comfortable to us and 

wind up at the level of care they need. That is what we are trying 

to design. 

Dr. BATRES. I would refer back to a New England Journal of 

Medicine article by Charles Hoge who was a Colonel in the Army 

who actually did some research in Afghanistan and Iraq. And basically what he said was that although many of the troops in combat 

said they had problems, the sad fact is that they are not going to 

report them and they are not going to access care. 

I think that is our biggest challenge how to make our services 

available to them where they seek care at a time when they are 

need and know that services are not going to affect their jobs when 

they get back and that we normalize the process and start looking 

at how to better provide access to those in need to seek care in that 

system. 

Not all of them will have PTSD or diagnostic problems. I think 

we have to cover the whole gamut and address those issues. I want 

to sneak in three items. But I think, clearly, that stigma is the biggest challenge. 

I think that the communities including V.A., and DOD, are working closer together just as we are working closer with Dr. Insel and 

other folks. It is very critical that we develop the best message to 

approach that and break down some of the barriers. 

I cannot tell you how important the families are in the recovery 

of these military folks. I am concerned about multiple deployments. 

We are treating families where we have a family where both he 

and she have multiple combat tours. They may have children. The 

challenges are increasing with that type of stress. 

To that end, we are looking at increasing more family resources 

at our vet centers to make sure that we have a trained family therapist that is trained and licensed to address those kinds of concerns. They are very critical. 

We are not there yet in terms of overcoming the stigma, and the 

closer we collaborate with DOD, the better a soldier is going to be 

in terms of offering some continuum of care. I am not an expert on 

research, it has been a while for me. I am sitting with two people 

who are nationally and internationally known for their research expertise. 

I think some long-term studies starting when someone enters the 

military and following them over a period of time is essential to 

study the transition and look at the challenge over time because it 

changes over time. 

Veterans who may not have problems when they are separated 

may have problems later. So I think a long-term look at the process 

would be helpful. And not just restrict it to research in mental 

health but look at things like employment and veterans who walk 

in with family problems. For example, the service member may be 

drinking and they may be driving. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
694 

Families are concerned, and they walk in seeking assistance. 

Sometimes, they will ask you to go and find a Marine who needs 

assistance and bring him in, which I cannot do. 

Mr. BOWERS. I will take care of that for you. [Laughter.] 

Dr. BATRES. Those kind of things must be addressed. One other 

thing I must say about the Marine Corps and the outreach we are 

doing with the reserve Marines which, by the way, received very 

little attention initially. We have a person from the Marine Corps 

stationed permanently inside the V.A., and she coordinates with 

units. And we actually go to the units. 

You know, I am praying that one of my employees developed a 

list like Sergeant Bowers referred to earlier. 

[Laughter.] 

But we coordinate with her, and she schedules them. They call 

her, and we go there and we provide part of the educational process. 

I think that is very critical to make it more of a community thing 

and deal with the fact that we need to normalize the process for 

the returning soldiers to seek assistance. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any more questions. But for the staff sergeant, maybe just to kind of embellish 

that question because one of the things—you know, from time to 

time, I will go with other members and meet in Iraq or Afghanistan with our troops. 

And I never really think about asking them questions like this. 

You ask them what would you tell your congressman if you could 

tell your congressman something. And they say the food is good or 

whatever. 

But I think part of what I hear you all saying is a lot of times, 

when you are caught up in the heat of the battle, you do not really 

think about what it is going to be like when you get home. You are 

there and you are dealing with it, and I have had men and women 

say we are afraid—you know, we are concerned—all those kind of 

things. 

But I do not think they really get it like Sergeant Bowers said, 

I mean, you come home, all of a sudden, you are sitting there and 

it is a different world. And I have heard all you all saying—the reason I want to kind of preface before you answer, sir, because we 

have heard people say the doctor—which is interesting—that one 

of the impediments to access is that, other than the military, nobody is really dealing with the issue. 

Then you hear the issue of the stigma that how do you kind of 

overcome that. And sounds like you are really trying to deal with 

that. 

And then I was going to ask the question about how does the 

family fit in because that is very much a part of it. And it sounds 

like—of that. So that is all good news. 

And you are kind of the proof in the pudding. As you comment 

on those—maybe on those three impediments to access, also, the 

other side of that is the individual. You touched on it in your testimony if you can do all these wonderful things, encourage folks, but 

at the end of the day, you have got to say I am going to go make 

myself available to these services. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
695 

And so touch on that as well because maybe that is one of the 

issues in terms of access is finally getting that individual recognizing all this is available to him but they have to make that final 

decision that I want to avail myself to it. 

Mr. BOWERS. It is an institutional thing. If you look at—take the 

average soldier from the time during boot camp when they started 

to get exhausted, they are yelled at ‘‘keep going, keep going, keep 

going.’’ In combat—I am going to speak to myself—when I was shot 

in October of 2004, I stayed on the battlefield and kept going and 

going. 

It was not until I got back to Bravo Surgical and they started 

to put Band-Aids on me that I felt it was ready to be treated. It 

is what we are taught in the military. If you have an injury, if you 

are held back by something, keep pressing forward. It is what you 

do until you reach mission accomplishment. 

I believe that same sort of mentality transfers over to mental 

health issues. People say, well, I am having difficulty sleeping right 

now, but I am going to push through it. That is what I have been 

taught institutionally just to continue to do. 

And I used to sort of explain to my Marines where I would say, 

look, if you get shot, you pull the bullet out, you put a Band-Aid 

on it and you keep going forward. But you have to get that treatment. You have to get that little piece to get thrown in it. 

We have not hit that point yet in regards to mental health. And 

one of the big things that we, at IAVA, have always wanted to see 

was an expanse of training for non-commissioned officers and, also, 

officers within their basic levels. Right now, if you join the Marine 

Corps and go down to Officer Candidate School, you spend a half 

day talking about overall suicide prevention and mental health 

issues. 

This needs to be something that really is engrained in the training that service members receive when they first join the service. 

That will be a difficult transition to make. It will take a tremendous amount of time, but it is something that needs to be done. 

People need to understand that, if you break your ankle, you are 

pulled out of the fight. If you receive mental health injuries, you 

are pulled out of the fight. You get treatment, and you get put 

right back in. You are still good. You are not damaged goods. You 

are just in a place where you have to be repaired. 

One of the things that I would like to talk on, also, is in regards 

to the PDHRA. This is something that—I have done five PDHRAs 

now in my career. And it is—it is good to hear that it is a useful 

tool, but the thing that I can say that is very true amongst all 

branches of service, active and reserves, they do not fill it out correctly. 

They do not fill it out—I see it with my Marines. No matter how 

much you tell them fill that bubble in that says you are having a 

hard time sleeping and everything else, they do not because they 

are given the ability to identify what their health level is at that 

time. 

When I go into the doctor’s and they check my eyes, I do not go 

in and say, my eyes are just fine, and they say, okay, keep going. 

Well, the PDHRA, unfortunately, has gotten to a point where it 

works that way. And it allows service members to basically say 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
696 

whether they are fit for duty or not. And it is the only circumstance 

that I can think of within the military where we are given a 

screening tool where there is not a level of oversight within to filling out the PDHRA that is available. 

Now, that is difficult because it is identifying issues that only 

that service member and their members would know. One thing 

that we have seen—and this is something that has not been fully 

results-based yet, but we have gotten feedback from our members, 

is that whenever they go and deal with face-to-face mental health 

screening where they sit down with a counselor, whether it be a 

half hour or an hour—I am not the expert to identify how long it 

needs to be—and that counselor makes the determination on 

whether they need to receive follow-on treatment, care, and/or 

screening. 

They do not know how to deal with these things. They do not 

know how to make these calls. I do not know how to make these 

calls after all these deployments, you know. It is because happy 

hour lasts happy hours, does that mean I am drinking too much 

and I need to go and get screened? It may not. I do not know. I 

am not the expert. 

But if there is that outside entity looking in, they are the individuals that would be able to identify a lot of these. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Katz, did you want—— 

Dr. KATZ. I really want to applaud IAVA for your work and that 

of your colleagues and Congress in making a requirement for a person-to-person assessments for mental health issues in returning 

servicemen a requirement in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for 2010. 

I am also really proud to say that it has led to unprecedented 

collaboration between V.A. and DOD about how we can work together with staff doing assessments across department lines to respond to the surge home for returning service members. 

It is an important public health advance that really came out of 

IAVA’s advocacy. Thank you. 

I just want to respond to something else that you mentioned earlier about the number of people in your unit who were involved 

with the criminal justice system. And that is something that is also 

advancing very rapidly. 

Every 2 weeks we visit veterans probably closer to every week 

now. If you Google ‘‘veterans courts,’’ you will hear about a new 

area in which there are specialized treatment-oriented courts for 

veterans with mental health or possibly substance abuse problems 

that have led to behaviors viewed as criminal. 

V.A. has been working with all of these courts where they exist 

and working with the communities where they do not, to promote 

their development. Of course, courts are only part of the story, and 

we are working with police to educate them about PTSD and related readjustment issues, avoiding, the escalation, and helping 

them address their concerns about working with people trained for 

combat. 

These are other important issues to be addressed, like training 

for police for the issues and the area you mentioned in your testimony. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
697 

Mr. BOWERS. One more bullet I just wanted to touch on real 

briefly was that something that we have always seen with reserve 

units across the board, active duty units, is that you have all your 

different S jobs. You have intelligence, supply, the whole nine 

yards. 

We have given a recommendation that sort of out-of-the-box 

thinking over the past 3 years that I really think deserves some 

attention and something to look at is that, within these units, have 

been someone who is trained and have them be directly a veteran’s 

benefits resources counselor. There is a lot of transitional assistance program and things like that, but there is no required job 

within the administration of reserve units and active-duty units 

where someone is extremely well-versed in what happens when you 

get out of the military. 

They shift into a third-party element as they go through these 

programs and receive information from someone who they have not 

been around and/or had access to throughout their career. And it 

is something that we have always wanted because these individuals could also be well-versed in regards to mental health treatment and with regards to substance abuse. They will be ultimately 

like the experts as to what happens when I get out of the military. 

It is difficult. And some units take it upon themselves and have 

outstanding resources available, and that is due to outstanding 

leadership. But making it across the board the same, I think, is 

very important because we see the different branches of service, obviously, deal with things on a different level. 

With these wars and the way they are going forward, you can 

have an airmen supply clerk who is in an IED just like the Marine 

infantry. And screening is going to be different across the board 

and/or reintegration transition assistance is going to be different 

across the board just because of the branch of service, the status 

of service, in some cases, even rank and/or their orientation. You 

know, men and women may be receiving different. 

It needs to be sort of a set standard so that it allows, in my opinion, the V.A. to be able to say, okay, we know exactly where they 

are coming from. We have the information that is available, but it 

is always a case-by-case basis once it is put into these gentlemen’s 

hands. And I think that makes it very difficult. 

So having that one piece there to ensure that the Marine Corps 

orders that are put out about transition programs are interpreted 

the same for every single unit, I think, is very critical because right 

now it is sort of done together haphazardly. And that is on the 

DOD side. They have to make the call to the V.A., in a lot of instances, to say we need someone to come in and do this for us. 

The V.A. is there and ready with outstanding experts available, 

but we need to ensure that the NCO that is maybe coordinating 

these transition programs knows exactly what they are getting 

into. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Let me follow up on Mr. Crenshaw’s 

question and ask if, in writing—and every time I hear each of you 

speak, I think of three more questions I would like to ask you. But, 

we will have to do some of these in writing. 

I would like to ask for the record if you would mind, over the 

next few weeks, if you could send the committee a letter saying if 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
698 

there were three things we could do that we are in the doing to 

improve mental health care research or services to our veterans, 

what would those three things be? I think that is an excellent line 

of questioning. 

And Dr. Katz, I really appreciate your opening comments focusing on the many good things we are doing. I think, in the national 

press, we do not hear about the good things. You hear about the 

anecdotal stories of someone trying to get care and they could not 

get anybody to return their calls. 

So I think we do need to tell the good stories. But, I would like 

to piggy-back on Mr. Crenshaw’s question. Since our committee’s 

goal is to help veterans, if there are three things that we are not 

doing that we could do or three things we are doing that we could 

do better with additional funding or resources, I would welcome 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

NIMH is an active participant in efforts to improve mental health care research 

for our OIF/OEF Veterans. We are constantly working to improve mental health not 

just for military veterans but for all citizens. In an attempt to fulfill the NIMH vision of ‘‘a world in which mental illnesses are prevented and cured,’’ we offer three 

recommendations to further improve mental health care research and services. 

First, there needs to be increased research on models that integrate mental health 

care for prevalent mental illnesses such as depression, PTSD, and substance abuse 

into settings where Veterans commonly go for care. Such settings include general 

medical care facilities, but may also include other services or settings such as benefits offices, spiritual counseling programs, and wellness centers. The integration of 

concepts such as psychological fitness into these settings provides an opportunity for 

public health prevention and potentially access to care that avoids stigma. Employing strategies such as telehealth, self-guided web-based care, and primary care management of common conditions may help identify and address needs without creating additional specialty care visits. 

Second, existing research on prediction and preemption of mental illnesses provides general information on patterns of risk and resilience kit cannot specifically 

identify individuals’ likelihood of experiencing any specific disorder reliably. For 

many individuals at risk for certain disorders, the natural course of recovery will 

take place, and no intervention is needed. However, at this time, prediction is weak 

and unreliable. NIMH recommends additional research to increase the sensitivity 

and specificity of risk prediction tools to intervene more effectively for those in need. 

Further, there needs to be more investigation of preemptive strategies to prevent 

mental illness, much in the same way there are recommendations for diet and exercise to lower cardiovascular risk and personalized strategies often combining behavior change and medication for those at highest risk. 

Finally, there is a need for new treatments that capitalize on the exciting 

translational research advances of the past several years. Currently, there are effective treatments for a number of mental illnesses. However, these treatments are 

time and resource intensive in many cases. More concerning is that existing treatments do not work for everyone and may not prevent relapse to a disorder once discontinued. NIMH would like to advance the science to know what treatment to provide to each patient to ensure an alleviation of suffering. Treatments that work well 

and work fast will undoubtedly help to reduce the often long periods of time people 

have a condition before seeking care and motivate others who might never seek care 

to do so. 

JOBLESSNESS

Let me ask about jobs. You know, Sergeant, you commented that 

you came back from Afghanistan, third tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of a sudden, I am sitting alone on my couch. I have 

done research on this, but common sense and intuition would say, 

if I do not have a job and I am sitting around, whether I am married or single, without a job that would lead me to, perhaps, you 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
699 

know, become more emotionally unstable, start drinking, who 

knows what the ramifications would be. 

But I have to think there is a link between joblessness and mental health care problems for our veterans. It is particularly a concern of mine since I think the unemployment rate among Iraq and 

Afghanistan war veterans is, what, 20 percent higher than the average of non-veterans in that same age group. 

So I would like to ask each of you has there been any research 

to look at the length between joblessness among veterans, particularly young veterans, and mental health care issues? And any focus 

on the research—does the joblessness lead on the mental health 

care problem, or did the mental health care problem lead to the 

joblessness? 

Obviously, there is going to be cases where both—one or the 

other or both have happened. But any research? Anybody looking 

at that issue? 

Dr. Insel and then Dr. Katz? 

Dr. INSEL. I think it is a great question. And I do not have the 

right answer for it. Let me see what I can find and provide that 

for the record because I think you have hit on really a critical part 

of what it is going to take for reintegration. And it is, of course, 

not any easier now that unemployment is so high for people who 

are not veterans. 

So it is a tough one but a really important place to focus. 

[The information follows:] 

Available research indicates there is a high degree of unemployment reported 

among OIF/OEF Veterans. However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(2010) the joblessness rate does not appear to be statistically different from the joblessness rate of nonveterans. While unemployment among Veterans is a concern, 

other reports find that Veterans of recent conflicts are actually more likely to be 

employed than their civilian counterparts as a whole. There appears to be a relationship between one’s employment status and mental state. A longitudinal study 

conducted in Sweden indicated that unemployment increases the risk for dying by 

nearly all causes (except cancer and cardiovascular events) even when controlling 

for individual characteristics and initial health status. Although unemployment contributes to risk, it does not appear to ‘‘cause’’ problems. Rather, unemployment is 

one of several factors that interact with individuals, communities, and societies to 

affect risk for adverse outcomes. It appears that unemployment and the related financial strain may lead to depression and other problems as individuals perceive 

a loss of personal control. A veteran’s mental health status may also influence job 

performance and employability. Veterans are at elevated risk of experiencing mental 

health problems such as PTSD, depression, and TBI. Those suffering from mental 

illnesses typically experience moderate impairment as measured on a global assessment of functioning scale. This may be no surprise as the current diagnostic criteria 

require that expressed symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment 

in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Such impairment 

may be associated with employment difficulty at multiple levels. Veterans with 

mental illnesses, including comorbid conditions such as alcohol and drug abuse, are 

less likely to be currently employed than veterans without a disorder. Job performance for those with mental illnesses who are employed may also be adversely affected through decreased productivity and increased absenteeism, perhaps resulting 

in dismissal from employment or other adverse ratings impacting future employment potential. Given the reported rates of mental illness in Veterans, this is clearly 

a particularly salient factor in understanding the impact of unemployment in this 

cohort. 

NIMH-funded research tracking the experience of National Guard and Reservists 

is exploring employment as it relates to mental health or Mental health-related outcomes. Other work is focused on employment as a risk/protective factor in returning 

Veterans to examine the intricate interrelationships between physical aggression, 

environmental stress, and traumatic events. The Army Study to Assess Risk and 

Resilience in Service Members (Army STARRS), which is a partnership between 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
700 

NIMH and the U.S. Army also will explore employment as it relates to suicide and 

associated mental disorders. Each of these studies is in an active stage of data collection and analysis with results forthcoming to inform the field and policymakers 

on how to best serve Veterans’ needs. Beyond funding and participation in research 

investigations, NIMH is working with other Federal agencies to better understand 

Veteran employment issues. For example, the Federal Leadership Roundtable on 

TBI & PTSD is an employment issues workgroup particularly focused on the impact 

of common mental health problems faced by Veterans. Finally, NIMH staff have 

given input to this workgroup and contributed to the America’s Heroes at Work 

(http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/) campaign to better understand and address the employment challenges of Veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Dr. Katz. 

Dr. KATZ. Yes, thank you for asking. I do not want to talk so 

much about research, but really about actions and how we have to 

move on this. 

Our returning veterans should be among the most valuable potential employees that America has. We do not hear of that though. 

We do not hear as much as we should about employers falling over 

themselves to attract and to hire these extraordinary people. 

In fact, we hear just the opposite. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. KATZ. The publicity about PTSD and the awareness of TBI 

may have an unintended consequence about making employers less 

likely to hire returning veterans. There are exceptions, of course, 

there are exceptions, but we are concerned about this as a trend. 

What incentive should the nation develop to promote hiring veterans? I think that is a question for us each to answer in our own 

way. What can V.A., as a health system, do to support those employers that do hire veterans? That is something that we are planning for and beginning to address. 

There is an important part of health care in America that is delivered at the workplace. Employee assistance programs are traditionally first steps into mental health care for problems like depression, anxiety, or problem drinking. There are not, to our knowledge, employee assistance program designed specifically to deal 

with veterans and military issues that offer culturally competent 

care for people with that background and address readjustment 

issues, hyper vigilance, nightmares, or PTSD. 

In this case, something we are working to develop will be part 

of a toolkit to help employers to hire returning veterans and understanding their care. It is an example of the sort of thing that 

should be done, but this issue really has to be viewed as one beyond V.A. and DOD and posed as an issue for all of America. 

Returning veterans are our most extraordinary American national resource and should be recognized as such. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Sergeant, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. BOWERS. I do, definitely. And I will just say when I first got 

home, everybody tells you you have to take that token, standard, 

2 weeks off and just relax and hang out. And that is the worst 2 

weeks ever. It is so hard to come home and not be busy; to go from 

a hundred miles an hour to nothing. And I lasted, like, 4 days before I came back into the office here. 

So one thing I do want to point out is I brought copies of our legislative agenda this year, and this is an issue that we really wantVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00700 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
701 

ed to push forward. I would say, in regards to employers and trying 

to engage them more to bring in more OIF and OEF veterans and 

keep them effectively engaged, we have three points where we talk 

about effective use of tax credits. 

Providing employers of service members tax credits for National 

Guardsmen and reservists who may deploy for longer than 90 days 

if the employers provide training to keep them up to speed with 

their peers. As we all know, the USERRA laws defend people from 

any aspect of discrimination while they are deployed, but there is 

that inherent ‘‘you are gone.’’ What happens if, while you are deployed, all of the staff goes through an online resource training or 

you get some sort of computer system? It is very hard to get caught 

up. 

But if employers take those steps to be able to provide that training once you come home from your deployment—which is very difficult to facilitate. It is hard when you have your entire office doing 

one thing and you are trying to do this other piece later—rewarding them again with tax credits to really incentivize something for 

the American public to say we would like to bring these people in 

to work for us. 

We have got a tremendous amount of recommendations which I 

hope I can share for you and we did submit for the record that focuses specifically on a lot of these issues. But I just wanted to highlight specifically the tax credits and that it is very important to 

keep people engaged because it is the tipping point. 

If people do not have employment, we see alcohol—we see so 

many other issues just sort of come from that because it does put 

you into a state that is extremely hard to overcome. Once you have 

been beaten down, it is very difficult to stand back up. And unless 

someone is there to kind of pull you back up, it just makes it very, 

very difficult for these service members. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Dr. Batres. 

Dr. BATRES. I am not aware of any research, but I can tell you 

that, when we started in 2004 and 2003 to hire the new mental 

health providers who are Vets as a way to bring veterans into the 

program, we had some challenges. One of the challenges is how do 

you translate military experience to a civilian job. I will take my 

son, for example, he is jumping out of an aircraft and being a cavalry scout manning a .50-caliber machine gun. How is that going 

to translate into a job, and how are these separating members 

going to translate those skills? 

Well, there is something called the Veteran’s Readjustment Act 

which is supposed to assist us in doing that. I think that needs a 

lot of promotion from everyone and more attention in looking at 

how we can promote more hiring. 

I can tell you that, initially, they were rated as a GS–3 or GS– 

4. And I think, for someone like the sergeant who has been to the 

military, there is no accounting for their discipline and the fact 

that they had leadership responsibilities and those kinds of things 

and translating that in a way that will help them to get jobs more 

readily. 

And maybe have Vet Centers with counselors required to be tied 

into their state employment system. So, like, in Kileen, Texas, we 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
702 

actually have a state employment officer on board with a computer. 

You know, the quicker you get to the job openings, the more effect 

you are going to get. 

We are also, at times, involved in job preparedness, teaching 

them how to do a re ́sume ́ on a computer, making it easier to translate skills and help with job preparedness those kinds of things 

that, although not high-tech, are very useful to the veterans that 

seek jobs. 

A lot of the issue will be, quite frankly, underemployment and 

translating into those kinds of jobs. We work with Department of 

Labor to try to get Veterans hired with their programs that help 

them to be retrained with skills geared to the civilian market, and 

also, quite frankly with VA education programs we have a lot of 

veterans who choose to go to university and college for an education using the G.I. Bill. 

So I think our efforts to work more closely with the universities 

to identify and support Veterans who become students and graduating is paying off that way is coming into working for us in the 

V.A. A separating soldier who comes back, goes to school for an 

education and a lot of them do eventually end up to come work for 

us. It is a tremendous win-win situation for the V.A. because we 

can hire the individual. They get the training, and then they can 

really relate to the Vets they work with on their job. 

What I do want to stress is this is extremely critical in helping 

them with readjustment so they don’t become homeless in the adjustment. It is very difficult and, in fact, I do not know the correlation scientifically, but I believe veterans who become homeless as 

they separate is a group that we need to target in terms of stabilizing and connecting them and getting them the correct kind of 

job. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask you this. You said in your testimony 

and Dr. Katz said in his that vet centers—you hire a large number 

of combat veterans. So you have a control group in a way within 

your own system. 

Let us be arbitrary. Let us assume 20 percent of young veterans 

are having serious mental health care issues. If you had to just 

guess off the top of your head, with the employees, the young veterans, Iraq-Afghan war veterans that you have in your vet centers, 

would you say more than 20 percent or less than 20 percent of 

them are facing serious mental health care challenges? 

Dr. BATRES. I think the ones that we have hired are no different 

than anywhere else. They are going to have the issues. They are 

going to have their nightmares. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. BATRES. And they are going to be okay. First off, I have been 

with the V.A. for a long time, my whole professional career has 

been making sure that no one gets left behind we are helping other 

Veterans get assistance and that can be difficult at times. 

We make sure that we employ them. And, also, by the way, some 

of our National Guard and reservists are also on deployments and 

they are working for us. And every time they come back, it can be 

a different challenge. 

We make sure that we are there to support them through those 

kinds of transitions and that we, ourselves, do not, hamper them 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
703 

by making erroneous attributions or not respecting the fact that 

they have a duty to country and that they are doing that and we 

need to hold their jobs open while they are gone and do those kinds 

of supporting services as they go through the stages. 

We have a therapeutic environment so we probably have an advantage in doing that, and we will assist them in the transition. 

We do have a few employees, sometimes, who get into difficulties, 

and we will make sure they go over to Ira or some other place to 

receive the help, and then we will help them back. 

I have expectancy, which is very critical in not stigmatizing 

someone from the process. So we try to make the community as 

supportive as we can. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

MEETING VETERANS’ NEEDS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Maybe just one quick question since we have got 

the providers, and we have got the consumers. 

We talked about the resources. It sounds like we are doing a 

great job of kind of having all the resources available. We talked 

about overcoming the stigma to come ask for those services. I guess 

the piece we have not talked about is, once you get over this hurdle, both from your perspective and yours, do you think you are 

being provided with adequate resources to meet the demands of the 

folks that decide to come—because, you know, typically, we hear 

about waiting in line to wait in line. 

And, generally, we have done a lot over the last few years to add 

caseworkers, et cetera, to really kind of speed up that whole process. So I know mental health has become an emerging area. What 

is your perspective on that that you have—and maybe you have 

asked for it in this year’s budget for some increases. 

But how do you see that? And I would love to see how the end 

user sees that. 

Dr. KATZ. This is has been an amazing time at V.A. The V.A. 

mental health budget in the year 2001, at the beginning of the war, 

was about $2 billion. This year—I think I have this right—it is 

$4.8 billion. And the request for next year is above $5 billion. 

These are enormous increases that have allowed us to care for 

more veterans and to care for each better. In terms of hiring, our 

total mental health staff has gone up from a little under 14,000 in 

2005 to over 20,000 today. Really very major increases that have 

allowed us not just to provide more but, in a critical time in the 

development of clinical and scientific opportunities, to be flexible 

and mobile enough to develop programs to respond to recent opportunities as well as needs. 

That is the clinician’s perspective. 

Mr. Kearns. 

Mr. KEARNS. We have had significant—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kearns, could come up to this microphone, 

and pull that up just a little bit closer to you if you could. 

Mr. KEARNS. As Dr. Katz said, we have had significant increases, 

and we do continue to forecast those in our fiscal year 2011 and 

fiscal year 2012 request for the advanced appropriation. And we 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
704 

have monitors for access for appointments to ensure that veterans 

seeking that care receive it in a timely manner. 

Mr. BOWERS. I would say that one of the things, as we are increasing mental health providers, is as obviously a very slow process because individuals need to be trained and all these pieces. But 

it almost pulls back to that one point that, if they do not know they 

are out there, they are not going to walk in. 

And we have heard from a lot of—a couple weeks ago, we were 

able to sit down with a lot of V.A. mental health providers and talk 

to them, and they said, we cannot get them in the door. It was interesting to hear from them. They said, we are there, we are ready, 

we are waiting—whether it be vet centers wherever. They are 

ready for these folks to come in, and they are just not getting there. 

I think that is something that sometimes falls on the V.A. as a 

blame of, oh, they are not getting the care that they need, which 

I do not think is necessarily fair to the V.A. in all honesty because 

they are ready and they are prepared for these individuals to come 

into the door, but they are just not making that step. 

One of the pieces that we found was that, with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, one in three is concerned that they are going to be 

seen as weak if they go and seek mental health care. When they 

get out, only one in two of those actually goes to seek mental 

health care. That is obviously a very small number if you look at 

the overall numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans coming back. 

I think that the increasing can be helped, but it is mainly outreach. We still are dealing with the rural veterans issues. I think 

the mobile vet centers have just been outstanding looking into 

things such as tele-medicine—which when I first walked in, I believe that was part of the discussion, also—is huge to be able to research into that, to get these counselors that are so eager and 

ready to have a full caseload, get them, you know, the patients that 

they require. 

Increasing the amount of mental health care professionals, I 

think, is extremely wise, and it should continue down the road that 

it is going now because we are going to see a massive influx because, again, many of these service members are continuing to 

serve. And we are going to hit a point eventually. These wars are 

going to come to an end some day, and we need to be ready for that 

massive influx of individuals when they do come in. 

We have got a tremendous amount of folks that are joining the 

military now because they want to serve. They want to deploy. 

They want to go overseas. They do not know what exactly what entails and what impact that is going to have on the rest of their life. 

But as these wars dwindle down, we are going to see that greatly. 

And I think being prepared is the best step because, if we do not 

have enough mental health providers, then we look at the cost that 

it is going to be down the road. These service members are not 

going to have the tools needed or the resources available to them. 

We are going to see homelessness. We are going to see other issues 

come up and, ultimately, we will end up paying more for it. 

So by providing V.A. the resources and the funding they need 

now to increase their amount of mental health care professionals 

right now is critical so that we are ready for that. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
705 

Mr. CRENSHAW. The good news is that, when people need it, they 

are not waiting a long, long time. That is the good news. And as 

you point out, that whole outreach is still part of the equation to 

work on that. That is good that you have that. If you need help, 

it is there. And if you cannot make up your own mind, you cannot 

overcome that, then you have got to deal with that. 

But the good news is, when you want it, it is there. 

Mr. BOWERS. There will be issues. In my written testimony, you 

are see we have one person that we talk about 8 weeks for an appointment. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am sure there are always anecdotal where, you 

know—but, on balance, I think I hear them saying they feel like 

they are meeting the needs, and I hear you saying, like, I think, 

on balance, that people, when they need the help, they are not 

waiting a long, long time. 

Mr. BOWERS. The big concern though is when they are dealing 

with something so touchy in regards to mental health that, if one 

person falls through the crack, we know it can be catastrophic. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And as the doctor pointed out, timing is critical 

in a lot of these situations. So it is good that you have the resources. 

Thank you all. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Can I follow up on that? 

Why do we have the anecdotal stories of someone having to wait 

8 weeks to get care? Is it a particular situation and lack of psychiatrists or social workers? Does the V.A. have a process of carefully 

looking into each complaint, whether it is one complaint? Again, as 

the sergeant, if it is one, that may be one person’s life we can save 

with the proper care—or whether it is, you know, hundreds or 

thousands. 

But how does the V.A. look into those cases? 

Dr. KATZ. You know, the overall trends are charted through 

measures, metrics, quality indicators. Where we hear that we may 

not be doing the right thing is through the anecdote. We are aware 

that you cannot dismiss anecdotes. They may be sentinel events indicating that we are just not looking at the right thing. And so we 

take them seriously. 

Reports to the—through central office are all evaluated. There 

are criteria for peer review for specific clinical events and for inquiries from central office to the field about complaints that we 

hear about. 

These are, one by one, evaluated and resolved. Where the anecdote indicates something more than that, hopefully, we are doing 

something. I mean, we would have to—you know, we cannot talk 

about anecdotes in general. We really do have to get to the nittygritty of evaluating them. 

But the concern and the talk in the hallway, in our offices, with 

our leadership is are we doing the right thing? How can we explain 

that case or that one? And we look at each one. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And would you again confirm that these are rare 

exceptions to the rule? That if there is something that is suicidal 

or seriously, seriously ill, has serious mental issues and they call 

the V.A., they are put on a priority list? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
706 

Dr. KATZ. Our requirement is that all new referrals and new requests for a mental health appointment must be evaluated within 

24 hours to find out if it is a matter of urgent need. If so, it must 

be addressed. If not, the person must be seen within 2 weeks for 

a diagnostic and treatment planning evaluation. 

I think our figure for meeting the 2 weeks is currently 96 or 97 

percent of the time. That is great but not for the 2 or 3 percent, 

and that is the point you are making. And that is the sort of question we are asking ourselves in a problem-solving mode. 

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. This discussion, I think, has just been excellent, and we will have a lot of follow-up written questions. 

But if I could ask you, Dr. Katz, in terms of the homeless numbers that you mentioned, one, how do we determine how many 

homeless veterans there are tonight in America? And, two, if these 

numbers have dropped from 154,000 in 2007 to 107,000—what are 

the two or three most important reasons why that number has 

gone down? 

Dr. KATZ. Yes. In central office, the clinical components of the 

homeless program are within mental health, though the leadership 

of the homeless program is in the secretary’s office. So we should 

get back to you for the record in response to these questions. 

I do want to say, though, that mental health care, including substance abuse care, is an important part of fighting homelessness; 

and that one exceedingly important recent advance has been increasing the number of vouchers in the Housing and Urban Development V.A. Supported Housing, the HUD–VASH program. 

That is really the first time that V.A., in collaboration with another agency, can give support in the context of permanent housing 

to address and prevent homelessness. What is more, what makes 

it a unique and very important program for us is that it helps us 

to respond to needs of veterans and their families for housing. It 

is an extraordinary program, and we thank you for your efforts on 

it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. I want to thank all of you for being here. 

I think this has been an excellent panel. 

And, Dr. Insel, I want to thank you for being here. You are well 

known by our Labor, HHS Appropriations colleagues, but I believe 

this is your first time to testify before this subcommittee. I think 

your point that research has to be a critical part of findings solutions here is very well taken today, and I look forward to meeting 

with you again. 

To each of you, having two different approaches in terms of the 

types of care and then someone representing the end user, our veterans, is what this is all about. It has been an excellent collection 

of experiences and knowledge and observations. 

And I thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. Crenshaw, do you have anything additional? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No, I will just echo those remarks and thank you 

all. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you for the important work you are 

doing. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
707 

[Questions for the Record submitted to the VA by Chairman Edwards] 

Question 1. I understand the VA Office of Inspector General is close to finishing 

the report we requested on the VA’s implementation of its uniform mental health 

services handbook, which provides guidance to VA facilities in carrying out the VA 

mental health strategic plan. It sounds like the IG believes the VA is making good 

progress on the many recommendations of the handbook. But the IG’s office did express several concerns, including that: • the large CBOCs are not moving in tandem with the progress being shown 

at VA medical centers; and • not enough medical centers are providing accredited rehabilitation recovery 

centers for serious mental illness. 

What are the key obstacles preventing the VA from meeting the recommendations 

in these areas? 

Answer. We agree with this analysis of the findings of the OIG regarding implementation of VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics. Regarding the Community Based Outpatient Clinics 

(CBOCs) moving in tandem, what we continue to hear, and what the Office of Inspector General (OIG) also reported hearing, is space acquisition and allocation are 

the chief obstacles, followed by challenges related to hiring, training, and retaining 

sufficient staff. The space issue relates to being able to find suitable clinic space in 

the designated clinic location areas. 

As to the second concern, our monitoring indicates that facilities are moving effectively toward development of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Centers 

(PRRCs) as required by the Handbook. This is a cultural transformation from prior 

models that emphasized only symptom management for Veterans with serious mental illness. We will continue education and technical assistance efforts to help sites 

make this transformation. The Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitation 

Facilities (CARF) is a lengthy process but most sites are moving well toward program development and the CARF application. The Office of Mental Health Services 

will continue to monitor this issue and provide assistance as full implementation 

progresses. 

Question 2. We know you are making an effort to ensure that VA mental health 

staff is being trained to use evidence-based treatments. Which treatments do you 

feel meet that test? 

Answer. VA is currently in the process of disseminating Cognitive Processing 

Therapy (CPT) and Prolonged Exposure Therapy (PE) for Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD) nationally. CPT and PE are recommended in the VA/Department 

of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines for PTSD indicating ‘‘a strong recommendation that the intervention is always indicated and acceptable.’’ In 2007, the Institute 

of Medicine (IOM) conducted a review of the literature on pharmacological and psychological treatments for PTSD and concluded in its report, Treatment of 

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: An Assessment of the Evidence, that there was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of exposure-based psychotherapies, including 

CPT and PE. The 10M concluded that the evidence was greater for these treatments 

than for all other treatments currently available for PTSD. This validated VA’s evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) dissemination initiatives, which had begun as 

part of an effort to quickly bring these treatments to Veterans who can benefit from 

them. VA has trained over 2,700 mental health staff in the delivery of CPT or PE. 

In addition to CPT and PE for PTSD, VA is also in the process of disseminating 

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) 

for depression, Social Skills Training (SST), and Family Psychoeducation (FPE) for 

serious mental illness. The goals of VA’s EBP dissemination initiatives are to ensure 

that Veterans with PTSD, depression, or serious mental illness have full access to 

these proven treatments. 

Question 3. The VA has hired more than 5,000 additional mental health providers 

in the past few years to reach a total of more than 20,000. 

a) How does this number compare to your estimate of need? 

b) Are you planning to hire additional staff in fiscal year 2012? 

c) What types of mental health care workers are the most difficult to hire and 

retain? 

d) What special VA programs or benefits [ex: loan repayment] can you take advantage of to fill those posts? 

Answer to a, b, c. VA has estimated that the current level of staffing is sufficient 

to meet the needs of Veterans who use VHA for their mental health care. There are 

still a small number of unfilled positions at various VA medical facilities that are 

supported with mental health enhancement funds. Direction has been sent to all 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
708 

Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) to use the enhancement funds to fill 

these positions. In addition, it will be essential that this level of staffing be sustained, e.g., positions that are vacated through retirement or other departures are 

filled in timely fashion. 

VA has not experienced widespread difficulties in hiring and retaining mental 

health professionals. However, it has been VA’s experience that in certain localities, 

particularly highly rural regions, there may be a limited number of mental health 

professionals, especially psychiatrists. Specific incentives have been developed and 

used in such situations. In addition to opportunities for education debt reduction, 

VHA has established opportunities for facilities to engage in local advertising and 

recruitment activities, and to cover interview-related costs, relocation expenses, and 

provide hiring bonuses for certain applicants. Flexibility is provided to hire providers of other appropriate disciplines or to utilize fee-basis or contract care, when 

indicated, so that Veterans have continuous access to the full continuum of mental 

health services. 

Answer to d. There are several VA-sponsored programs used for hiring employees, 

particularly for the hard to fill positions. These programs include education debt reduction (student loan repayment), employee referral bonuses given for referring a 

provider in one of the specified disciplines, and recruitment incentives such as a recruitment bonus or an incentive bonus. 

Question 4. What share of VA mental health services is provided through contract, 

either because the veteran isn’t geographically near a VA facility or because the veteran needs a specialized service that VA staff can’t provide? 

Answer. In 2009, VA provided inpatient mental health services by contract at a 

cost of approximately $70M and ambulatory care services at a cost of approximately 

$21M. Contract services represented somewhat over 2% of the total cost of all of the 

mental health services provided for Veterans. Contract care allows for greater flexibility; it allows Veterans to get care closer to where they live and can improve timeliness to quality care. 

Question 5. Thanks to the post 9/11 GI bill, increasing numbers of veterans are 

on college campuses. Beyond outreach to make student veterans aware of the services the VA provides in its own facilities, does the VA do any counseling or treatment at university locations? 

Answer. We are in the process of developing a student Veteran version of Operation S.A.V.E. (Signs of suicidal thinking, Ask questions, Validate the Veteran’s experience, Encourage treatment and expedite a referral) for our suicide awareness 

training module. We have used the services of the Student Veterans of America, a 

coalition of student veterans groups from college campuses across the United States 

to help us develop the module. We are planning 3 focus groups for spring 2010 in 

Arkansas, Georgia, and New York to determine if student Veterans can relate to 

the information. Suicide Prevention Coordinators across the country are forming relationships with the counseling departments at their local universities and colleges 

to provide them with the skills and information they need to work with Veterans 

in the area of suicide prevention. 

VHA has made an effort to educate mental health/counseling staff on college campuses about the unique mental health issues facing Veterans. Among other topics, 

these educational efforts include information specific to the issue of military sexual 

trauma (MST) among male and female Veteran students. One major tool developed 

by VA is a Website addressing what campus advisors and counselors need to know 

about the experiences, possible mental health concerns, and strengths of Veterans 

returning to campuses under the GI Bill (see http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/college/). This website has received positive comments from student Veterans as a useful source of information. 

Question 6. Although women currently make up a small proportion of the veteran 

population, that number will swell over time. What special mental health needs do 

female Veterans have, and how is the VA trying to accommodate them? 

Answer. VA recognizes that mental health services must be provided with the 

knowledge that gender-specific issues can be an important component of care. VHA 

Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers and 

Clinics requires that all VA facilities must maintain environments that support 

women Veterans’ dignity, respect and safety. All inpatient and residential care facilities must provide separate and secure sleeping and bathroom arrangements. Additionally, facilities are encouraged, when clinically indicated, to offer women Veterans the option of a same-sex provider regarding gender-specific issues. 

The issue of military sexual trauma (MST) is one that is particularly relevant for 

women Veterans. Among women Veterans who use VA care, 1 in 5 indicated to a 

health care provider that they have experienced MST, as compared to 1 in 100 male 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
709 

Veterans. Accordingly, VA has established significant treatment resources for mental health conditions associated with MST. 

Women can receive mental health care at any VA health care facility. Outpatient, 

inpatient, and residential programs are available to provide specialized care to 

women Veterans. With regard to MST, VA provides free, confidential counseling and 

treatment for mental and physical health conditions related to experiences of MST. 

Veterans do not need to be service connected and may be able to receive this benefit 

even if they are not eligible for other VA care. Veterans do not need to have reported the incident when it happened or have other documentation that it occurred. 

Every VA facility has providers knowledgeable about treatment for MST and many 

have specialized outpatient mental health services focusing on sexual trauma. 

For women (and men) Veterans in need of more intensive treatment of mental 

health conditions and/or addictive disorders, Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (MH RRTPs) provide residential treatment in a 24-hour, 

seven days per week, supervised and therapeutic milieu. All MH RRTPs have the 

capacity to serve women Veterans. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, there were a total of 

237 operational MH RRTPs providing more than 8,440 treatment beds which includes 252 beds dedicated to women Veterans in 35 of the programs (North East 

Program Evaluation Center, NEPEC). Women Veterans comprised 5.2% (1,789) of 

the total episodes of care in MH RRTP in FY 2009 (NEPEC). All MH RRTPs have 

incorporated systems to allow full safety and security of women Veterans, including 

locks on sleeping rooms and remote cameras to monitor all individuals entering and 

leaving the program areas. 

Question 7. Please provide the number of Veterans treated by the VA each year 

with mental health diagnoses, the total number of Veterans receiving health services from the VA, and the breakout of each number by gender. 

Answer. 

Mental health All health 

Year All Male Female All Male Female 

2009 ............................................. 1,115,710 1,014,347 101,363 5,447,894 4,957,636 490,258 

2008 ............................................. 1,046,380 953,824 92,556 5,299,865 4,834,268 465,597 

2007 ............................................. 985,593 901,693 83,900 5,230,342 4,791,416 438,926 

2006 ............................................. 930,845 855,949 74,896 5,188,836 4,761,842 426,994 

2005 ............................................. 905,714 837,065 68,649 5,094,494 4,682,413 412,081 

2004 ............................................. 833,983 773,830 60,153 4,976,773 4,573,287 403,486 

Data Sources: 

Mental Health—Northeast Program Evaluation Center Annual Reports. 

All Health—VHA Support Service Center (VSSC) Patient Counts Table. 

Question 8. I met with a group of Veterans last week who suggested that the VA 

needs to do more to counsel families of recently released Veterans to help them recognize the signs of depression or suicidal tendencies as the Veteran readjust to civilian life. Some in the group went as far as to suggest a ‘‘de-boot camp’’ for families 

and Veterans to provide concentrated therapy and counseling. What is the VA’s 

view of this concept? 

Answer. The Vet Center program recognizes the importance of involving the Veteran’s family in his or her readjustment. Families of combat Veterans are eligible 

to receive Vet Center outreach and education services, to include suicide prevention 

information, and can receive direct readjustment counseling services for issues related to the Veteran’s military service. To bolster these services, VA is currently recruiting for a qualified family counselor at each Vet Center that does not currently 

have one on staff. These specialized staff members will specifically address the challenges facing our Veteran families as Service members’ transition back from the 

combat zone. 

VA offers a continuum of family services which includes Family Education, Family Consultation, and Family Psychoeducation (FPE). FPE is a type of evidence 

based Family Therapy and VA has been providing national trainings on two FPE 

models—Behavioral Family Therapy (single family format) and Multiple Family 

Group Therapy (multi-family format) for the past two years. Additionally, starting 

this Fiscal Year, VA will begin to provide national training on Integrative Behavioral Couples Therapy, an evidence-based model of Marriage/Couples Counseling. Finally, VA has a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) to provide their Family-to-Family education and support training 

program in every VISN. This has been a very successful program and is rapidly expanding in utilization across VA facilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
710 

Question 9. Which mental health conditions suffered by Veterans PTSD, depression, etc. are most in need of research to produce effective treatments? 

Answer. Research in all areas of mental health care is important over time, but 

critical continued research in the following areas is needed: 

• Suicide prevention and intervention in those patients who are determined to be 

at suicidal risk. This transcends specific mental health diagnostic categories and focuses on symptoms and effective treatments for suicidality, which in itself is challenging. 

• Interventions for co-occurring mental health conditions. Although there are currently evidence-based treatments available for many individual mental health conditions, there is more limited research on approaches to treating mental health conditions that often co-exist (e.g., PTSD and substance use disorder; PTSD and Mild 

Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI)). 

• Effective approaches to treating PTSD in older adults with dementia or terminal illness. 

• Specific to the issues of women Veterans, there is a substantial research base 

on the types of treatment that are effective for female survivors of sexual trauma. 

However, because women’s exposure to combat is a relatively recent phenomenon 

(at least in large numbers), there is almost no treatment outcome literature among 

female Veterans with combat related PTSD. 

• In 2008, VA in collaboration with the National Institute for Mental Health, the 

Department of Defense and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

held a conference to consider issues raised by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report 

titled ‘‘Treatment of PTSD: An Assessment of the Evidence.’’ The meeting produced 

suggestions for improvement of clinical trial design and analysis, PTSD measurement, and trial implementation. 

Question 10. How is the VA tracking its mental health funding (overall mental 

health staffing, the filling of vacancies in core positions, and total mental health expenditures) to ensure it is being spent for the purposes the Committee intended? 

Answer. The Office of Mental Health Services (OMHS), in coordination with the 

VHA’s Office of Finance and their Allocation Resource Center (ARC), tracks monthly 

changes in Mental Health staffing and expenditures. We track the total number of 

Mental Health providers both at the facility and VISN level, and by profession type 

(e.g., Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Social Workers). This covers issues of filling 

vacancies in positions funded in prior years by Mental Health Enhancement Initiative funds and also allows monitoring of total mental health staff. 

Question 11. I understand that VA may be preparing to change the manner of allocation of mental health funds to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks level 

(VISNs) and field facilities. I believe this refers to a discussion of ‘‘fenced’’ versus 

‘‘unfenced’’ VERA allocations. Please tell me about those changes, if any and the 

reasons for them. 

Answer. Funding for a Mental Health Initiative was separately identified and requested in the VA budget requests from FY 2007–2009 to develop new approaches 

to mental health care. Beginning with the FY 2010 budget request, the best practices identified from these initiatives have been incorporated into the VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers, which establishes a new standard for mental health services that will be provided to all enrollees. Accordingly, funding previously associated with the Mental Health Initiative 

was incorporated into the overall mental health estimate found in the Selected Program Highlights section of the budget request. And, as the workload associated with 

the Mental Health Initiative has now been captured in the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) model data, funding previously identified separately for 

the Mental Health Initiative has been incorporated into the general purpose funding 

allocated by the VERA model. This change took place in FY 2010, and is reflected 

in the FY 2010 budget request as well as in subsequent budget requests. 

Question 12. The Independent Budget for FY2011 recommended the VA Under 

Secretary for Health appoint a mental health management work group to study the 

funding of VA mental health programs and make appropriate recommendations to 

the Under Secretary to ensure that VHA’s allocation system sustains adequate funding for the full continuum of services mandated by the Mental Health Enhancement 

Initiative and Uniform Mental Health Services Handbook. Would you support the 

appointment of such a group? 

Answer. The Office of Mental Health Services has been working in close coordination with the VHA Office of Policy and Planning and the actuarial contractors for 

several years to review the projected vs. actual utilization that has occurred in our 

programs, and then using these analyses in the budget process. We believe that this 

group fits the description of a ‘‘mental health management work group’’, and believe 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
711 

that it is working well. Thus, there is no need for the USH to appoint a new, separate mental health management work group. 

Question 13. The Independent Budget also recommended that Congress require 

VA to survey veterans, family members, and VA mental health staff about their satisfaction with mental health services, the new recovery principles driving your reforms, and the implementation of dozens of new treatment options, etc. Are you intending to conduct such a survey? 

Answer. In collaboration with VA’s Office of Quality and Performance (OQP), we 

have begun planning to extend current surveys for overall patient satisfaction to 

evaluate satisfaction with mental health services specifically. Evaluating satisfaction with mental health services has been made possible through VA’s transition to 

new patient experience survey tools, the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) instruments. The conversion to these instruments 

was implemented in 2009. Currently, methods for identifying subsamples of respondents with mental health conditions, and subsets of services related to mental 

health, are under development. We are evaluating the feasibility of conducting separate surveys of family members or VA mental health staff. 

Question 14. The VA has been pressed to promote family-centered mental healthcare programs, including providing family therapy and marriage counseling. These 

two programs have not been supported by the VA in the past, outside the readjustment counseling Vet Centers—where they have been quite successful. What is VA 

doing to move these family-oriented programs into place within the VA medical centers? 

Answer. As indicated in the VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health 

Services in VA Medical Centers, VA offers a continuum of family services which includes Family Education, Family Consultation, and Family Psychoeducation (FPE). 

FPE is a type of evidence based Family Therapy and VA has been providing national trainings on two FPE models—Behavioral Family Therapy (single family format) and Multiple Family Group Therapy (multi-family format) for the past two 

years. Additionally, starting this Fiscal Year, VA will begin to provide national 

training on Integrative Behavioral Couples Therapy, an evidence-based model of 

Marriage/Couples Counseling. Finally, VA has a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) to provide their Family-toFamily education and support training program in every VISN. This has been a 

very successful program and is rapidly expanding in utilization across VA facilities. 

Question 15. Do you believe that Veterans and family consumer councils should 

become routine standing committees at all VA medical centers? How many VA medical centers today have active Veterans and family consumer councils in place? 

Answer. VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical 

Centers and Clinics, strongly encourages the establishment of Consumer Advocate 

Liaison Councils at each VHA facility. These Councils, currently called Veterans 

Mental Health Councils, provide a pathway for communication between mental 

health leadership at the facility level and Veterans, Veterans’ family members, Veterans Service Organizations, mental health advocacy and other stakeholder groups. 

Although the formation of these Councils is not mandatory, a total of 79 facilities 

and 5 VISNs have established such Councils. The success of these Councils depends 

largely on the mutual cooperation of VA facility leadership and Council members. 

The Office of Mental Health Services would like to see Veterans Mental Health 

Councils at each medical center and at each VISN, but mandating the formation of 

these Councils would, in all likelihood, negatively affect the nature of the relationship between the Councils and facility leadership and would result in the Councils 

being less effective. Strongly encouraging the formation of Veterans Mental Health 

Councils and sharing stories about the success of existing Councils seems to have 

been an effective strategy in the proliferation of Councils across VHA. 

Question 16. Substance abuse seems to be a recurring trend in our newest generation of war Veterans. VA’s programs have traditionally focused on older Veterans 

who have fallen through the cracks of family and society and are chronic users. 

What adjustments are you making to your substance abuse programs to adapt them 

to the needs of younger Veterans, many of whom are not yet addicted but are in 

need of acute interventions for drug and alcohol use? 

Answer. VA Substance Use Disorders (SUD) treatment services are designed to 

address the needs of Veterans from all combat eras. Important emphasis is now 

placed on universal screening of younger and older Veterans at least annually for 

drinking at unhealthy levels to allow for enhanced detection and early intervention 

for drinking problems. This screening, along with feedback and advice, is conducted 

in primary care. VA has also integrated buprenorphine for opioid dependence, since 

methadone maintenance for opioid dependence is not permitted by regulation in primary care. The integration of SUD services in primary care is especially important 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
712 

for reaching young (and older) individuals who are often less likely to seek care in 

the specialty mental health setting, due to stigma and other reasons. Beyond integrating mental health and SUD services in primary care, VA is integrating treatment of PTSD and SUD by placing a PTSD/SUD specialist in every VA PTSD program. This will increase service access and care coordination for younger and older 

individuals. In fact, review of administrative data has indicated that integrated 

treatment for PTSD/SUD is associated with higher rates of treatment engagement 

in the Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) population. 

VA’s focus in the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders is on 

the delivery of evidence-based pharmacological and psychotherapeutic intervention 

treatments that did not exist in previous decades. All VA facilities now offer a variety of evidence-based treatments to Veterans with substance use conditions. In addition, VA facilities have expanded after-hours clinic availability to make SUD and 

other treatment services more accessible to younger Veterans who are unable to 

seek care during the daytime due to work, family, or other obligations. 

To determine if VA’s specialty SUD programs have made efforts to adapt to the 

needs of OEF/OIF Veterans, we examined whether these treatments were offered 

more frequently at facilities having greater numbers of OEF/OIF Veterans with 

SUD diagnoses. To determine further whether these services were associated with 

more OEF/OIF Veterans receiving care, we examined relationships between availability of these services and numbers of OEF/OIF Veterans receiving SUD care. We 

also attempted to identify which of these services were associated with higher rates 

of engagement of OEF/OIF Veterans diagnosed with SUD in VA specialty SUD services. Results of these reviews indicate that VA specialty SUD programs seem to be 

adapting well to the needs of OEF/OIF diagnosed Veterans at their facilities. The 

facilities with more OEF/OIF Veterans diagnosed with SUD were significantly more 

likely to have specialty SUD programs that offered treatment groups specifically for 

OEF/OIF Veterans, integrated PTSD/SUD treatment services, and opioid agonist 

treatment (i.e., the most evidence-based pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorders). 

Facilities that offered services more focused on women’s needs, OEF/OIF specific 

services, integrated PTSD/SUD services, and pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders treated more OEF/OIF Veterans in their specialty SUD treatment programs. 

Question 17. The Independent Budget recommends that VA conduct an assessment of the current availability of evidence-based care for PTSD and other mental 

health challenges in the Veteran population, identify shortfalls by each site of care, 

and allocate the resources necessary to provide universal access to evidence-based 

care. What is the VA’s position on this recommendation? 

Answer. VA Office of Mental Health Services is already closely tracking the availability of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD at individual facilities 

and is in the process of developing additional metrics to track the availability and 

delivery of EBPs for PTSD and other mental health conditions throughout the system in an ongoing manner. Therefore, we do not believe that a new initiative is 

needed, since this is a priority for us and full action is being taken that addresses 

the essence of this recommendation. 

Question 18. It has been reported that the VA may be reducing the intensity of 

mental health services for older generations of Veterans in order to generate new 

capacity to absorb newer arrivals (primarily Veterans of Operations Enduring and 

Iraqi Freedom) with more acute needs. Is it correct that the VA may be shifting its 

emphasis? 

Answer. While important focus has been placed on meeting the mental health 

needs of returning Veterans, which is significant given that research indicates that 

early intervention can often prevent further complication and lead to enhanced outcomes, VA is strongly committed to providing high quality care to Veterans of all 

service eras, with equal emphasis. In fact, both the number of Vietnam era Veterans 

and OEF/OIF Veterans treated for PTSD annually has continued to increase from 

FY 2003, when the first significant numbers of OEF/OIF Veterans began presenting 

for treatment, through FY 2009. In FY 2009, VA treated over 397,000 Veterans for 

PTSD. Of these, only 69,000 (17.4%) were OEF/OIF Veterans. An analysis conducted 

in FY 2008 indicated that, between FY 2006 and 2007, the average number of visits 

per Veteran treated for PTSD increased for both Gulf War-era Veterans (Operation 

Desert Storm plus OEF/OIF) as well as for WWII/ Korean-era Veterans. Additional 

staffing has allowed VA to provide high quality care to both older and younger Veterans. 

VA has developed specific Mental Health Enhancement Initiatives designed to 

promote mental health care access and treatment for older Veterans. These new initiatives incorporate innovative and evidence-based mental health care practices, as 

well as person and family-centered care approaches. One such initiative involves the 

placement of a full time mental health provider on every VA Home-Based Primary 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
713 

Care (HBPC) team. The VA HBPC Mental Health Provider functions as an integral 

member of the HBPC team and provides a full range of psychological assessment 

and treatment services. VA has developed an initiative to integrate a full-time mental health provider in VA Community Living Centers (CLC) (formerly Nursing 

Home Care Units), with a specific focus on service innovation to bridge research and 

practice in the area of evidence-based, non-pharmacological approaches to managing 

behavioral and neuropsychiatric symptoms associated with dementia and other 

mental illnesses and promoting nursing home culture transformation. This initiative 

initially funded 23 CLC Mental Health Providers and has been extended to be a requirement at VA CLCs, pursuant to VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental 

Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics. Handbook 1160.01 also includes 

specific requirements for integrated providers in other health care settings that frequently serve older Veterans, including primary care, rehabilitation, and palliative 

care settings. 

Question 19. We continue to hear that some veterans with service-connected mental health problems may resist seeking VA mental health care services for fear that 

their disability ratings may be reduced if their symptoms improve in VA care. What 

are your concerns about this situation, and what is the VA’s responsibility to these 

veterans, to assure them that seeking improvement in their mental health will not 

become a basis for reducing disability ratings? 

Answer. We also have heard about these concerns of some Veterans. It would indeed be tragic if Veterans do not receive mental health services that VHA now 

makes fully available, which can be very effective in alleviating symptoms of mental 

illness and improving quality of life and effective engagement in important roles in 

the Veteran’s community and family. The Office of Mental Health Services in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has engaged with Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to explore these issues. 

Question 20. In 2007, the Institute of Medicine issued a landmark report about 

Gulf War deployment-related stress. A number of policy and research recommendations from that report have not been addressed by VA or DoD. What plans does the 

VA have to address the remaining IOM recommendations? 

Answer. There was one recommendation in the report. That recommendation was 

directed to DoD. Specifically: 

‘‘The (IOM) committee acknowledges that the VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) have expended enormous effort and resources in attempts to address the numerous health issues related to veterans. The information obtained 

from those efforts, however, has not been sufficient to determine conclusively 

the origins, extent, and long-term implications of health problems associated 

with veterans’ participation in war. The committee recommends that DoD conduct comprehensive, standardized, pre-deployment and post-deployment evaluations of medical conditions, psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses, and psychosocial status and trauma history.’’ 

The committee went on to discuss the reasons why such pre and post deployment 

health assessments would be valuable. 

While the recommendation was addressed to DoD, it should be noted that VA has 

undertaken various efforts to help assess the health of both deployed and non-deployed groups of Veterans. For example, the Environmental Epidemiology Service 

is currently conducting a survey of OEF/OIF Veterans, the National Health Study 

for a New Generation of U.S. Veterans. This study, which is expected to be completed in the summer of 2011, is a longitudinal study employing both a deployed 

and non-deployed group of Veterans. This study will permit comparisons to be made 

between the groups on such issues as stress as well as many other health-related 

areas of interest. In addition, studies planned for Veterans of the first Gulf War and 

other cohorts Veterans will incorporate deployed and non-deployed groups for purposes of comparison. 

Question 21. Military sexual trauma is a very significant problem for both men 

and women whom have served. We are told that most of VA’s patients who report 

this problem, both men and women, typically ask for a female therapist. What is 

VA doing to ensure that if a patient with this problem requests a female counselor 

or therapist that the VA is able to respond? 

Answer. The Uniform Mental Health Services Handbook strongly encourages facilities to give Veterans treated for conditions related to MST the option of being 

assigned to a same-sex mental health provider or opposite-sex provider, if the trauma involved a same-sex perpetrator. Facilities are encouraged to offer Veterans the 

option of a consultation or treatment from an opposite-sex mental health provider, 

when clinically appropriate. In terms of implementation of this policy, facilities conduct self-assessments to identify their ability to respond to requests for clinicians 

of a particular sex. Based on these assessments, they take steps to address gaps in 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
714 

available services as appropriate. Facilities have not reported problems in fulfilling 

this policy to date. We also are able to track the number of female providers in VA’s 

electronic administrative data bases. These currently show that the mental health 

staff includes the following proportion of female providers: 

Psychology—55% Female 

Social Work—72% Female 

Psychiatrists—41% Female 

Question 22. Do you have qualified female mental health counselors with expertise in military sexual trauma in all Vet Centers? 

Answer. All Vet Centers screen and refer Veterans for issues related to MST to 

VA Medical Centers or to resources in the local community. The Vet Center program 

developed and implemented a Staff Training and Experience Profile (STEP) that 

outlines qualifications and experience necessary to provide MST counseling. VA Readjustment Counseling Services (RCS) currently has 150 MST STEP qualified counselors of which 85% are female. RCS is in the process of implementing a requirement that each Vet Center have a MST STEP qualified counselor on staff. 

Question 23. Women veterans are playing new roles in the military service 

branches. While the ‘‘official’’ policy is that women do not occupy direct combat roles 

in contingency operations, women are certainly exposed to combat in the modern 

military. Is VA staff trained on the current roles of women serving in the military 

and now returning from combat theaters, and their unique post-deployment mental 

health challenges? 

Answer. Empirical evidence documenting the unique post deployment mental 

health challenges of women Veterans deployed in support of OEF/OIF is only now 

beginning to emerge. As the body of information about the unique needs of women 

Veterans grows, new information will be incorporated into educational efforts targeting VA staff. For example, the Caring for Women Veterans Training Program, 

a computerized tool whose development was funded by VA’s Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), is designed to provide training for VA staff. This 

program is currently being revised to include information specific to female OEF/ 

OIF Veterans. Also, at every VA facility there is a full-time Women Veterans Program Manager who is tasked with educating VA staff about the unique needs of 

women. Question 24. The VA Advisory Committee on the Care of Veterans with Serious 

Mental Illness seems to be functioning in ways that are different from its statutory 

mandate. The Independent Budget has recommended this committee be replaced by 

a Secretary-level committee on mental health, armed with significant resources and 

independent reporting responsibility to Congress. What is your position on that recommendation? 

Answer. We believe that the Committee on Care of Severely Chronically Mentally 

Ill Veterans (‘‘SMI Committee’’) is functioning according to its legislative mandate. 

Established by P.L. 104–262, section 335, the SMI Committee is established by the 

Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, acting through the Under Secretary for Health. The SMI Committee functions to assess VA’s ability to meet the 

health care needs of Veterans with severe and chronic mental illness, including the 

identification of system-wide problems in the provision of this care and the recommendation of strategies to improve care. The SMI Committee presents an annual 

report to the Secretary, who in turn submits a report to the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. The SMI Committee has been successful in identifying 

areas for improvement and in challenging the VA’s Office of Mental Health Services 

to provide more and higher quality services for Veterans with severe and chronic 

mental illness. The SMI Committee’s recommendations played a significant role in 

shaping the overall concepts underlying VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental 

Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics, including the requirement that 

outdated day treatment and day hospital programs be transformed into Psychosocial 

Rehabilitation and Recovery Centers and that all mental health services be recovery-oriented. These successes indicate that the SMI Committee is actively fulfilling 

its legislative mandate under its current configuration and alignment with VA and 

that a new system is not needed at this time. 

Question 25. The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act requires new mandatory, several face-to-face mental health screenings for all post-deployed combat service members (including National Guard and Reserves). What are VA’s plans to help 

the Department of Defense accomplish this considerable task? Do you have any 

plans to engage DoD in a sharing agreement so that VA can be reimbursed if your 

mental health staffs conduct these face-to-face screenings? 

Answer. Currently, the focus is on addressing urgent needs and developing methods for effective and efficient collaborations, in which VA can contribute resources 

without compromising its mission to care for Veterans. VA is not waiting for the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
715 

development of payment mechanisms before working with DoD to meet the needs 

for mental health assessments during surges of returning troops. Plans are under 

way to develop processes for payment for VA services for Active Duty Service members; these will be guided by the nature of the mechanisms for collaboration that 

are found to be most effective and most efficient. 

Question 26. What is the overall unemployment rate for working age veterans? 

Please disaggregate that number by age bands and compare to the general population. Does VA have data on unemployment rates for veterans who have mental 

health diagnoses? 

Answer. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 2009 data, 8.1% of Veterans 18 to 64 years of age is unemployed. This is not statistically different from 

the 9.2% of non-Veterans who are unemployed. The most recent monthly data from 

BLS (February 2010) show that these figures have increased to 9.5% of Veterans 

18–64 years of age, compared to 10.3% of non-Veterans of the same age. We do not 

currently have available data on unemployment rates for Veterans with specific 

mental health diagnoses. 

Unemployment rates for Veterans and for non-Veterans according to age bands 

and era of service show the following: 

2009 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REPORT 

[All eras of service] 

Age bands 

Percent unemployed veterans Percent unemployed general 

population 

All ages (18 and older) ................................................................................................................... 8.1 9.1 

18–24 .............................................................................................................................................. 21.1 16.6 

25–34 .............................................................................................................................................. 11.1 9.8 

35–44 .............................................................................................................................................. 7.3 8.0 

45–54 .............................................................................................................................................. 8.3 7.1 

55–64 .............................................................................................................................................. 7.2 6.5 

65 and older .................................................................................................................................... 6.6 6.3 

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REPORT 

[By eras of service] 

2009 Report February 2010 Data 

Gulf War era II ......................................................................................................................... 10.2 12.5 

Gulf War era I .......................................................................................................................... 7.6 8.9 

VVWII, Korean War, and Vietnam Era ..................................................................................... 7.5 8.1 

Other service periods ............................................................................................................... 9.1 10.1 

Non-Veterans ........................................................................................................................... 9.1 10.3 

25–34 ...................................................................................................................................... 11.1 9.8 

35–44 ...................................................................................................................................... 7.3 8.0 

45–54 ...................................................................................................................................... 8.3 7.1 

55–64 ...................................................................................................................................... 7.2 6.5 

65 and older ............................................................................................................................ 6.6 6.3 

[Questions for the Record submitted to the VA by Ranking Member Wamp] 

(1) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is most notably associated with combat and has been one of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 

focuses in treating our Nation’s Veterans. Silouan Green, a retired Marine Corps 

Captain, has developed a PTSD treatment program called, ‘‘The Ladder.’’ It is based 

on his own battle with and recovery from PTSD. Several weeks ago, I gave a copy 

of this program to Secretary Shinseki and his staff for the VA’s review and consideration. 

Question (a). Where is the VA in the process of reviewing ‘‘The Ladder’’ PTSD 

treatment program? 

Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed The Ladder materials Mr. Green submitted. It is very clear that Mr. Green’s personal credibility, sincerity and devotion to the task of helping his fellow Veterans is a major factor in 

the positive impact reported by letters of endorsement from Veterans and others. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
716 

VA is committed to pursuing evidence-based treatment approaches for mental 

health services to ensure that Veterans receive the best care possible, and VA is encouraging Mr. Green and others to gather formal data to assist VA in assessing the 

efficacy of this approach. Without this data, it will be more difficult to support a 

broad scale adoption of this program. VA staff suggested that Mr. Green might benefit from seeking formal credentials in peer support. VA appreciates and thanks Mr. 

Green for his service to our country and for his continued advocacy on behalf of Veterans. Question (b). What level of input have Veterans and returning active duty soldiers 

had in development of PTSD treatment programs? 

Answer. VA considers the input of Veterans and returning Servicemembers critical to successful programs, not just in mental health but in a variety of disciplines. 

VA’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) programs are grounded in evidencebased research, which documents the improved clinical performance of these approaches. The Institute of Medicine published a report on the treatment of PTSD 

and emphasized findings that evidence-based psychotherapies, including Prolonged 

Exposure Therapy and Cognitive Processing Therapy, were the best established of 

all treatments for PTSD. However, Veteran input is essential to deciding which of 

these, or other developing approaches to treatment, is best for any particular Veteran. Individual Veterans provide essential input for their specific treatment plans, 

and VA clinicians accommodate a Veteran’s preferences (such as favoring or 

disfavoring the use of psychopharmacology) as much as possible. 

VA used focus groups of Veterans to determine the best way of developing and 

presenting information about PTSD and other mental disorders on the 

MyHealtheVet Web site and through other media. VA is also actively developing 

peer support approaches for Veterans with PTSD and other mental disorders. 

Question (c). Is the VA considering any other treatment programs developed by 

Veterans who have suffered from PTSD? 

Answer: VA reviews proposed treatment approaches for PTSD and other mental 

disorders from the perspective of their basis in evidence; if this is lacking, VA recommends the Veteran submitting the proposal engage in developing evidence. In addition, VA welcomes those Veterans who have personal experience with mental 

health conditions to look for opportunities to become Peer Support Technicians as 

a way of helping their colleagues. 

(2) VA Outreach: In your testimony, you stated that, as of December 2009, Vet 

Centers have made contact with 40 percent of all OEF/OIF Veterans. 

Question (a). How can the VA reach more of these Veterans? 

Answer. VA is pursuing a range of options to improve outreach to Veterans. VA 

has named this general strategy ‘‘Seven Touches,’’ because it involves seven different forms of outreach within the first 6 months of a Veteran’s return. These 

forms of outreach include: briefings at 63 demobilization sites; the Yellow Ribbon 

Reintegration Program events at 30, 60, and 90 days post-demobilization; Post-Deployment Health Reassessments, including those conducted at VA facilities; partnerships with the National Guard and Transition Assistance Advisors; Readiness Muster for Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) events, through the Combat Veteran Call 

Center Initiative; and for all Servicemembers, the VA Operation Enduring Freedom/ 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/01F) Web site (http://www.oefoif.va.gov/). Additionally, VA establishes contact and provides assistance through annual focus groups 

held at VA medical centers, annual Welcome Home events held by each medical center, and community partnerships with providers, colleges and universities, job fairs, 

and other activities. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2009, VA conducted over 8,500 Transition Assistance Program 

and Disabled Transition Assistance Program briefings attended by over 356,800 

Servicemembers and their families. VA launched a pre-discharge program home 

page (http://www.vba.va.gov/predischarge/) on June 9, 2009, to complement its 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge and Quick Start programs. In addition, VA launched 

the eBenefits portal on October 22, 2009, to streamline information distribution (or 

dissemination/delivery) to Servicemembers, Veterans and families 

(www.ebenefits.va.gov/ebenefits-portal/). Our outreach efforts have provided Veterans with knowledge and access to VA services and benefits. Of 1,100,000 Veterans 

who have separated since 2002, 48 percent have used VA health care services. Between 2005 and September 2009, more than 86,000 referrals to VA were made 

through DoD’s Post-Deployment Health Reassessment, and since 2008, more than 

70,000 Veterans have enrolled in VA health care prior to leaving a demobilization 

site. 

VA is also reaching and conversing with Veterans through social media, including 

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, flickr, and blogs. Currently, VA has a fast growing 

Facebook page with over 11,000 fans, most of who have been added since Veterans 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
717 

Day 2009 (over 1,000 fans per week). VA participation on Facebook is expanding. 

Each Administration has its own page for topic-specific conversations, as do a dozen 

VA medical centers. VA has plans to launch a Facebook page for every VA medical 

center. 

In addition, VA now has four separate official Twitter feeds for the Department 

and each of the Administrations. In the past two months, VA’s primary Twitter feed 

has added followers at a high growth rate: nearly 2,000 have joined in that time. 

Half a dozen VA medical centers have active Twitter feeds. As with Facebook, VA 

plans to expand Twitter feeds to all medical centers throughout 2010. VA just 

launched the first official Twitter feed for a VA Principal, Assistant Secretary 

Tammy Duckworth, in January 2010. Ms. Duckworth can now regularly engage 

with the public via her own VA Twitter account. 

VA has further embraced video- and photo-sharing media including the use of 

YouTube (videos) and flickr (photos). VA began posting each segment from its news 

magazine program The American Veteran on YouTube, while showcasing a selection 

of them on the VA homepage. At the same time, VA has a separate health carerelated YouTube channel (administered by VHA) which has posted more than 90 

videos, has 1,300 subscribers and more than 58,000 views. 

In terms of blogging, VA has thus far been spreading its message via other sites— 

with pieces published at the White House Blog, and others with messages posted 

by Secretary Shinseki and Assistant Secretary Duckworth at outlets such as Military.com. 

VA’s main Web site has also been rebuilt to make it more user-friendly for Veterans. Up-to-date information about benefits and services is added daily. Reaching 

returning Veterans through their expected and familiar modes of communication is 

a priority. The OEF/OIF generation expects a communication style that allows conversation and engagement, and these resources help VA enhance information sharing with this group of Veterans, as well as other stakeholders. 

The Readjustment Counseling Service Mobile Vet Center (MVC) program is another major initiative for extending the geographical scope of outreach and counseling services to OEF/OIF combat Veterans and families. To facilitate access to 

services for Veterans in hard-to-reach outlying areas, VA has deployed 50 MVCs to 

strategically selected Vet Centers across the country. The placement of the vehicles 

is designed to cover a national network of designated Veteran service areas that collectively cover every county in the continental United States. The 50 MVCs are 

being utilized to provide early access to returning combat Veterans through outreach to active military demobilization sites, including National Guard and Reserve 

sites, and extending services to Veterans at Post Deployment Health Reassessment 

(PDHRA) events where returning Servicemembers can review their benefits and options for care they need as early as possible. The vehicles are also extending Vet 

Center outreach to more rural communities distant from existing VA services. 

In addition, since 2004, VA Secretaries have sent a personal letter to each OEF/ 

OIF combat Veteran after they separated from active duty thanking them for their 

service and providing contact information for obtaining VA health care and other 

benefits. This effort has provided letters to over hundreds of thousands of combat 

Veterans, both former active duty personnel and National Guard/Reservists. 

Question (b). How soon after coming home does the VA reach out? 

Answer. VA begins contacting many Servicemembers before and during deployment, well before they return home. Since November 2004, VA has provided benefits 

brochures to everyone inducted into the five military branches. This pamphlet delivers basic information on VA benefits and services at the start of their military career. In addition, VA supports efforts for early contact with National Guard and Reserve members and their families. Guard and Reserve members and families learn 

about VA services and benefits during Soldier Readiness Processing events held 

prior to mobilization. These health and benefits outreach briefings continue throughout the deployment phase as VA collaborates with each of the Services. VA provides 

outreach through family programs, town hall meetings and family training events. 

Families are a critical component in reaching Veterans and providing information 

about how to access VA health care and the importance of seeking early assistance 

for needed health care services. As discussed in the previous question, VA also participates in demobilization briefings at 63 military sites while Servicemembers are 

transitioning, at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events, and Post-Deployment Health 

Reassessment events. 

In addition to these efforts, VA’s Vet Centers fulfill a vital role in establishing 

contact with Veterans and their families. The Vet Centers are non-clinical, community-based resources that maintain active outreach programs in their areas, particularly with Reserve and Guard units. Vet Center representatives also host Open 

Houses onsite at Reserve Units during the weekends where they can answer quesVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00717 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
718 

tions from family members and Reservists. Vet Center staff also participates in premobilization educational briefings where they are able to establish contacts and distribute information to family members. 

The outreach to provide Veterans and family members with educational information about readjustment counseling services is one of the legislatively mandated 

missions of the Vet Center program. Through its community outreach and brokering 

efforts, the Vet Center program also provides many Veterans the means of access 

to other Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) programs. To augment this effort, the Vet Center program recruited and 

hired 100 OEF/OIF Veterans to provide the bulk of this outreach to their fellow Veterans. To improve the quality of its outreach services, in June 2005, the Vet Centers 

began documenting every OEF/OIF Veteran provided with outreach services. The 

program’s focus on aggressive outreach activities has resulted in the provision of 

timely Vet Center services to significant numbers of OEF/OIF Veterans and family 

members. The Vet Center Program has also provided outreach services to the 

United States Marine Corp Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) soldiers across the nation. 

The Vet Center programs build on a prior outreach effort conducted during the 

first Gulf War, which received a commendation from the President’s Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. In its final report of March 1997, the Committee cited the Vet Centers for providing exemplary outreach to contact and inform 

Veteran cohorts about VA services. On October of 2004, the U.S. Medicine Institute 

of Health Studies and Association of Military Surgeons of the United States reported that ‘‘VHA’s Vet Centers have proven a ’best practice’ model in fostering 

peer-to-peer relationships for those with combat stress disorders.’’ 

(3) Family Outreach/Services: Deployment and mental health issues post-deployment can have a huge effect on family members. 

Question (a). Do the Vet Centers also provide services to family members of Veterans? What specifically is the VA doing to help families of Veterans with mental 

health issues deal with these problems? 

Answer. Vet Centers provide a range of services to family members of Veterans. 

While the Vet Centers primary mission is to provide professional readjustment 

counseling for war-related psychological readjustment problems, including PTSD 

counseling, the mission requires the provision of counseling to the families of Veterans to help create a supportive environment for the Veteran’s readjustment. Vet 

Centers can offer counseling related to family relationship problems, among other 

needs. Vet Centers also provide bereavement counseling for the families of 

Servicemembers who died while serving on active duty. 

The Vet Center program is also taking steps to enhance access for Veterans’ families. Within the context of the Vet Center mission, family members are central to 

the combat Veteran’s readjustment. To meet the specialized training requirements 

for the provision of family counseling, the Readjustment Counseling Service has developed Staff Training and Experience Profiles (STEP) criteria for qualifying family 

counselors working in Vet Centers. The Vet Center program is currently implementing a plan to enhance its capacity to serve families by hiring the staff necessary to place a STEP qualified family counselor in every Vet Center. 

Question (b). Is the VA doing any outreach to family members of Veterans so they 

might be able to better recognize the signs of mental health problems? 

Answer. VA has long recognized family members as a critical component to a Veteran’s recovery and continues to reach out to family members through multiple formats to engage them in the readjustment process. VA has used public service announcements featuring celebrities like Gary Sinise and Deborah Norville to raise 

awareness of mental health concerns and provide support for family members concerned about a Veteran. The VA Suicide Prevention Hotline has also conducted an 

aggressive outreach campaign across the country to provide services and support for 

Veterans and family members to reduce the risk of Veteran suicide. Suicide Prevention Coordinators at each VA facility conduct face-to-face presentations about how 

to recognize when someone is in trouble and how to seek help. VA will continue to 

seek ways to communicate with families and local communities. 

VHA Handbook 1160.01 identifies family involvement and family services, when 

appropriate and in connection with the treatment of the Veteran, as an essential 

component of the mental health program. To facilitate this patient-centered, familyfocused transformation in services, the Handbook requires that the clinical provider 

discuss with the Veteran the need and the benefits of family involvement in their 

care annually and at the time of discharge from any inpatient stays. As part of this 

process, the provider must seek the Veteran’s consent to contact family members as 

necessary in connection with the Veteran’s treatment. Providing education on emergency mental health issues, including how to identify them and what to do about 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
719 

them, are addressed in our graduated continuum of services that meet the varying 

needs of Veterans and their families. 

Many of the pre-deployment, during deployment, and post-deployment programs 

cited above in VA’s response to question 2(b) (such as dedicated family programs, 

town halls, and visits to military sites, as well as Vet Center outreach) provide family members with needed information about mental health symptoms they should 

monitor. 

(4) Mental Health Issues: 

Question (a). When do you expect full implementation of the Uniform Mental 

Health Services Handbook in all VA facilities? 

Answer. As of the end of December 2009, VA medical centers and communitybased outpatient clinics (CBOC) reported an implementation rate of 98 percent for 

the more than 200 requirements in the Uniform Mental Health Services Handbook. 

A recent Office of Inspector General (OIG) study indicated the same conclusion. VA 

cannot provide an exact prediction for full implementation of the Handbook’s requirements, but will continue to monitor closely and work toward full implementation by the end of FY 2010. 

Question (b). What do you think is the most significant VA initiative that is working the best in addressing mental health issues in the Veteran population? 

Answer. There are a number of important initiatives that VA is currently pursuing to best address the mental health issues affecting the Veteran population. For 

example, VA’s Suicide Prevention Hotline is saving thousands of lives each year; its 

homelessness prevention program aims to provide support services and care to every 

Veteran seeking it and eliminate homelessness in this population within 5 years; 

and VA is training its providers in evidence-based psychotherapies with demonstrated effectiveness. VA has significantly increased the number of mental health 

professionals at work in its programs, which has expanded access and care for Veterans across the country. The Uniform Mental Health Services Handbook has improved the consistency of care available at any VA facility by creating a common 

set of services that VA must provide. The Vet Centers are widely regarded as a successful program that offer mental health services in a caring, non-clinical environment. And VA has a robust research program devoted to improving our understanding of and treatment for the entire gamut of mental health conditions. Identifying a single initiative that is the most successful or effective is not possible because these programs are interwoven and mutually complementary. VA appreciates 

the support of Congress in all of these areas. 

(5) Homelessness: Substance abuse is often tied to homelessness. As ending homelessness among Veterans is now a core initiative for VA: 

Question (a). How is VA encouraging those Veterans with substance abuse issues 

to come to VA to be screened and treated for these issues? 

Answer. VA is effectively using evidence-based screening for identifying cases of 

depression, alcohol misuse, and PTSD; performance for these respective screenings 

was 96 percent, 97 percent, and 98 percent respectively during the first quarter of 

FY 2010. Furthermore, integration of mental health services into primary care settings is an evidence-based program that enhances subsequent evaluation and treatment planning, including identification of the treatment setting most appropriate to 

a Veteran’s clinical needs and preferences. 

This means that virtually every Veteran who is seen in a VA facility is screened 

for substance use disorders (SUD). 

Many of the outreach programs described in the responses to previous questions 

encourage homeless Veterans to come to VA to receive screening and treatment for 

their mental health issues. VA has also developed community-based resources capable of assisting homeless Veterans with SUDs. For instance, many of the VA funded 

Grant and Per Diem (GPD) programs have developed supportive services designed 

to meet the needs of their residents with SUD. In the past year, 73 percent of all 

GPD residents entered with alcohol problems and 64 percent entered with a SUD 

diagnosis. 

Another VA community-based program that seeks out homeless Veterans to link 

them to VA services, including SUD programs for Veterans with that need, is the 

Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program. Contract residential care beds 

available through this effort offer supportive services, case management and referrals. In fiscal year 2009, 81 percent of all residents in HCHV contract residential 

care beds had alcohol problems and 71 percent had drug problems. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp] 

To the National Institute of Mental Health following the March 23, 2010 hearing 

before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
720 

about ‘‘Research Activities at the National Institute of Mental Health Affecting Veterans and Their Families.’’ 

TBI Technology— 

• Is the NIMH looking into neurogenesis as a way of treating TBI? 

Therapy Timeframe— 

• In your testimony you state that new research suggests that therapy administered after a traumatic event within a ‘‘certain time frame’’ can enhance recovery. 

• What is the time frame? 

• How equipped is the VA to meet the time frame for therapy. 

Alternative Therapy Options— 

• How effective are internet and phone-based PTSD therapy techniques? 

• What do you think is the number one issue affecting veterans’ access to mental 

health care through VA? 

TBI Technology— 

Question. Is the NIMH looking into neurogenesis as a way of treating TBI? 

Dr. Insel: One of the most exciting advances in neuroscience has been the recognition that neurogenesis, that is, the generation of new nerve cells, occurs throughout 

life. NIH is supporting extensive research on neurogenesis that has implications for 

TBI, mostly through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 

(NINDS). At the basic science level, scientists are laying the foundation for therapy 

development by studying how neurogenesis contributes to normal brain functions, 

what regulates this process, and how it changes in response to disease and injury. 

For example, neurogenesis in an area of the brain called the hippocampus may play 

a role in memory, and disruptions could contribute to cognitive problems. With respect to TBI specifically, scientists have demonstrated that brain injury stimulates 

neurogenesis by provoking certain neural stem cells in the brain to proliferate. Research is now determining the details of which cells respond to injury and how 

neurogenesis contributes to brain remodeling and functional recovery after TBI. One 

important aspect of this research is identifying the natural signals in the brain, including ‘‘trophic factors,’’ that regulate neurogenesis and brain remodeling. Based on 

these findings, research is exploring whether it is possible to enhance neurogenesis 

and brain remodeling by administering trophic factors, drugs, or even cell transplants, and whether that will improve functional recovery from TBI, with encouraging results now emerging in animal models of TBI. 

Therapy Timeframe— 

Question. In your testimony you state that new research suggests that therapy administered after a traumatic event within a ‘‘certain time frame’’ can enhance recovery. 

• What is the time frame? 

Dr. Insel: NIMH has been trying to understand the process of traumatic memory. 

Is it the result of a different kind of memory? Or does the problem result from an 

inability to let the memory go? In the last six to nine months, there has been a revolution in the way we understand memory. We used to think that good or bad events 

stayed in memory storage like files in a file drawer and later when a question arose 

it was retrieved. But now we know that memories are always being reconsolidated, 

coming out of storage regularly. Thus in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) the 

memories come out of storage and appear to be vulnerable to intensification or reduction with each retrieval. We have begun to realize that the key is intervening 

right after the reconsolidation takes place. Each time the memory comes out of storage, there is an opportunity not only to make it worse, but also to make it better. 

NIMH-funded scientists are trying to map the exact temporal sequence of how fear 

memories come back and how to ultimately make them go away. Evidence from animal studies shows that reactivating an emotional memory opens a 6-hour window 

of opportunity in which a training procedure can alter it. Building on this research, 

NIMH-funded scientists recently selectively blocked a conditioned fear memory in 

humans with a behavioral manipulation. Following the intervention, participants remained free of the fear memory for at least a year. The results suggest a non-pharmacological, naturalistic approach can effectively manage emotional memories. But 

much is not clear about the natural course of reconsolidation after a trauma. Are 

dreams a form of reconsolidation? Are the intrusive memories after a trauma the 

brain’s attempt to extinguish the memory? There are still several basic aspects of 

the time course of emotional memories that need to be defined. 

Question. How equipped is the VA to meet the time frame for therapy? 

This question is outside the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Mental 

Health. 

Alternative Therapy Options— 

Question. How effective are internet and phone-based PTSD therapy techniques? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
721 

Dr. Insel: Emerging research supports the use of telehealth and web-based treatments to provide mental health treatment. There is increasing evidence that telephone therapy is accessible, acceptable and effective for a range of conditions. Indeed, at least one form of mental health intervention, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 

(CBT), delivered by telephone for several mental disorders appears to be effective. 

Studies have shown it is effective for depressive symptoms, panic disorder with agoraphobia, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Preliminary research has shown that 

internet-based, self-managed CBT can help reduce symptoms of PTSD and depression. The study showed that at 6 month follow up, 1/3 of those who completed the 

self-management CBT no longer met criteria for PTSD as opposed to 1/4 of the comparison group. Ongoing research is seeking to develop further web-based interventions for active duty soldiers, veterans, and their families. 

Question. What do you think is the number one issue affecting veterans’ access 

to mental health care through VA? 

This question is outside the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Mental 

Health. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(723) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF OUTSIDE WITNESSES 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. I want to thank all of the witnesses for 

being here. The purpose of this afternoon’s hearing is to hear from 

outside witnesses’ and organizations’ views about matters related 

to this subcommittee. 

We welcome all of you here. I think there are something like five 

to eight different appropriations subcommittee hearings going on at 

the same time, but with the key staff that you have here, you have 

people here who can make a difference, so I thank all of you for 

being here and seeing that your views are put on the record. 

And the witnesses in past years have very much had an impact 

on our markup. So, again, thank you for being here. 

What we are going to do is we are probably going to move pretty 

quickly and won’t be many questions. I want to respect everybody’s 

right to have their views heard. We may have follow-up questions 

in writing. 

Let me begin. Is Sergeant McCauslin here? 

Mr. MCCAUSLIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sergeant, good to see you, sir. Would you please 

come? Good to meet you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. 

Sergeant John ‘‘Doc’’ McCauslin is representing the Air Force 

Sergeants Association. I am not going to do long bios. We can include those for the record. But you were elected as association 

international president in August of 2005 and became, I understand, Chief Executive Officer in 2009. 

Mr. MCCAUSLIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much for your service to our country. We will submit your full, and most of you have been through 

this many times before, but we will submit your full written testimony for the record. We would like to ask each person to keep their 

remarks to 5 minutes, if you could. Thank you very much. 

Sergeant. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

JOHN ‘‘DOC’’ McCAUSLIN 

STATEMENT OF CM SGT (RET.) USAF JOHN R. ‘‘DOC’’ MCCAUSLIN

Mr. MCCAUSLIN. All right. Mr. Chairman and committee members, on behalf of the 120,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
724 

Association, I thank you for this opportunity to present our views 

on what we believe should be the priorities for the fiscal year 2011 

for the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee of 

the House Appropriations Committee. 

We are very grateful that Congress understands its solemn duty 

and has increased the administration’s program budget in each of 

the past few years to fulfill that commitment. We believe more still 

needs to be done. 

In this statement, I will cover six areas briefly. They are: adequate infrastructure funding; housing privatization; CDCs; fitness 

centers; housing assistance program; state veterans homes; and 

V.A. health care for our women veterans. I will identify specific 

areas we hope this committee will pursue during fiscal year 2011. 

The content of this statement reflects the views of all of our 

members. Military construction, adequate infrastructure funding 

impacts readiness. We devote significant resources to training and 

equipping America’s sons and daughters, a long-term investment. 

And that same level of commitment should be reflected in the facilities where they work, live and recreate. 

Congress did approve in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bill $23.3 billion for military construction and family housing, which 

will fund many projects for the active duty, Guard and Reserve, 

and military families. These funds will be used to upgrade dormitories and childcare centers, provide readiness centers and the 

facilities for our servicemembers’ work. 

Number two, housing privatization. We urge Congress to keep a 

keen oversight on the privatization of military housing. Areas of 

concern to me include maintenance and upkeep of the military occupied housing and rented housing to those who have absolutely no 

affiliation with DOD, so that they simply have the housing occupied. 

Another major concern is employing contractors with a keen interest in providing quality military housing and who are not focused on the highest financial gains any way possible. AFSA urges 

Congress to fully fund the appropriate accounts. 

Number three, child development and fitness centers. Tremendous strides have been made to improve access to quality childcare 

and fitness centers on our military installations, and we are grateful to the Department of Defense and Congress for your collective 

efforts addressing these areas of concern. The Air Force plans to 

add capacity to their childcare facilities so that every assigned military child could have a spot in an Air Force childcare facility by 

fiscal year 2012 and also provide more support for those families 

that have exceptional and very special medical and learning needs. 

Number four, Homeowners Assistance Program, commonly referred to as HAP. This program is designed to help servicemember 

homeowners who suffer financial loss on the sale of their primary 

residence when a base closure or realignment announcement 

causes the decline in the residential real estate market and they 

are not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms of conditions. 

We applaud the actions of legislators like Representative Dina 

Titus for introducing H.R. 4324, which will allow the Secretary of 

Defense some leeway in deciding the dates of eligibility for HAP. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
725 

This program may not be a big budget item, but it certainly has 

a tremendous effect on retention of our servicemembers. 

Veterans Affairs. Today, the men and women of the armed services continue a tradition of valor exemplified by past generations, 

so it is important that our country lives up to a commitment to all 

our veterans, because they are the role models for today and tomorrow’s forces. 

Fifth, continued support to state veterans homes; 140 state-run 

veterans homes serve about 33,000 former servicemembers. With 

current military activities, our nation will bear the burden of a 

generation of servicemembers who have been inflicted with severe 

disabilities and will need a health care environment in which to 

live. 

Unfortunately, the recently released State Home Construction Grant Program Priority List indicates a backlog of $946 million for 

all projects. Consequently, the $250 million we received this past 

fiscal year through appropriated and stimulus funds is grossly inadequate. AFSA urges enactment of H.R. 4241 to properly take 

care of these 33,000 veterans that reside in veterans homes. 

Finally, as the care for women veterans increases, the unique 

health care challenges faced by women veterans must be met with 

a sense of higher urgency from Congress. Currently, women make 

up more than 19 percent of the active-duty Air Force, and another 

21 percent are Guard and Reserve, many of which have already returned from service in Iraq and Iran. They also suffer from the 

same effects of battle, such as PTSD, TBI, and wounded warrior 

issues that come with wearing the uniform. 

As the number of women veterans increases, the V.A. must be 

funded to increasingly provide those required services. We realize 

you possess incredible responsibilities as a caretaker of our taxpayers’ money, and you must budget wisely facing difficult decisions on many factors. Choosing what can and cannot be addressed 

is extremely difficult. Putting hundreds of thousands of Americans 

in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking care of them and their families 

when they return from the combat zone is certainly not a pay-asyou-go situation. 

In closing, AFSA also firmly believes while much attention is 

given to the combat capability of technologically advanced systems, 

the most valuable weapon America still has is those that serve, especially those wearing the chevrons of enlisted grade. 

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased by the hard work of your committee and its commitment to America’s veterans past and present. 

On behalf of all the Air Force Sergeants Association members 

worldwide, we appreciate your efforts and, as always, we stand 

ready to support you in matters of mutual concern. 

[Prepared statement of CMSGT (Ret.) USAF John R. ‘‘Doc’’ 

McCauslin follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
726 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1360 56870C.001
727 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1361 56870C.002
728 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1362 56870C.003
729 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1363 56870C.004
730 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1364 56870C.005
731 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1365 56870C.006
732 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1366 56870C.007
733 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1367 56870C.008
734 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1368 56870C.009
735 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sergeant McCauslin, thank you. And let me thank 

you and, in doing so, thank others for speaking out for these quality-of-life programs for our servicemen and women and our veterans. 

I know how important weapons programs are, but there is never 

a shortage of lobbyists fighting for new aircraft carriers or Joint 

Strike Fighters, other important programs. There aren’t thousands 

of lobbyists running around fighting for better daycare centers and 

veterans homes and for better health care and education and housing for our troops, and thank you for being that voice. Very great 

start for this hearing. Thank you, sir. 

Now I could call Mr. Charles Connor, who is the president and 

Chief Executive Officer of the American Lung Association. Mr. 

Conner, thank you for being here today. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. We met last in Waco 

when I was in the service of Secretary Dalton some years ago. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, a good friend. Thank you for that service of 

yours. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

CHARLES D. CONNOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. CONNOR, CAPT. USN-RET. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Captain Charles Connor. I am a retired Navy captain and president and CEO of the American Lung 

Association. And I am here to testify in support of the Veterans Research Program. 

The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 to fight tuberculosis, and today our mission is to save lives by improving lung 

health and preventing lung disease. First, I would like to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, for increasing the investment in medical research at the V.A. to $581 million for the current fiscal year. This investment will certainly save lives. 

Chronic disease, as you know, including lung disease, is now 

among the most prevalent diseases in the V.A. health care system. 

And we believe now is the time to increase funding for research at 

the V.A. to meet emerging needs and the existing disease burden. 

So for that reason, the American Lung Association today recommends and supports increasing V.A. medical and prosthetics research to $700 million for the next fiscal year. 

I would like to touch briefly on three areas today in the next few 

minutes. Number one is combating tobacco use. Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States 

and, not surprisingly, is a significant public health problem for the 

V.A., as well. 

Over 70 percent of V.A. enrollees have reported that they have 

smoked at one time in their lives, and currently, almost 20 percent 

of this population smoke. This committee and the V.A. have done 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
736 

many commendable things to increase smoking cessation, but much 

work remains. 

COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, now ranks as 

the fourth-most-common reason for hospitalization in the V.A. patient population. An estimated 16 percent of veterans in the V.A. 

health care system have been diagnosed with this disease. 

We believe the best way to prevent COPD and many diseases the 

V.A. health care system manages is to quit smoking or to not 

smoke in the first place. 

The solution for reducing tobacco-related diseases rests, of 

course, within the DOD. But V.A. will bear the primary burden. 

The current smoking rates for ex-duty military is roughly 30 percent, with smoking rates highest among enlisted personnel ages 18 

to 25, and they are especially high among Marines and soldiers, 

pushing 40 percent. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that more than 50 

percent of all active-duty personnel stationed in Iraq smoke. This 

past summer, the Institute of Medicine issued a report entitled 

‘‘Combating Tobacco Use in Military and Veterans Populations.’’ 

The report, which was requested by both departments, issued a series of recommendations for the DOD, the V.A. and the Congress. 

And I would like to present a copy of this report here for your examination at your leisure. 

The American Lung Association recommends that the Department of Veterans Affairs implement all recommendations called for 

in that report and that Congress act now to repeal the unfortunate 

provision of the 1992 Veterans Health Care Act that prevents V.A. 

health care facilities from making their campuses smoke-free and 

tobacco-free. 

Mr. Chairman, the American Lung Association cares deeply 

about this issue and is committed to reducing tobacco use in the 

military. I personally met with senior enlisted advisers in the Army 

and the Navy as well as senior staff in DOD’s Health Affairs Office 

and the House Armed Services Committee. We would welcome the 

opportunity to work much more closely with this committee to reduce the terrible burden to the V.A. by tobacco use. 

Second item. The American Lung Association is extremely troubled by reports of soldiers who were exposed to burn pits, open 

burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are now returning home 

with lung illnesses including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and sleep 

apnea. Given what we know about the health effects of burning 

refuse, the American Lung Association recommends that DOD 

begin immediately to find alternatives to this method of waste disposal. We also recommend that V.A. monitor the short-and longterm consequences of exposure to these burn pits. Finally, we urge 

V.A. move immediately to establish a national registry to track all 

personnel who are exposed to burn pits while in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we understand the V.A. research infrastructure is in need of significant attention. We join our partner organizations and request that Congress provide $300 million in fiscal year 2011 to be dedicated exclusively to renovating existing research facilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
737 

And lastly, we ask the committee to fund the V.A. medical and prosthetics research at $700 million, because our veterans deserve 

such cutting-edge health care. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Charles D. Connor (Capt. USN-Ret.) follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
738 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1375 56870C.010
739 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1376 56870C.011
740 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1377 56870C.012
741 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1378 56870C.013
742 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1379 56870C.014
743 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1380 56870C.015
744 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1381 56870C.016
745 

Mr. EDWARDS. President Connor, thank you. And I am proud 

that when I became chairman on a bipartisan basis, this subcommittee has worked to increase it the VA research budget, as 

you recognize, and we are going to continue to push that. 

One quick question. Is there a conventional wisdom that certain 

approaches to smoking cessation are more effective than others? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In short, we believe that a program with some medical attention works best. It takes several 

times to quit. It is pretty rare to quit on the first attempt. Sometimes 5 or 10 times is the norm. But they do work, I think, instead 

of just going cold turkey, with a program, with some medical attention and possibly some medication, is the best way to do it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. There is no doubt in my mind that we will 

never be able to afford all of our future health care costs in the 

V.A., DOD, or in the society in general if we do not do more on preventive care, and—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Two years ago, the former head of CDC said if she 

could pick one thing that would overnight improve health care is 

getting people off tobacco. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Now I would like to call forward Mr. John Davis 

with the Fleet Reserve Association. He is also co-chairman of the 

Military Coalition’s Retired Affairs Policy Committee and served in 

the United States Marine Corps. 

And your son is presently deployed in Afghanistan? 

Mr. DAVIS. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, please let him know how deeply grateful we 

are for his service, as well as yours. Thank you. I would like to recognize you now for your comments. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

JOHN DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

My name is John Davis. I am the director of legislative programs 

for the Fleet Reserve Association. And we appreciate having the opportunity to come before the subcommittee. 

The continuing concern for FRA is ensuring that wounded troops, 

their families, and survivors of those killed in action are cared for 

by a grateful nation. This includes adequate funding of the V.A. 

programs to ensure prompt adjudication of disability claims, quality health care, support, benefits, medical and prosthetic research, 

and a smooth, seamless transition for vets transitioning from DOD 

to the V.A. for care. 

In recent years, there has been substantial progress in funding 

these critical V.A. programs, and FRA appreciates the strong support from this distinguished subcommittee in providing these hisVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00745 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
746 

toric increases in V.A. funding and implementing advanced funding 

for the V.A. health care accounts. 

Despite increased funding for additional staff, the V.A. disability 

claims system is still being overwhelmed, and more needs to be 

done. Nearly 200,000 disability claims have been pending for more 

than 125 days currently. These claims represent more than 38 percent of the pending claims. 

FRA advocates that the V.A. must harness updated technology 

and interoperability of electronic health records to reduce the waiting time for prompt adjudication of disability claims and appreciates the $460 million increase—that is a 27 percent increase— 

over the fiscal year 2010 Veterans Benefits Administration budget. 

This funding increase demonstrates a commitment by this administration to reduce this claims backlog. 

The association supports access to V.A. health care for all veterans—that includes Priority Group 8 beneficiaries—and for a continued strong opposition to establishing an enrollment fee for veterans in Priority Group 7 and 8 in the V.A. health care system. 

Past proposals include fees based on annual family income, along 

with the increase in pharmacy co-pays. There are approximately 

1.3 million veterans in these groups, and FRA supports adequate 

appropriations to prevent shifting costs to them for care they have 

earned in the service of our nation. 

Although not under the oversight of this subcommittee, FRA continues its strong opposition to TRICARE fee increases for the military retirees and believes that there are other cost-saving options 

which must be implemented prior to adjusting fees for younger retirees. 

The association salutes you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership 

on this issue and strongly supports the Military Retirees’ Health 

Care Protection Act, H.R. 816. 

FRA is concerned about the implementation of the Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill and appreciates the additional staff and additional funding in 

the budget, including the $44 million for a computer system to deliver benefits on a more timely basis, we hope. 

The V.A. research should focus on approving treatments for conditions that are unique to veterans. Medical and prosthetic research is one of the most successful aspects of all V.A. programs. 

That is why FRA is concerned about the current medical research 

budget. The association, however, does appreciate and supports the 

8 percent increase—that is $148 million—in prosthetic research for 

2011. 

FRA is concerned about the administration’s 2011 military construction budget being reduced. Childcare facilities, workspaces, 

and associated structures, barracks, are top concerns for enlisted 

personnel. FRA appreciates that the fiscal year 2011 Navy budget 

includes improved bachelor headquarters, including the sustained 

funding of the Homeport Ashore initiatives. 

And FRA welcomes the Marine Corps hiring an additional 400 

full-time family readiness officers on the battalion level per the 

provisions in the 2011 budget. Currently, the Marines are meeting 

64 percent of potential daycare needs of their service and need 

3,000 additional spaces to reach the DOD standard of 80 percent. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
747 

The Marines plan to increase childcare spaces by 2,615 over the 

next 18 to 24 months. The Navy added more than 7,000 childcare 

spaces in its current fiscal year and plans to reach the 80 percent 

childcare goal by the end of fiscal year 2011. 

It is often said that individuals enlist, but it is the family that 

re-enlists. These childcare programs are highly valued benefits for 

military families and will be a critical element in retaining adequate retention numbers after the economic slowdown dissipates. 

FRA wants to express its gratitude to this subcommittee for extending an invitation to the senior enlisted leaders of the Navy, 

Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force to discuss the enlisted community’s quality of life issues. 

FRA appreciates support from the appropriators for funding to 

rebuild the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Mississippi. Construction is progressing on the new facility, and FRA 

members who are residents at the home and were forced to relocate 

after the hurricane, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, are eager to go 

home. This new facility is rescheduled to open October of this year 

and is scheduled to have an opening ceremony in November of 

2010. FRA thanks this subcommittee for its support in this important project. 

We appreciate all that you and the members of this subcommittee have done for our troops and our veterans and your outstanding effort to support our magnificent servicemembers. Thanks 

again for the opportunity to present the association’s recommendation for your consideration. 

[Prepared statement of John R. Davis follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
748 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1390 here 56870C.017
749 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1391 here 56870C.018
750 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1392 here 56870C.019
751 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1393 here 56870C.020
752 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1394 here 56870C.021
753 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1395 here 56870C.022
754 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1396 here 56870C.023
755 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1397 here 56870C.024
756 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1398 here 56870C.025
757 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Davis, thank you very much, and especially, 

in addition to everything else, your focus on childcare facilities. It 

was the senior enlisted leaders that 2 years in a row, when I asked 

them what their number-one quality-of-life issue or concern was, 

outside of pay and time away from family, and it was childcare, 

and that is one of the reasons this subcommittee initiated going 

from the DOD budgets a few years ago of $20 million a year to adding $200 million or $300 million over a period of a year or two, and 

want to keep pushing that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great, thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for speaking out on their behalf. 

Okay. I would like to now call forward Dr. Dona Upson. She is 

testifying on behalf of the Friends of V.A. Medical Care and Health 

Research, a coalition of over 80 veterans service organizations. 

Dr. Upson, thank you for being here. 

Dr. UPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please proceed. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH 

RESEARCH (FOVA) 

WITNESS 

DONA UPSON, MD 

STATEMENT OF DONA UPSON, MD 

Dr. UPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, my name is Dona Upson. I am a physician with the 

Raymond G. Murphy V.A. in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And I am 

testifying on behalf of FOVA, the Friends of V.A. Health Care and 

Medical Research, a coalition of over 80 veterans’ service, voluntary 

health, and medical professional organizations that support funding for veterans’ health programs. 

We are especially committed to ensuring a strong V.A. medical and research program and recommend $1 billion for fiscal year 

2011, $700 million for the V.A. medical and research program, and 

an additional $300 million for the V.A. lab space renovation. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that the V.A. research program is committed to the health of our nation’s veterans. For over 

60 years, the V.A. has been improving veterans’ lives through innovation and discoveries that have led to advances in health care for 

all Americans. 

The V.A. hosts three Nobel laureates, six Lasker Award recipients, and produces an increasing number of scientific papers published in the most highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

I am currently interviewing candidates to fill position openings 

in New Mexico. And I cannot tell you how important the V.A. research program is in attracting physicians to consider working with 

us. 

Our request is structured differently than in previous years. Instead of requesting funding for the V.A. research program and sepVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00757 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
758 

arately requesting funds for upgrading V.A. lab spaces in the minor 

construction budget, we are combining the recommendations to 

highlight the need to view the research—infrastructure as a complete entity. 

We appreciate the prior generosity of this committee and its Senate counterpart in providing additional funds for V.A. research. 

They are being well used. Unfortunately, the resources available to 

maintain the V.A. lab infrastructure are woefully insufficient and 

threaten the V.A.’s ability to conduct state-of-the-art research. 

State-of-the-art requires state-of-the-art technology, equipment 

and facilities, in addition to highly qualified and committed scientists. Modern research cannot be conducted in facilities that 

more closely resemble high school labs than university spaces. 

In recent years, funding for the V.A. minor construction program 

has failed to provide the resources necessary to maintain, upgrade 

and replace aging research facilities. In addition to impeding medical discovery, poor research infrastructure undermines recruitment 

and retention of clinical investigators who would normally be 

drawn to the V.A. for its unique research opportunities. 

This issue has been brought to the subcommittee’s attention before, and House Report 109–95, the Appropriations Committee expressed concern that ‘‘equipment and facilities to support the research program may be lacking and that some mechanism is necessary to ensure the department’s research facilities remain competitive.’’ 

V.A. is conducting an internal audit to gauge the infrastructure 

needs of the medical and prosthetics research program. To date, 53 

sites have been surveyed. Approximately 20 remain to be assessed. 

V.A. estimates the combined total cost of improvements exceeds 

$570 million, about 44 percent of which constitute priority one deficiencies, those with an immediate need of correction to return components to normal service or operation, stop accelerated deterioration, replace items that are at or beyond their useful life, and correct safety hazards. 

Unless funds are provided to address the infrastructure deficiencies, V.A. research will not be able to answer the pressing 

health questions following veterans. FOVA recommends Congress 

provide at least $300 million for V.A. laboratory renovations in the 

fiscal year 2011 V.A. minor construction budget. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support. FOVA respectfully requests $1 billion for V.A. research, including $700 million 

for the V.A. research program and an additional $300 million for 

V.A. laboratory infrastructure. 

[Prepared statement of Dona Upson, MD follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
759 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1405 here 56870C.026
760 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1406 here 56870C.027
761 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1407 here 56870C.028
762 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1408 here 56870C.029
763 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Upson. Let me ask you quickly, 

we have provided some enormous increases in V.A. minor construction budgets, but unless I am mistaken, we do not line item X dollars for V.A. research minor construction, do we? So that the lab 

improvements money must just come out of the larger piece of the 

pie dealing with minor construction. Is that correct? Or are you 

getting the line item for research labs? 

Dr. UPSON. I do not know the answer to that, but I can find out 

for you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I do not think we go down to that level, but 

I appreciate your mentioning that, because I can see an inherent 

bias in the system. You have got research dollars over here, and 

you have got minor construction over here, and the minor construction is probably going for the day-to-day medical services, so it is 

easy to put off that research lab improvement. So we will take a 

look at that. 

Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. 

Dr. UPSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Appreciate that very much. 

Are researchers able to get computers? Because of the fact we 

had I.T. folks outside of the medical system, you would have a new 

researcher, but, you know, couldn’t get a $1,500 laptop. Is that a 

serious problem? 

Dr. UPSON. I think there are some security issues with laptops, 

so I think they are fairly closely regulated. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. But at least being able to get— 

when a new researcher comes onboard, they are not having to sit 

in an office for 6 months or a year without the laptop or desktop. 

Is that—— 

Dr. UPSON. That is correct. They get a computer right away. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you, Dr. Upson. 

I would like to now call Dr. Steven Breckler with the American 

Psychological Association. Dr. Breckler. Thank you. Yes, I just 

skipped right over you. We will give you an extra minute for that. 

Mr. BRECKLER. Good deal. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for being here. Please proceed. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

STEVEN J. BRECKLER, PH.D. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. BRECKLER

Mr. BRECKLER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Steve Breckler. I am executive director for science at the 

American Psychological Association. APA is a scientific and professional organization of more than 142,000 psychologists and affiliates around the world. 

Many of these psychologists work within the Department of Veterans Affairs as research scientists and as clinicians. And they are 

all committed to improving the lives of our nation’s veterans. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
764 

On behalf of APA, let me thank you for your continued support 

of the V.A. medical and prosthetic research program. APA joins 

with our friends from the Friends of the V.A. Medical Care and 

Health Research coalition, FOVA, you just heard from, in urging 

Congress to appropriate $700 million in fiscal year 2011 for V.A. 

Medical and Prosthetic Research. This represents an increase of 

$120 million over current funding. And, in addition, we joined with 

FOVA in suggesting a $300 million dedicated specifically for research facilities upgrades, which is not budgeted as a separated 

line item in the facilities budget. 

A strong V.A. psychological research program provides the scientific foundation for high-quality care throughout the V.A. system. 

Through its Medical and Prosthetic Research Account, the V.A. 

funds intramural research that supports its clinical mission to care 

for veterans. 

V.A. psychologists play a dual role in providing for veterans and 

in conducting research in all areas of health, including high-priority areas that are especially relevant to veterans, such as mental 

health, traumatic brain injury, or TBI, substance abuse, aging-related disorders, and physical and psychosocial rehabilitation. 

V.A. psychologists are leaders in providing effective diagnosis 

and treatment for all mental health, substance use, behavioral 

health issues. In addition, V.A. psychologists often receive specialty 

training in rehabilitation psychology and neuropsychology, which 

helps improve assessment, treatment and research on the many 

conditions that affect veterans of the current conflicts. This includes post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, burns, amputation, 

blindness, spinal cord injuries, and polytrauma. 

Equally important are the profoundly positive impacts of psychological interventions on the care of veterans suffering from chronic 

illnesses, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV, chronic pain. 

PTSD is a particular concern throughout the V.A. and in Congress. V.A. psychologists continue to be at the forefront of cuttingedge research, assessment and treatment of PTSD. The care of veterans suffering psychological wounds as a result of military service 

is really at the heart of the V.A.’s mandate, which is ‘‘to care for 

him who shall have borne the battle.’’ 

With the current conflicts overseas, preventing and treating 

PTSD has become an even more important priority for the V.A. 

V.A. psychologists are responsible for the development of the most 

widely respected and used diagnostic instruments and therapeutic 

techniques for assessing and treating PTSD. 

The current conflicts present new challenges for V.A. psychologists, as many veterans with PTSD also have post-concussive 

symptoms stemming from blast injuries. Additional research is 

needed to develop better treatments for PTSD in cases when cognitive problems also may stem from a history of documented TBI. 

V.A. psychologists also have used their expertise in program development and evaluation to successfully improve the V.A.’s coordinated service approach. This includes models and practices of care 

that encompass inpatient, partial hospitalization, and outpatient 

services, including psychosocial rehabilitation programs, geriatric 

services in the community, and homelessness programs, as highlighted by the V.A. secretary’s new emphasis. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
765 

V.A. psychologists have initiated and evaluated innovative programs, such as telemental health services, that dramatically expand the V.A.’s continuum of care for veterans. 

And my final point is that cutting-edge research also requires 

cutting-edge technologies, equipment, and facilities both to recruit 

stellar scientists into the V.A. and to provide them the basic space 

and tools needed to conduct 21st-century science. 

FOVA, as you heard, anticipates that V.A.’s ongoing research facilities assessment will identify a need for research infrastructure 

funding between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. The V.A. has simply 

failed to provide the resources needed to adequately maintain, upgrade and replace aging research facilities. 

As a member of FOVA, APA joins them in urging Congress to make essentially a down payment in fiscal year 2011 of $300 million dedicated exclusively to renovating those existing research facilities. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

[Prepared statement of Steven J. Breckler follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
766 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1416 here 56870C.030
767 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1417 here 56870C.031
768 

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Breckler, thank you very much. Let me just 

say that we had a separate hearing focused specifically on V.A. 

mental health care challenges, some issues this morning, and this 

subcommittee is continue to push, as we have for the last several 

years, if you look at the funding level, the mental health care funding for the V.A. 

My one question to you would be, does the V.A. pay competitive 

wages and salaries for psychologists coming out of our colleges 

these days? 

Mr. BRECKLER. I think the V.A. is seen as an attractive employer 

for psychologists. The issue for us really is the support that they 

are provided once they are hired, and the other related issue is getting the good—trained psychologists to work in this specific context. It is a specialty niche, and there is special training that has 

to accompany it, and training is really essential. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Their salaries are at least comparably competitive, close enough to the private sector to attract those who would 

like to serve in the V.A—— 

Mr. BRECKLER. You know, before I answer definitively, let me get 

back to you on that. My understanding, though, is that it is a competitive employment environment. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be great. Thank you very much, and 

thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. BRECKLER. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Now we have James R. Walker with the American 

Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Mr. Walker is the president of 

the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. The association 

represents over 40,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists. 

Mr. Walker, thank you for being here. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And please proceed. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS 

WITNESS 

JAMES R. WALKER, CRNA, DNP, PRESIDENT 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Walker from 

Pearland, Texas, and as president of the American Association of 

Nurse Anesthetists, I am honored to testify on behalf of our more 

than 40,000 members, including 500-plus certified registered nurse 

anesthetists, or CRNAs, practicing in the V.A. health system today. 

Many of these members are also members of the Association of Veterans Affairs Nurse Anesthetists, or AVANA. 

I would like to focus my remarks on strengthening the V.A.’s anesthesia workforce in promoting patient safety so that our veterans 

today and tomorrow have access to the safe anesthesia care that 

they deserve and have earned. 

Thanks to advances in health care, veterans of current and recent conflicts survive wounds that would have been fatal in past. 

In the V.A., just as in the military, when these heroes need surVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00768 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
769 

gery, they will likely have anesthesia delivered by CRNAs. In 1 of 

8 V.A. health facilities, CRNAs are the sole anesthesia providers. 

Such full-service CRNA care is safe and cost-effective for our veterans. Indeed, studies have shown care provided by CRNAs to be 

as safe as care provided by physician anesthesiologists. 

Clearly, a strong CRNA workforce in the V.A. is important to ensuring that our veterans get the care that they need. Unfortunately, the average V.A. CRNA is 7 years closer to retirement than 

the national average is. 

We believe some 30 V.A. hospitals have CRNA vacancies, and 

about 150 of the V.A. CRNA positions are currently being filled 

with contract personnel. What can we do to solve this problem, is 

the question. 

The nurse anesthesia profession has been working hard to 

produce the CRNAs needed to meet the growing demand for anesthesia services, over 2,200 graduates this past year, a 66 percent 

increase over 2003 numbers. 

An initiative that can help the V.A. close the gap is the joint Department of Defense-V.A. program in nurse anesthesia of Fort Sam 

Houston, Texas. This school educates V.A. RNs to become V.A. 

CRNAs, and it certifies graduates—and its graduates then serve a 

3-year obligation to the V.A. 

This partnership works, but it needs the help from Congress, 

since V.A. budgets are short of what is needed to expand this partnership. A major issue is that today’s V.A. cannot effectively compete for CRNA graduates. 

A December 2007 study issued by the Government Accountability 

Office found that the V.A. has trouble recruiting and retaining 

CRNAs because by our measures V.A.’s CRNA compensation is 

nearly 25 percent below the private market. 

Local V.A. health facilities have three choices: to increase locality 

pay, contract out for anesthesia, or reduce surgical services. Congress also has choices. We believe the most cost-effective ways for 

the V.A. to secure anesthesia services are to support the joint 

DOD–V.A. CRNA program and adequately fund its CRNA workforce. 

Legislation recently adopted by the Senate, bill 1963 and the 

companion bill, H.R. 919, awaiting House consideration, would enable the V.A. to compensate CRNAs at rates that are sufficient to 

recruit and retain them. 

From the standpoint of patient care, we remain concerned that 

the V.A. issued a policy in March 2007 against our recommendation that introduced anesthesiologist assistants, or AAs, into the 

V.A. health system. This policy does not require that AAs graduate 

from an accredited institution or take or pass their national certifying exam or be supervised by anesthesiologists in a specific, defined manner. It gives AAs inappropriately wide latitude to provide 

anesthesia care to our veterans without adequate oversight. 

As for practice efficiency, AAs cannot be on call, unlike CRNAs 

and anesthesiologists, to provide our veterans full access to anesthesia services. Thus, this V.A. policy is the wrong policy for our 

veterans, and it deserves this committee’s attention. 

In this environment, following the difficulties at Marion, Illinois, 

it seems contrary to V.A. directives and the will of Congress to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
770 

have anesthesia providers who are unlicensed and uncredentialed 

in the V.A. system. 

Our interest in patient safety has also led us to our significant 

and important role in the Safe Injection Practices Coalition. In the 

interest of our veterans, we believe more must be done to ensure 

safe practice standards are understood and met within all the V.A. 

health system. We request that the subcommittee provide $3 million to the V.A. to collaborate with the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention to help develop and assess systems for complete 

and consistent adherence to injection safety and infection control 

guidelines across the V.A. health system and throughout the spectrum of care. 

On behalf of the veterans for whom we provide care, we appreciate your support for funding the joint DOD–V.A. CRNA educational program, for competitive compensation to recruit and retain the CRNA workforce that the V.A. needs, and for ensuring the 

safety of our veterans anesthesia care. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of James R. Walker follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
771 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1425 here 56870C.032
772 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1426 here 56870C.033
773 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1427 here 56870C.034
774 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1428 here 56870C.035
775 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1429 here 56870C.036
776 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1430 here 56870C.037
777 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1431 here 56870C.038
778 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Walker, thank you very much. 

Let me ask about the rule change on the AAs, was that done to 

implement a new congressional law? Or was that done by the V.A. 

unilaterally? 

Mr. WALKER. It was in the V.A. policy handbook. I am not sure 

the exact origin of that, but I can get you more information about 

that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I think what we will do is stay in recess just for one moment. 

I am going to go vote. We have three votes pending, but if I cast 

this first vote, then I know how long I have before I have to worry 

about the second and third votes. And I will be right back. We will 

stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to call the subcommittee back to 

order. And it is a privilege to recognize Mr. Rick Jones, no stranger 

to this subcommittee. Rick, good to have you back. 

Mr. Jones represents the National Association for Uniformed 

Services, where he has been the legislative director since 2005, and 

before that served for 5 years as the National Legislative Director 

for AMVETS and served as a medical specialist during the Vietnam War. 

Thank you again for being here, and I would like to recognize 

you for your testimony. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES 

WITNESS 

RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF RICK JONES

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

The National Association for Uniformed Services is really encouraged by the administration’s overall budget recommendation for 

the new year. It builds on the strides that you and your colleagues 

have made over the recent past years in assisting V.A. with the 

funding it needs. 

We are also generally pleased with the president’s fiscal year 

budget request. It is a good piece of work for veterans. 

We are also pleased to endorse with 62 other veterans organiza- tions the Independent Budget. We recommend a total of $52 billion 

for medical care, which is an increase of $4.5 billion over fiscal year 

2010. The Veterans Health Administration is a world-class leader 

in advanced care of medicine and in the provision of primary care. 

We are pleased to see advancements in lifting the ban on access 

to V.A. health care for certain veterans classified as Priority 8 veterans, but more should be done. 

We strongly recommend restoring Priority 8 access for enrollment to those veterans who can identify private or public health 

insurance. I am not sure yesterday’s vote, how that might change, 

but that—we do recommend that Priority 8 veterans have an opportunity to access the system put in place for them. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
779 

The veterans health care system is an irreplaceable national 

treasure. It is critical to the nation and its veterans. Our citizens 

as a whole have benefited from the advances made in medical care 

through V.A. research and through innovations. 

Despite V.A.’s best efforts, however, there are problems with the 

delivery of benefits to entitled veterans. The disability claims backlog facing Veterans Benefits Administration continues to increase. 

V.A. is falling further behind. 

The claims workload has continually grown. It grew from 

670,000 in—excuse me, at the turn of the century, 2001, to over 1 

million last year in backlogs. A recent report from V.A.’s inspector 

general, which reviewed a 12-month period of claims, found that 22 

percent of all decisions were inaccurate or incomplete. Now, that is 

the fault of V.A. 

With a high percentage of inaccurate decisions, it is not hard to 

see why the system is so overwhelmed, but although the problem 

is deeply troubling—and it is—it can be corrected, and we call on 

lawmakers to make the VBA a priority within the national budget. 

Regarding seamless transition, the provision of seamless transition for recently discharged military, is critically important. No veteran leaving military service should fall through the cracks because 

of a bureaucratic mistake in handling a medical record. We urge 

the subcommittee to hold the department, DOD, and V.A. to a 

strict line in pursuit of a joint lifetime electronic health record. We 

know we have made progress, but there is still more to be done. 

On medical and prosthetic research, the National Association for Uniformed Services recommends $590 million, a $82 million increase above current-year spending of $508 million. Clearly, care 

for our troops with limb loss and special needs is a matter of national concern. 

The National Association also encourages the subcommittee to 

ensure that funding for V.A.’s medical and prosthetic research supports the full program’s full range of programs that we need to care 

for those returning troops. 

Regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, we support V.A. continued improvement in care of troops demonstrating symptoms of 

mental health and treatment for PTSD. The need for treatment is 

immediate, yet too many servicemembers are discharged from service undiagnosed, and they continue to suffer from disability symptoms, disabling symptoms. 

Well, we are encouraged to see reliable advancement in cases 

under treatment known as hypobaric oxygen therapy at an atmosphere of 1.5 atmospheres. We recommend the subcommittee give 

this HBOT 1.5 therapy its close attention and provide the necessary resources for clinical trials of HBOT 1.5 to complete a more 

formal treatment for regeneration of brain tissue biologically, instead of simply treating the symptoms with drugs. 

We are pleased to note the subcommittee’s continued interest in 

providing funds for the armed forces retirement home. We thank 

the subcommittee for the provision of funds to take the armed 

forces home in Gulfport to near completion. We expect that in June 

of this year. 

We also applaud your recognition of Washington’s armed forces 

retirement home as a historic national treasure, and we look forVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00779 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
780 

ward to working with you to ensure that we continue to provide 

those in residence there a quality of life support and the medical 

care that they need. 

Again, sir, as a staunch advocate for veterans and military retirees, the National Association for Uniformed Services recognizes, as 

you do and as demonstrated over the years, that these brave men 

and women did not fail us in service. And we must not fail them 

as we look to their benefits. 

Again, sir, I thank you so very much for the time you have given 

to hear our presentation. 

[Prepared statement of Rick Jones follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
781 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1438 here 56870C.039
782 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1439 here 56870C.040
783 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1440 here 56870C.041
784 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1441 here 56870C.042
785 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1442 here 56870C.043
786 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1443 here 56870C.044
787 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1444 here 56870C.045
788 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1445 here 56870C.046
789 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1446 here 56870C.047
790 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1447 here 56870C.048
791 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1448 here 56870C.049
792 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1449 here 56870C.050
793 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Jones, thank you. And you have been a 

staunch and effective advocate for our veterans. And we thank you 

for that. 

On claims backlog, let me say, I am glad we started 3 years ago 

plussing up the number of people we could hire for claims processing. And last count was we would provide enough funding in 3 

years for and additional 8,300 claims processors, but even with 

that, as you pointed out, we are actually falling a little farther behind with Agent Orange decision, and I am glad we have that. We 

are going to fall even further behind before we get these people 

fully trained. 

I hope the technology issue is one that you will follow and help 

us work with the V.A. on, because I am convinced, unless we get 

rid of these massive paper files, we continue to hire people and we 

will never fully be as efficient as we should be in that process. 

Mr. JONES. May I add something, sir? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, you may. 

Mr. JONES. We have heard anecdotally that many of these folks 

who are trained at V.A. are often co-opted by some of the other 

agencies of government because of the skills that they have learned 

in the training. And the reason that we hear is that perhaps these 

folks are paid less than those who are paid for similar jobs in other 

agencies. 

We would encourage your review of that. I heard you speak earlier about psychiatry and the payments of those folks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will ask about that—mention that to me directly. 

If you get any information yourself, let us know, and we will ask 

questions, as well. It would be great to have the V.A. train them 

and then have other agencies—penalize the other agencies or 

charge them for that training, that we desperately need them. Veterans should not have to wait as long as they are having to 

wait—— 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. In the cases I have heard. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. What is the cutoff for the Priority 8? 

Mr. JONES. Priority 8 is based on a poverty level, which is based 

on the census data, which is different in every region of the country, but it runs somewhere between $24,000 and $38,000. But I am 

not exactly sure what the cutoff is. I just know that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. You can have, in my district, you 

have one rural county next to another rural county, and in the one 

county, pretty much the same cost of living. One county, it is 

$30,000. The other it is $33,000 is the cutoff. It is an interesting 

system. 

Mr. FARR. I agree with you. I think perhaps the health care bill 

is going to help us a lot with this, but we have these veterans who 

are on the cusp. Without a doubt, V.A. is the best delivery of medical care for the price in all of the United States, particularly for 

prescription drugs, because our government can go out and bid for 

these prescription drugs, do competitive bidding, and bring the 

price down. 

I think no other federal agency can do that. It is a great example 

of how much money can be saved. But then when people go to get 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
794 

the services, even though they are entitled to it, their income cuts 

them off. And I think it is worth really looking at this as to who 

falls between the cracks and, as you said, maybe with this health 

care bill, maybe some of those will be picked up. 

Mr. JONES. There is another aspect—— 

Mr. FARR. We need to keep an eye on it. 

Mr. JONES. When the door is closed in the veteran’s face, a veteran who is looking for care from a system put in place for him, 

he sometimes walks away with a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and 

that is not good for recruitment. That is not good for a message to 

the general public, so there are other aspects, indeed. 

Mr. FARR. We are building a new joint clinic in my area between 

veterans and DOD. I am very, very aware of these cutoff issues, because we ought to have a critical mass to make the whole thing 

cost-effective. 

Mr. JONES. We know you are working to name that after General 

Gourley. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you for your help. 

Mr. JONES. And, yes, sir, thank you for designating that name. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Rick. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Take care. 

I would like to now call forward Dr. Lawrence Sanders, who is 

testifying on behalf of the Association of Minority Health Professional Schools. And Dr. Sanders is the associate dean for clinical 

affairs at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. 

Dr. Sanders, thank you for being here. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONS 

SCHOOLS, INC. 

WITNESS 

LAWRENCE SANDERS, M.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR CLINICAL AFFAIRS 

AT THE MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SANDERS

Dr. SANDERS. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and 

to the other members of the committee. 

As you said, my name is Lawrence Sanders. I serve as the associate dean for clinical affairs at Morehouse School of Medicine. 

Today I am representing Dr. Eve Higginbotham, who is the senior 

vice president and executive dean for health services at Howard 

University. She is unable to be here because of an illness of her 

mother. 

I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Association 

of Minority Health Professions Schools, AMHPS. Our schools represent historically black colleges and universities with health profession schools in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and veterinary 

medicine. 

Historically, our schools have trained at least half of all AfricanAmerican physicians and dentists, about 60 percent of all AfricanAmerican pharmacists, and more than 75 percent of all AfricanVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00794 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
795 

American veterinarians, so you see our schools have made a significant contribution. 

There is little doubt that as a country we face a shortage of 

health care professionals. As important as that shortage is increasing the diversity among health professionals. Our schools are set 

and ready to help our country resolve this problem. 

AMHPS institutions have historically not had equal access to 

large V.A. hospitals, V.A. medical centers in the same cities that 

our schools are located in. What we want to accomplish is to assure 

that our schools have equal access going forward. 

For example, Morehouse School of Medicine was unable to establish a relationship with the Atlanta V.A. Medical Center, but established a relationship with the Tuskegee V.A., now the Tuskegee 

campus of the Montgomery V.A. in Alabama. 

Even Meharry Medical College had a relationship not with the 

national V.A., but with the Murfreesboro V.A. We made—— 

Dr. SANDERS. Okay. We made significant progress. Some of this 

was related to what was perceived as a policy that allowed only one 

affiliation. We have now made progress. Morehouse School of Medicine has begun residency training at the Atlanta V.A., both inpatient and outpatient. We want to continue to move this forward. 

The V.A. represents one of the few opportunities for increasing 

residency positions today because of many of the budget constraints 

around Medicare, which funds graduate medical education. Our 

schools must take advantage of these opportunities to assure that 

we continue to meet our critical missions of preparing health professionals for research and to care for patients. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to report to you on some of the positive activities. First, I want to thank the members of your committee, Ranking Member Wamp, and subcommittee member 

Bishop, who wrote a letter last year to the V.A. secretary outlining 

the recommendations from the V.A. panel—Dr. Higginbotham 

served on that panel—specifically emphasizing the need for improved collaboration between V.A. medical centers and historically 

black colleges and universities. 

I think that has helped us quite a bit on the local level and really 

leads to some of the things that I want to share with you. At Morehouse School of Medicine, we plan to begin an internal medicine, 

graduate medical education rotation in July of this year as a result 

of the efforts that have been made through these channels. 

We have a very good rotation at the V.A. medical center in psychiatry. And interestingly, we have been able to contribute to the 

V.A. psychiatry workforce because five of our graduates from that 

program have joined the V.A. as staff psychiatrists, and I think 

that is the ultimate objective that all of us want. 

At Meharry Medical College, they have moved forward with V.A. 

outpatient clinical activity. There is a V.A. primary care clinic at 

Meharry, a community-based outpatient clinic, and they have made 

significant strides with the V.A. women’s comprehensive health 

center, which serves more than 2,500 women veterans in the national metropolitan area. 

Charles Drew University School—Charles Drew School of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles is actively talking with the V.A. 

in Los Angeles about residency positions. And Howard University 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
796 

is uniquely positioned here in Washington, D.C., and has longstanding relationships with the V.A. here in the Washington area. 

It is important that our schools—particularly Morehouse School 

of Medicine—develop these relationships, because we fall into a 

unique category of medical schools called community-based medical 

schools, which means we do not have an integrated hospital which 

is the traditional model for medical schools. 

In closing, AMHPS schools are committed to building the workforce necessary to serve the men and women who have risked their 

lives every day to protect the freedom that all of us cherish dearly. 

We believe we have the unique capacity to add to the diversity of 

the workforce, to care for this group of veterans. 

It is important that we make strides not only in medicine—medicine and residency training, but that we also make strides in surgery, surgical sub-specialties, medical sub-specialties, because these 

areas have represented significant challenges for us. 

It is important that we have faculty physicians who can be involved in the care of patients, as well as in the supervision of our 

residents. We want to continue to build full integration of the V.A. 

medical centers into our clinical training and to continue to build 

collaboration with V.A. medical centers to achieve our ends, but 

more importantly to build a diverse workforce necessary to care for 

the men and women who are returning after having served our 

country. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Lawrence Sanders follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
797 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1460 here 56870C.051
798 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1461 here 56870C.052
799 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1462 here 56870C.053
800 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1463 here 56870C.054
801 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1464 here 56870C.055
802 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1465 here 56870C.056
803 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Sanders. 

Sam. 

Mr. FARR. Just one question. What does it take to affiliate a 

school of medicine with a hospital? Do they normally just affiliate 

with one? Is there another school that is already affiliated? 

Dr. SANDERS. That is a good question. I think that in Atlanta, 

we, along with Emory University’s School of Medicine, work at the 

V.A. We have worked out and been working very diligently to develop a model of a shared service that allows both of us—Emory 

School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine—to bring our 

expertise and take full advantage of our strength in developing our 

graduate medical education program. 

Now, we have built on more than 20 years of experience with 

working together at Grady Health System in Atlanta, and we have 

taken our learnings from there to make this process much more efficient at the V.A. 

Mr. FARR. Do the hospitals not want to affiliate with more than 

one medical school? Or what is the block there? It sounds like you 

are saying that you want us to push for veterans hospitals to add 

to whatever affiliation they have now. 

Dr. SANDERS. Let me see if I can answer your question. We need 

your support to push the V.A. to fully involve and to fully collaborate with Morehouse School of Medicine, Meharry’s College of Medicine, Charles Drew School of Medicine and Science, as well as 

Howard University, in addition to other schools who may already 

be affiliated with those schools. 

For us, it is Emory University in Atlanta. We are working together well, but we need your help to continue to push that forward, because for so many years, only one medical school was affiliated with each V.A. hospital. And as a result of that, we sent our 

students almost 100 miles away to Tuskegee, and Meharry sent 

their students almost 40 to 50 miles to Murfreesboro. 

We need the affiliation, shared affiliations in the same geographic area as our schools, because the V.A. medical centers in 

those geographic areas are outstanding, and we need to work together to look at new models for medical education that share the 

services between two medical schools. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many minority health profession schools are 

there? 

Dr. SANDERS. The schools who have schools of medicine and dentistry would be Howard University, Meharry College of Medicine, 

the Morehouse School of Medicine, Charles Drew, as well as other 

schools that have pharmacy schools, Florida A&M, and other colleges without medical schools. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand—in fact, my mentor, Olin Teague 

wrote the bill back in the early 1970s to create five new V.A. medical schools associated with V.A. hospitals. And I guess some of 

these longstanding associations may have made it more difficult for 

minority professional schools to break in. 

Based on your testimony, do you feel the V.A. is working in good 

faith now, given they have had some institution relationships—but 

are they working in good faith with you to try to take advantage 

of the tremendous resources you bring potentially to the V.A. sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00803 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
804 

tem? There is such a desperate need for quality doctors and nurses 

and health professionals that—do you think we are moving in the 

right direction now? 

Dr. SANDERS. I believe we are moving in the right direction. My 

experience in Atlanta is that we are working collaboratively with 

the leadership at the Atlanta V.A., but it always—we always appreciate a little help in moving a shared agenda forward. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. We can provide a little nudge. Help us. Let 

us work with you. 

Dr. SANDERS. Right. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Sanders. 

Dr. SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Okay. The way we are going to break this out with our VSOs, 

we are going to have the American Legion now, and then the Independent Budget testifying, we may have the American Legion stay 

at the table after their testimony so that we could have a full discussion with all of our VSOs. 

But at this time, I would like to call forward Mr. Philip Riley, 

who is representing the American Legion and it is national security 

and foreign relations commissions. He served in the Persian Gulf 

war in 1991 and served 12 years in the Air Force. 

Thank you for being here, Director Riley. It is good to see you. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

THE AMERICAN LEGION 

WITNESSES 

PHILIP D. RILEY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY-FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

BARRY A. SEARLE, DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP D. RILEY

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Legion’s 2.5 

million members appreciates this opportunity to talk about the 

MILCON—military construction for the 2011 appropriation. 

The legion supports construction and sustainment of physical 

plants in CONUS and OCONUS meeting mission and readiness 

needs, especially quality-of-life and health care needs, of military 

members, retirees, and their families. 

Warriors, especially deployed warriors, should never have to 

worry about the quality and safety of facilities used by family 

members on base anywhere in the world. Facilities would include, 

but are not limited to military quarters, health care facilities, children’s schools, daycare, youth and teen centers, commissaries and 

exchanges, and other essential support facilities. 

Childcare—I know we have already mentioned it today—the legion appreciates recent years of funding progress and continue to 

support expansion of affordable, high-quality military childcare 

centers and services, plus supports the current funding in the 2011 

budget request. However, more childcare access and facilities need 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
805 

funding until the total requirement is met for all installations, families and children. 

DOD schools, we are delighted with the President’s request to 

fund the 5-year plan to replace and recapitalize more than half of 

the 194 DODEA schools stateside and overseas. 

Base housing at facilities, frequent rotations, high OPTEMPO, 

and limited dwell time, placing huge stress on family members, 

noting survey results showing family members with deployed family members—excuse me, families with deployed members, with 

their families living on base, and quality housing and complete and 

modernized support facilities, survey results show that those families are less stressed. 

Therefore, with respect to construction of facilities, the legion 

urges reduction in all of the services’ long list of deferred construction, deferred repairs, and deferred maintenance. 

The legion also urges improved construction management to complete new facilities fully to our original construction goals, to mission capabilities, and to fully intended functionality. 

The legion has serious concerns about BRAC 2005, especially 

those deficiencies in construction and for the capital—National 

Capital Region, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center— 

mouthful—and as detailed in the report of July 2009, known as the 

Kaiser Report. 

The legion has serious concerns over the large-scale repositioning 

of troops and families that are just around the corner and initiated 

by the global defense reposturing review and relocations to improve 

force generation that is going on service directed. 

Based on the concerns just voiced and the legion’s standing resolutions for quality of military life, the American Legion urges larger MILCON appropriations for fiscal year 2011. Specifically, we 

recommend $14.5 billion in military construction to modernize Department of Defense facilities—that is a $0.3 billion increase—$2 

billion for the construction, operation and maintenance of government-owned housing, and the privatization of selected family housing units—it is a $0.2 billion increase—and $3 billion to complete 

the implementation of BRAC 2005 in order to process—to fund construction, operations and maintenance, and to relocate personnel 

and equipment, to conduct environmental studies and remediation, 

and to install communications, automation, and information management equipment in those new facilities. 

That is all we have for military construction, and I will yield to 

my—— 

[Prepared statement of Philip D. Riley follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
806 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1474 here 56870C.057
807 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1475 here 56870C.058
808 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1476 here 56870C.059
809 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1477 here 56870C.060
810 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1478 here 56870C.061
811 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1479 here 56870C.062
812 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1480 here 56870C.063
813 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1481 here 56870C.064
814 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1482 here 56870C.065
815 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1483 here 56870C.066
816 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1484 here 56870C.067
817 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1485 here 56870C.068
818 

Mr. EDWARDS. We have Mr. Searle here. Also, Mr. Searle is the 

director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission with 

the American Legion. 

And, Mr. Riley, you can stay here. We will wait until Mr. Searle’s 

finished his testimony, and then we will ask questions. 

We have got two votes, I guess. Do you want to start this testimony? Or do you want to do it? 

Mr. FARR. Any way you want to handle it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. How much do we—4 minutes left? Why 

don’t we do this? Rather than cutting you off mid-paragraph—— 

Mr. SEARLE. No problem. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Why don’t we go vote? We will stay 

there—unless there is some speech or delay, we will stay there for 

the second, and I think that will be the third vote. So why don’t 

we go up? Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Should be back in 5 minutes, if it goes timely. It never 

does. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I will call the committee back to order. 

And let me just say, Mr. Riley, that I really appreciate your focus 

on MILCON quality-of-life investments. I have always felt the 

quality-of-life investments are—as is our veterans program—is 

really a readiness issue. And I am very proud that this subcommittee, working with the American Legion and other organizations, has taken really huge strides forward in terms of military 

housing. 

The public-private housing initiative was pushed by this subcommittee. It took us about 8 years to get a new approach approved, but we have also approved more funding for new DOD hospitals in the last 2 years than had been done, to my knowledge, in 

the last 20 years. 

And then on daycare centers, we had the top noncommissioned 

officers testify 2 years in a row and answered my question about, 

other than pay and time away from loved ones, with their service 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, what was the number-one quality-of-life 

issue? And childcare was the issue that came up 2 years in a row. 

So as you know, we went from the DOD asking for about $20 

million a year to our pushing, I think, a quarter of a billion dollars, 

over $200 billion, plus-up a couple of years ago. And then finally 

somebody at DOD got the message. And so I think the very next 

year, they increased by tenfold their funding request for childcare 

centers. And we will keep pushing that. 

And then we also put a study in our bill a year or two ago that 

required DOD to do a study of the status of our construction and 

facilities at DOD schools. And I am told, when Secretary Gates saw 

that information, he was appalled, and I am thrilled to see a huge 

increase in funding for those DOD schools. That is shameful that 

we would have our military sons and daughters in schools that 

don’t meet even basic minimum standards. 

So I am glad we are making some progress here. But thanks for 

speaking out for the quality-of-life issues. As I have said earlier, 

you know, when you are fighting for the weapons programs, there 

are a lot of business lobbyists, hundreds of them running around 

for this—but for daycare centers, housing, health care, education 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
819 

for military kids, DOD schools, there are not many voices, and 

thank you for being one of those voices. 

Mr. RILEY. One more thing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Mr. RILEY [continuing]. Putting staff back into those hospitals—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

Mr. RILEY [continuing]. Keeping the staffing level right, so that 

the military retirees—TRICARE—reduce cost of TRICARE. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is a good point. I might get somebody to put 

pencil to paper on that and see if we can come up with some numbers on that. But thank you for pointing that out. 

Mr. FARR. It is a good point, because if you look at the electronics 

of medicine, people who have done most of it for the longest period 

of time have been Veterans Affairs. I mean, they have worked out 

the bugs. They ought to be the model agency. 

With the efficiency of electronic files, our clinic in Monterey is 

about to start using real-time digital information with the V.A. hospital in Palo Alto so that the veterans do not have to go up there. 

They can show X-rays. They can show skin issues for dermatologists. It is fascinating what they are able to do with telemedicine 

to bring down those costs. 

The V.A. is really the model and the way the rest of America is 

going to be moving, and we ought to make sure that the lessons 

learned there are applied, because the more we can do on savings, 

guaranteeing quality outcomes, the more you can expand into research and other areas where you can really improve quality of life. 

So I think we are all on the same boat on this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And you are right, those drug savings of 40 percent over retail prices is a huge savings to veterans and the taxpayers. 

We would again like to recognize Mr. Barry Searle, director of 

the V.A. and Rehabilitation Commission of the American Legion, a 

position he has held since June of 2009. 

Mr. Searle, good to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY SEARLE

Mr. SEARLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Barry Searle from the VNR Commission at 

the American Legion. I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views on the fiscal year 2011 funding issues. I have 

submitted my full comments for your consideration. 

The American Legion appreciates the budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This budget request would meet several of the funding recommendations offered by the American Legion national commander, Clarence Hill, last September during 

joint hearings of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request focuses on three specific concerns that are of critical importance to the veterans community and 

have long been priorities of the American Legion. One is the easy 

access to benefits and services. Second one is reduce the disability 

claims backlog and expedite the delivery of veterans’ earned benefits. And third is ending veterans homelessness. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
820 

Also, the V.A. has identified six high-priority performance goals, 

which again are consistent with the American Legion’s priorities. 

First is reduce the claims backlog. Second is eliminating veterans 

homelessness, automate the G.I. Bill benefits system, establish a 

virtual lifetime electronic record, improve mental health care, and 

deploy a veterans relationship management system. 

The American Legion is fully aware of the dramatic changes in 

the demographics within the veterans population. Women in increasing numbers continue to enter military service. When they 

join the veterans population, in many cases with dependent children, the need for gender-specific health services also increases. 

The culture of the V.A. must be changed to include more extensive health care for women veterans and single-parent veterans 

with children, both male and female. Many veterans are moving— 

many veterans are moving to rural or highly rural areas where the 

presence of V.A. medical facilities is at a premium. These veterans 

nonetheless are entitled to timely access to the V.A. health care 

system. 

Priority Group 8. The American Legion continues to support additional funding to expand health care access to more Priority 

Group 8 veterans. The American Legion believes that all veterans 

through their honorable military service earned and should be provided health care, especially if V.A. medical care is their best 

health care option. 

Information technology. Many of the V.A.’s fixes will depend on 

information technology. To assist with this mission, an interagency 

I.T. development to create a single electronic record for 

servicemembers and veterans known as virtual lifetime electronic 

record is critical. 

In addition, technological innovations in the field of telemedicine 

and telehealth will make it possible to reach out and provide access 

to veterans and families through non-institutional care. These innovations have significant implications for how care is organized 

and delivered in the future. The American Legion recommends $3.8 

billion for information technology for 2011. 

Medical and prosthetic research. The unique injuries sustained 

by the new generation of veterans clearly demands particular attention. For example, it has been reported the V.A. does not have 

state-of-the-art prosthetics for women with problems due to their 

small stature. The American Legion recommends $700 million for 

medical and prosthetic research in fiscal year 2011. 

Major VHA construction. The capital asset realignment for enhanced services, CARES process, have identified approximately 100 

major construction projects throughout the V.A. medical care system. In addition to the cost of the proposed new facilities, there are 

many construction projects that have been placed on hold due to 

inadequate funding. 

Two of the most glaring shortfalls—sorely in need of seismatic 

correction and the modification of facilities to support the growing 

women’s population. The American Legion recommends $2 billion 

for major construction. 

Minor V.A. construction. V.A.’s minor construction program has 

also suffered significant neglect over the past several years. Maintaining the infrastructure of V.A.’s buildings is no small task due 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
821 

to the age of these buildings, continuous renovations, relocations, 

and expansions. The American Legion recommends $1.5 billion for 

minor construction in 2011. 

The state cemetery construction grants program. The American 

Legion believes the states will increasingly use the state cemetery 

grants program to supplement the needs of veteran population that 

are still not well served by the 75-service-mile-area, 170,000-veteran-population threshold that currently serves a benchmark for 

establishing a new national cemetery. 

New state cemeteries and expansions and improvements of the 

existing cemeteries are there for—the American Legion recommends $50 million for the state cemetery grants program. 

The National Cemetery Administration, the American Legion 

recognizes NCA’s excellent record in providing timely and dignified 

burials to all veterans who opt to be buried in a national cemetery. 

We also recognize the hard work that is required to restore and 

maintain national cemeteries as national shrines and applaud NCA 

for its commitments towards that endeavor. The American Legion 

recommends $260 million in 2011. 

The state extended care facility construction grants program. 

Recognizing the growing long-term care needs of veterans, it is essential the states veteran home program be maintained as an important alternative health care provider to the V.A. system. The 

American Legion opposes attempts to place a moratorium on new 

SVH construction grants. Delaying projects will result in cost overruns and may result in states deciding to cancel these much-needed 

facilities. The American Legion recommends $275 million for the 

state extended care facility construction grants program. 

Homelessness. More homeless veterans, both male and female, 

have children. These new burdens are changing the way the V.A. 

does business in order to maintain the secretary’s directive to end 

homelessness for veterans. 

The homeless veterans reintegration program provides services 

to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment in the labor force and stimulates the development of effective service delivery systems that address the complex problems 

facing homeless veterans. 

The HVRP is the only nationwide program focused on assisting 

homeless veterans to reintegrate into the workforce. The American 

Legion recommends $50 million for the HVRP. 

The Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program reauthorization, V.A. can provide grants and per diem payments to help 

public and nonprofit organizations establish and operate supportive 

housing and/or service centers for homeless veterans through the 

grant and per diem program. Funds were available for assistance 

in the form of grants to provide transitional housing up to 24 

months with supportive services. The American Legion recommends $200 million for the grant and per diem program. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the American Legion is encouraged 

by President Obama’s budget request for 2011. Plus, several of the 

key issues raised by the national commander in 2009 have been addressed in the positive issue. 

The American Legion feels that additional attention should be 

paid to major and minor construction for medical facilities to reflect 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
822 

the changing demographics of veterans population, long-term care 

facilities for aging veterans and their dependents, and additional 

funds for inclusion of Priority Group 8 veterans, who like our less 

fortunate fellow veterans have served this nation faithfully, and 

their families have sacrificed equally and should not be penalized 

because of economic fortunes. 

The American Legion thanks the subcommittee once again for 

being allowed to testify, and I welcome your questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Searle, thank you, and I want to thank the 

legion for its partnership and all the tremendous accomplishments 

we have made in the last 3 years that I have had the privilege of 

chairing this committee and working with my colleagues. We have 

made some great strides forward. The legion, as it should, is continuing to look at where the unmet needs are, because we never 

want to stand still. And there are still a lot of unmet needs out 

there. 

I just have one question, in addition to many other important 

issues that you mentioned, which we would take note of. On homelessness, it was testified before this committee this morning that 

we went from 154,000 homeless veterans in 2007 per night to 

about 107,000 in 2009. 

Have you ever looked at how we estimate the number of homeless veterans? How comfortable can we be that these numbers are 

accurate numbers? 

Mr. SEARLE. No, sir. I do not know what—how they have actually 

checked those numbers out, but I can get back to you on that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. I would welcome your review of that, and 

we will do the same, because I think it is important. I think every 

one of us would agree if there is one homeless veteran in America, 

that is one too many, and we ought not to be content and hopefully 

we are moving in the right direction. We shouldn’t be content until 

that number is zero. And this subcommittee will continue to work 

with you to address that problem. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I think the answer to your question is most counties’ 

social services departments are required to go out and do those assessments. I mean, that is how they allocate their resources. I 

know that the way we do it is at the county level. 

One piece of information I would like to give you, all the people 

in the room, is that a former legislator in California has created 

this program, a Web site called www.networkofcare.org. And it is 

phenomenal. He is working with V.A. right now. 

He has taken every county—of 58 counties in California—and by 

county, all the services that any veteran can get, everything they 

are eligible for, plus all the information, including today’s hearing, 

would be available to that veteran by going to that one site. It is 

truly one-stop. All our veterans and, service officers are just 

amazed at how much outreach this is doing, where we have our 

normal ways of outreach. 

It might be worth putting this site into your publications: 

networkofcare.org. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you both for your testimony. It is good 

to have you here. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
823 

And why don’t we do this? If you would maybe sit back in the 

other chairs while the Independent Budget group is testifying, and 

then we will get into questions and answers. We would like to have 

you come back up with the other VSOs that will be here. 

I would like to welcome all of you here. And none of you is a 

stranger to this subcommittee. But for the record, I would like to 

introduce Mr. Ray Kelley with AMVETS, its national legislative director; Mr. John Wilson, with the Disabled American Veterans; Mr. 

Carl Blake, with the Paralyzed Veterans of America; and Mr. Eric 

Hilleman, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Thank you all for your work with the Independent Budget. As 

you well know, in the last several years, it has been the first time 

that the Congress has ever met and even exceeded the Independent 

Budget request. And you, through this budget process, really 

helped shape this bill, along with the American Legion. While it is 

not part of the Independent Budget officially, I know you share 

many of the same views and concerns and priorities. So together, 

you have all had a real impact on the progress that we have made. 

We know there still are progress to be made in the years ahead, 

and we look forward to working with you on it. 

Why don’t we just begin with you, Carl, if you would? 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET—PARALYZED VETERANS 

OF AMERICA 

WITNESSES 

CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

JOHN WILSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR VETERANS OF 

FOREIGN WARS 

ERIC HILLEMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AMVETS 

RAY KELLEY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr. On behalf of 

the Independent Budget and four co-authors seated here, and Paralyzed Veterans of America, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify on the fiscal year 2011 budget for 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I think in the interest of allowing for questions, I will just limit 

my comments to a few points. You have our written statement, and 

it outlines in detail our specific budget recommendations. I will just 

point out that we focused our 2011 for medical care on the 2011 

recommendations, because we didn’t really provide one for last year 

as part of the advanced appropriations. And I would simply say 

that we feel pretty comfortable in what the administration and 

what Congress ultimately appropriated last year, based on our own 

estimation for 2011, so that is a good thing. 

I would also suggest that the overall budget provided by the administration this year is a very good budget. It is one of the better 

budgets we have seen, so we are happy with that, some particular 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
824 

areas notwithstanding, and I think my colleagues will probably address a little bit of that. 

What I will say is, as a couple of areas of concern, particularly 

information technology, the administration recommended essentially a flat-line $3.3 billion budget, and we recommended about 

$3.55 billion. I think our concern is, I am not sure how an essentially flat-lined budget addresses the idea that inflation should impact all of the accounts. 

Additionally, I think, given the initiatives that the—that the V.A. 

has outlined as far—that are impacted by I.T. in its budget submission to include the virtual lifetime electronic record, this proposal 

to automated claims process, which is still sort of in its infancy, I 

believe, but that will deal with disability compensation, as well as 

improving upon the delivery of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. I think it is 

something that the subcommittee certainly will have to—think 

should investigate a little further. 

I will not go into construction and some of the other things, because my colleagues will address that, and as well as with VBA. 

I will just simply say, as it relates to fiscal year 2012, you will notice—and it is probably a glaring omission that the Independent 

Budget did not make a recommendation specifically towards 2012 

for medical care, and that is principally because we advocated for 

a process change, and we would like to give that process an opportunity to play out the way it is supposed to. 

I will say that we feel very good about the administration, what 

they have done so far in providing a budget estimate for 2012 and 

providing the level of detail that we wish they did. And I will also 

say that we are continuing to work with the authorizers, as well 

as your committee and the staff on both sides of the Hill, to ensure 

that GAO still fulfills its responsibility which it has as part of this 

new process, which is to report on the information provided by the 

administration. 

And I do not remember exactly the timeframe that they have, 

but I am sure it is rapidly approaching, given the legislation that 

was enacted late last year. And so I will just conclude by saying, 

we certainly appreciate everything that the subcommittee has 

done. I think it goes without saying that, without this subcommittee, the V.A. would be far behind where it is now, and so 

we look forward to working with the subcommittee to continue this 

forward. 

I believe with the advanced appropriations in process for medical 

care, we are headed down a very good road. And as long as we can 

sort of ensure we are vigilant about the other accounts of the V.A., 

the V.A. should be strong and viable for the future. 

So, again, I will take any questions. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Carl Blake follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
825 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1504 here 56870C.069
826 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1505 here 56870C.070
827 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1506 here 56870C.071
828 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1507 here 56870C.072
829 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1508 here 56870C.073
830 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1509 here 56870C.074
831 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1510 here 56870C.075
832 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1511 here 56870C.076
833 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1512 here 56870C.077
834 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1513 here 56870C.078
835 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you for all the attention you have 

put on the details of the budget, in addition to the aggregate budget numbers needed. 

Mr. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WILSON

Mr. WILSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

my oral testimony today will focus on the specific appropriations 

recommendations for the following V.A. benefits programs: one, information technology; two, Veterans Benefits Administration increased staffing; three, the Office of Inspector General; and four, 

vocational and rehabilitation and employment. 

First, information technology. As Carl said, V.A. requested $3.3 

billion to support a reliable and accessible I.T. infrastructure. The 

I.B. recommends $3.55 billion, a $245 million increase. 

We strongly support VBA’s request for $145 million to implement 

a paperless claims processing system, modernized I.T. infrastructure that optimizes business processes, and creates a secure and 

accessible paperless I.T. system that rapidly moves and organizes 

information necessary for V.A. to approve claims for benefits, while 

optimizing workflow and business processes is certainly needed. 

Second, VBA increased staffing. VBA has requested $460 million 

to bring onboard 4,048 more FTE in 2011 to handle new Agent Orange presumptives and other claims. Given the projected 16 percent increase to 1.2 million new compensation and pension claims 

and the current absence of a robust I.T. solution that could enhance both work quantity and work quality, we support this additional staffing request. We continue to emphasize the need for adequate training of these new employees, as well. 

Third, the Office of Inspector General. In March 2009, V.A.’s OIG 

reported on VBA’s overall benefits approval system and found that 

23 percent of all veterans claims for disability compensation were 

decided incorrectly in the 12-month period reviewed. They projected 

that over 200,000 veterans therefore received inaccurate disability 

compensation decisions as a result. 

The chart attached at the end of my written testimony portrays 

mixed performance results in handling PTSD and TBI claims, 

among others, from the last six Office of Inspector General visits 

to V.A. regional offices. 

VBA must have the benefit of a robust OIG staff, given its difficulty with qualitative and quantitative measures surrounding disability compensation claims, contracting, and training. Therefore, 

we support an additional $12 million to allow this office to fulfill 

its employees’ mission. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
836 

Fourth and last, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment. 

VR&E continues to provide critical resources to service-connected 

disabled veterans despite inadequate staffing levels. To meet its ongoing workload demands and to implement new initiatives recommended by the secretary’s VR&E task force, VR&E needs to increase its staffing. We recommend at a minimum 200 FTE to meet 

its current needs and to build for an increased demand, which is 

surely coming as a result of continued OIF and OEF deployments. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of John Wilson follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
837 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1517 here 56870C.079
838 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1518 here 56870C.080
839 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1519 here 56870C.081
840 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1520 here 56870C.082
841 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1521 here 56870C.083
842 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1522 here 56870C.084
843 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1523 here 56870C.085
844 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1524 here 56870C.086
845 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1525 here 56870C.087
846 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1526 here 56870C.088
847 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1527 here 56870C.089
848 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1528 here 56870C.090
849 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1529 here 56870C.091
850 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1530 here 56870C.092
851 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1531 here 56870C.093
852 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1532 here 56870C.094
853 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1533 here 56870C.095
854 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1534 here 56870C.096
855 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1535 here 56870C.097
856 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1536 here 56870C.098
857 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hilleman. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN

Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On behalf of the 2.1 million men and women of the Veterans of 

Foreign Wars and our auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify here today. The VFW works alongside the 

other members of the Independent Budget, AMVETS, DAV, and 

PVA, to develop budget recommendations based on the needs of 

America’s veterans. 

The VFW is responsible for the construction portion of the budget, so I will limit my remarks to that portion. V.A.’s infrastructure, 

particularly with its health care system, is at a crossroads. The 

system is facing many challenges, including the average age of 

buildings exceeding 60 years, significant funding needs for routine 

maintenance, upgrades, modernization and construction. 

V.A. is beginning a patient-centered reformation in the way it delivers care and manages infrastructure to plan for the needs of sick 

and disabled veterans in this century. 

Regardless of what the V.A. health care system of the future 

looks like, our focus must remain on a lasting and accessible V.A. 

health care system. V.A. manages a wide portfolio of capital assets 

throughout the nation. According to its latest capital asset plan, 

V.A. is responsible for 5,500 buildings and 34,000 acres of land. It 

is a vast network of facilities which requires significant time and 

attention from V.A.’s capital asset managers. 

CARES, V.A.’s data-driven assessment of their current and future needs, gave V.A. a long-term roadmap that has helped them 

plan over the past few years. CARES showed a large number of 

significant construction projects that would be necessary for V.A. to 

fulfill its obligations to this nation and her veterans. 

Over the past several fiscal years, the administration and this 

Congress have made significant inroads in these funding priorities. 

Since 2004, $4.9 billion has been allocated for these projects, of 

which CARES has identified. V.A. has completed five, and another 

27 are currently under construction. 

The challenge of V.A. in the post-CARES era is that there are 

still numerous projects that need to be carried out. The current 

backlog of partially funded projects that CARES has identified is 

large. This means that V.A. is going to continue to require significant appropriations for major and minor construction. 

V.A.’s most recent asset management plan provides an update of 

the status of CARES, including only—excuse me, including those 

only in planning and acquisition process. The top 10 projects total 

$3.25 billion, and this is just the tip of the—of the iceberg. 

Meanwhile, V.A. continues to identify and reprioritize potential 

major construction projects. These priorities which are assessed 

using a rigorous methodology that has guided CARES’s decisions 

are released in the department’s annual 5-year capital asset plan. 

The November 17th letter from 2008, secretary-then Principi 

stated, ‘‘The department estimates the total funding requirement 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
858 

for major medical facility projects over the next 5 years would exceed $6.5 billion. It is clear V.A. needs significant infusion of cash 

for its construction priorities. V.A.’s own words and studies state 

this.’’ 

The major construction request, the I.B. estimates, is $1.295 bil- lion. Minor construction request is at $785 million. While these 

numbers are higher than the administration’s request, the I.B. recognizes funding has been approved through the American recovery 

and investment act of 2009. 

We ask the committee to weigh the previous funding through the 

American Recovery Act against the long list of priorities to fully 

fund and complete this list. 

We thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. Farr, and we look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Eric A. Hilleman follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
859 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1540 here 56870C.099
860 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1541 here 56870C.100
861 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1542 here 56870C.101
862 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1543 here 56870C.102
863 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1544 here 56870C.103
864 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1545 here 56870C.104
865 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1546 here 56870C.105
866 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1547 here 56870C.106
867 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1548 here 56870C.107
868 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1549 here 56870C.108
869 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1550 here 56870C.109
870 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1551 here 56870C.110
871 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1552 here 56870C.111
872 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1553 here 56870C.112
873 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1554 here 56870C.113
874 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1555 here 56870C.114
875 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kelley. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY

Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Within the Independent Budget, AMVETS devotes a majority of 

our time to NCA, so—in fiscal year 2009, $230 million was appropriated for the operations and maintenance of NCA, $49 million 

over the administration’s request. NCA awarded 49 of 56 minor 

construction projects that were in the operating plant. The state 

cemetery grant service awarded $40 million in grants for 10 

projects. 

The I.B. partners also want to recognize and thank NCA for their 

foresight in reducing the population threshold for the establishment of new cemeteries, as well as understanding that this policy 

needs to be flexible to take into account areas that do not easily 

fit the model due to urban or geographic phenomena. 

The Independent Budget recommends an operations budget of 

$274.5 million for NCA for fiscal year 2011. The I.B. is encouraged 

that $25 million was set aside for the national shrine commitment 

over the past few years. In 2006, only 67 percent of headstones and 

markers in national cemeteries were at the proper height and 

alignment. 

By 2009, proper height and alignment increased to 76 percent. 

NCA has also identified 153 historical monuments and memorials 

that need repair and/or restoration. With funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, NCA will make repairs on 32 

percent of these monuments and memorials. 

The Independent Budget supports the NCA’s operational standards and measures outlined in the national shrine commitment. 

And in the past, the Independent Budget advocated for a 5-year, 

$250 million shrine initiative to assist NCA in achieving its performance goals. 

However, over the past few years, NCA has made marked improvements in the national shrine commitment by earmarking a 

portion of its operation and maintenance budget for this commitment. Therefore, the Independent Budget no longer believes it is 

necessary to implement the national shrine initiative program of 

$50 million a year for 5 years, but rather impose an increase to 

NCA’s operation and maintenance budget by $25 million per year 

until the operational standards and measures goals are reached. 

The state cemeteries grant program faces the challenge of meeting the growing interest from states to provide burial services in 

areas that are not currently served by national cemeteries. Currently, there are 60 state and tribal government cemetery constructions pre-grant approvals, 36 of which have the required state 

matching funds. 

The Independent Budget recommends that Congress appropriate 

$51 million for the state grant program for 2011. This funding level 

would allow the program to establish 13 new state programs or 

state cemeteries. 

Based on accessibility and the need to provide quality burial benefits, the Independent Budget recommends that state—that V.A. 

separate burial benefits into two categories: veterans who live inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00875 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
876 

side the V.A. accessibility threshold model and those who live outside the threshold. 

For veterans who live outside the threshold, the service-connected burial benefits should be increased to $6,160. Non-serviceconnected veterans’ burial benefits should be increased to $1,918, 

and the plot allowance should increase to $1,150 to match the original value of the benefit. 

For veterans who live inside the threshold, the benefit for service-connected burials should be $2,793. The amount provided for 

non-service-connected burial should be $854. And the plot allowance should be $1,150. 

This will provide a burial benefit at equal percentages, but based 

on the average cost for a V.A. funeral and not on private funeral 

costs that will be provided for those veterans who do not have access to a state or national cemetery. 

The new model will provide a meaningful benefit to those veterans whose access to a state or national cemetery is restricted, as 

well as provide an improved benefit for eligible veterans who opt 

for private burial. Congress should also enact legislation to adjust 

these burial benefits for inflation annually. 

This concludes my testimony. I look forward to any questions you 

may have. 

[Prepared statement of Raymond C. Kelley follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
877 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1560 here 56870C.115
878 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1561 here 56870C.116
879 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1562 here 56870C.117
880 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1563 here 56870C.118
881 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1564 here 56870C.119
882 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1565 here 56870C.120
883 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1566 here 56870C.121
884 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1567 here 56870C.122
885 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1568 here 56870C.123
886 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1569 here 56870C.124
887 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1570 here 56870C.125
888 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. 

Gentlemen, I am going to begin my comments and questions with 

Mr. Hilleman. In my opinion—and I think it can be backed up by 

facts—in the last 3 years that I have chaired this subcommittee 

and Democrats have been the majority in the House, we have increased funding for veterans, higher funding levels, probably by a 

huge magnitude, in fact, than any other 3-year period in Congress. 

Would that be your understanding, as well? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have not done the math, but the 

attention that I have seen paid by this Congress and the previous 

Congress to veterans issues and veterans funding, in my 4 years 

with the VFW, seems to rival the historical memory of many who 

have been with the organization 20-plus years. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Has the leadership of this Congress worked with 

the VFW in those accomplishments, which I will list—some of 

which I will specifically list in a moment? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So you have been included in that process over 

the last 3 years? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In no way has VFW been excluded? In fact, to the 

contrary, this congressional leadership has brought the VFW in, I 

believe, on a regular basis, multiple times a year, to meet with the 

leadership. Did you ever have that kind of meeting once, twice, 3 

times a year with the congressional leadership and 5, 10, 15 members of the leadership on veterans issues in any previous Congress? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Again, this goes back to my historical memory of 

4 years, sir. So my impression of the 108th Congress, it was not 

nearly as engaged with the veterans community. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In fact, let me preface these remarks. In my 3 

years of chairing this subcommittee and working with the independent budget group and other veterans service organizations, we 

worked religiously and consistently on a bipartisan basis. 

But let me say, as I look back at the last 3 years and the congressional leadership, these were some of the accomplishments that 

we have accomplished together. The $23.1 billion increase in the 

V.A.’s discretionary budget, that is a 60 percent increase in the 

baseline. And I do not think perhaps even in any decade in American history that would match that increase in the V.A. baseline. 

A 55 percent increase in the Veterans Health Administration, resulting in over 3,300 new doctors, 14,000 new nurses, 145 new community-based outpatient clinics, and 92 vet centers. 

The first time since 1979, we through this subcommittee increased the travel reimbursement to veterans from 11 cents a mile 

to 41.5 cents a mile. The first time since the Bush administration 

froze enrollment, income thresholds for Priority 8 veterans, we increased that by 10 percent last year. 

We more than doubled the amount provided for the homeless 

grant and per diem program. We added 8,300 new claims processors, more than the Bush administration ever asked for, and we 

plussed up the Obama administration request last year. Thank 

goodness we did it, given the massive increase in the number of the 

veterans filing for claims. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
889 

In addition to all this in our subcommittee, through the Congress and other committees, we passed the new G.I. Bill, providing $63 

billion over the next 10 years for tuition assistance for our veterans. We increased V.A. research that had been frozen for a number of years by 28 percent. 

We provided funding for a new polytrauma center, the fifth one 

and the only one in the southwestern part of the United States, 

and we provided, working with the VFW and other veteran service 

organizations, we provided advanced appropriations for the first 

time in V.A. history for three medical accounts. 

Is there anything in that record of accomplishment, Mr. 

Hilleman, that would suggest to you that anyone in the present 

congressional leadership would ever want to betray America’s veterans? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, for the record, sir—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes? 

Mr. HILLEMAN [continuing]. I would ask that the discussion 

about any statements that the organization has been made be 

taken up with our leadership. I know our commander-in-chief 

would be happy to speak with you. I know our executive director, 

Mr. Bob Wallace, would also be happy to. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would welcome that. I have tried to call Mr. 

Wallace, going back to Sunday. But the letter is on record, so let’s 

discuss some things on record, and then I will look forward to additional discussion. 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there anything in the record of accomplishment 

that I just listed, of which the VFW has been a part and a partner, 

has there been anything that suggested that at any point anyone 

in the congressional leadership in this House, based on this record, 

would have had the intention of ever betraying America’s veterans? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Speaking on behalf of VFW, sir, again, I urge you 

to speak with our leadership. Personally, sir, I do not see where the 

characterization could be based. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, let me just say this, since you are the representative of the VFW here today. If Mr. Wallace was here, your 

national commander was here, I would be happy to have this discussion with him. 

But let me just say that, first, for the record, I voted no on the 

health care bill, and there are people of good faith within the 

Democratic caucus who voted yes or no, and I have no intention in 

this meeting of getting into a discussion of the details of the health 

care bill. 

But I will be frank. I was—as someone who opposed the bill for 

reasons that reflect the values of my district, I was surprised and 

disappointed that the national commander of VFW, an organization 

with whom this congressional leadership has worked so closely over 

the last 3 years, I think in an unprecedented way, in terms of our 

increased commitment of funding for veterans benefits and services, that a letter would come out on the day of that vote saying 

that the congressional leadership has betrayed America’s veterans. 

And for the record, let me say, to my knowledge—and please correct me if I am mistaken—no other veterans organization of the 

dozens and dozens of tremendous veterans organizations that repVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00889 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
890 

resent their members so very well, none of the others came out 

with a position opposing the bill itself. In fact, there were some veterans organizations that came out and supported it. 

I would like to ask you, the concern of VFW about the health 

care bill, as I understand it, was not that there was anything directly in that bill intended to hurt veterans. In fact, as someone 

who voted against the bill, one could well argue that out of the millions of veterans who do not have access to V.A. health care, with 

only 8 million being enrolled out of 23 million, one could argue that 

this new bill could actually provide health insurance to hundreds 

of thousands of veterans that do not have it. But let’s put that 

aside for a moment. 

I want to be sure I understand the VFW’s position. Your concern 

is that—not that there was anything written in the bill to intentionally harm veterans, but that the minimum standard that is set 

for health insurance programs might at some future date, by some 

future unnamed person in the executive branch, might possibly be 

defined as saying TRICARE or V.A. health care programs do not 

meet that minimum standard? Is that a correct summary of the 

VFW’s concern about that? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, the VFW’s opposition 

and concern with the national health care bill is rooted in the fact 

that TRICARE was not perceived to be a protected entity in the 

health care bill, as well as certain programs under V.A. 

I believe there are three programs—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. And by protected, you mean that at some future 

date, some person in the executive branch might possibly interpret 

minimum standards as not having been met by TRICARE or V.A. 

programs, is that correct? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. That V.A. or TRICARE would not meet the minimum standards for health—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. So there was nothing in that bill, there was nothing, no specific provision that said we are going to exclude veterans, harm veterans, not support veterans, or reduce commitment 

to veterans? There was no specific provision there you were concerned about, is that correct? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Sir, the specific provision that the VFW was concerned about was on page 333 of the bill. There was defined programs within the Senate health care bill that outlined care for— 

it was one program in TRICARE. I do not believe it was both 

TRICARE and TRICARE Prime. And then there was another one 

that referred to Chapter 17 of Title 38, which did not—and it 

said—the language said veterans. 

It did not specifically state spina bifida patients, children, dependents of Agent Orange exposure veterans, and the other two 

was some vocational programs, and the other one was CHAMPVA, 

sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So the VFW, like several other VSOs, wanted to 

take the extra step to ensure that these programs at some future 

date might not be determined as not meeting minimum standards. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. The VFW is repeatedly concerned that V.A., all 

V.A. users and all TRICARE users, are qualified and properly 

cared for under the health care proposal. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
891 

Mr. EDWARDS. The same concern expressed by several other veterans organizations, legitimate concern. I want to be sure—whether I supported the bill or not, I want to be sure it doesn’t adversely 

hurt veterans. But you are the only veterans organization that 

came out and said the congressional leadership betrayed America’s 

veterans. 

Before the national commander wrote that letter and publicly 

made it available on the day of the vote, did the commander know 

that the day before that Chairman Skelton, who I do not think— 

I hope would never be accused of betraying America’s veterans— 

actually sponsored a bill on the House floor—— 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Sir—— 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. To try to address most, if not all of 

that—— 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Sir, we did actually do a press release on that 

Friday, sir, to that effect, supporting and applauding Chairman 

Skelton for his work in protecting TRICARE in the bill. 

Mr. EDWARDS. So, basically, what I am hearing—you do not have 

any reason to believe, given the track record of the last 3 years, 

that anybody in the congressional leadership would try to purposely betray America’s veterans? But there was a technical question about a hypothetical case that, you know, might happen in the 

future, and the VFW and other veterans groups expressed a legitimate interest in wanting to clarify that, right? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Yes, sir. The VFW would have liked to have seen 

clarity on this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Did the national commander call the congressional leadership, speaker’s office, for example, before putting out 

that letter to see if there was any intentional effort to betray America’s veterans and if there wasn’t a way to deal with what I see as 

a technicality that was unintentional, and only if one assumed bad 

decisions, there is nothing in that bill that directed bad decisions 

to be made that would harm veterans. 

It was assumed that there might be a possibility, and if there is 

maybe a possibility TRICARE could be affected, we ought to correct 

that and see it. But given that there is no evidence that anyone 

wanted to betray veterans, but evidence to the contrary over the 

past 3 years, did the commander call the speaker’s office before he 

wrote that letter, just to see if the speaker was aware of this problem and it could be resolved? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. I would refer you to the commander for his remarks on that, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. So you cannot say one way or the other 

whether he or the VFW made any effort to reach the speaker and 

correct what by all fair accounts would have been a technical question about the bill, not a question about the scope or the otherwise 

broad nature of the bill, a technical question about a hypothetical 

problem that might occur? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Again, sir, I would refer you to the commander 

on his own actions and the executive leadership of the organization 

to answer that question. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Well, then I won’t ask you then whether 

that was an appropriate use of language in referencing people who 

have worked closely with the VFW in a historic manner to accomVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00891 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
892 

plish those that had never been accomplished in any period of congresses past during a 3-year time period. 

Would you ask Mr. Wallace and the commander if they would 

call me—— 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. At my office tomorrow? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We can have further discussion of this. 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. But for the record, you have no reason to 

believe and the VFW would not have suggested that anyone in the 

leadership would want to hurt America’s veterans, given the track 

record of the last 3 years of working closely with you? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. No, sir. There is clear demonstration that this 

Congress and the administration has put forward an incredible effort on behalf of America’s veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo your concerns even 

more so. I voted for the bill. And I think your use of that language 

of betrayal is embarrassing to the VFW. You did disservice to your 

members. I think you owe this leadership an apology. 

Since Chet has become chair of this committee, there is no veterans appropriations committee in history that has done more for 

veterans than this committee. And this committee is a function of 

the leadership of our side of the aisle. And as you just said—and 

we heard time and time again—including John Wilson, saying that 

the president’s budget is a very strong and wonderful—very in the 

right place. 

I have been working for veterans’ health care since I got into 

Congress. And I have never heard one complaint nor a legal opinion that this bill would do anything but help veterans. You are 

going to rise the tide for health care in America. It is going to help 

everybody. 

Additionally, veterans have families that could not get access to 

health care, but they are now going to get it. And because of a technicality that was a hypothetical, to go and say ‘‘we have been betrayed’’, is pathetic. You know, I would hope that the membership 

would really question the leadership of the VFW on this, because 

I am certainly going to question it at home. And I would like to 

see a letter of apology. 

Mr. HILLEMAN. I understand, sir. 

Mr. FARR. I would like to ask just one question. I am very impressed with your testimony on the cemeteries. It is something I 

have been fighting for, as I would like to get a national cemetery 

in my district. But because of that crazy circle, we can’t—You 

know, it was a secretary that decided that way back when. It 

wasn’t a legislative act. 

Mr. KELLEY. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And I have suggested to this secretary, if you want to 

stick to that, then why does it have to be a round circle? Can it 

be an oblong circle? 

Mr. KELLEY. Right. 

Mr. FARR. We live on the coast, and half of that circle is in the 

ocean. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
893 

Mr. KELLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. FARR. So we are having a hard time we have got military 

land, military history, and we are trying to build a veterans cemetery there. There are 16 states that I think that haven’t applied for 

state cemeteries including California because the reimbursement 

rate is too low, the burial benefit is too low. 

So I appreciate your testimony, and I want to use it. I have cosponsored legislation to increase the burial benefit, and it was interesting that you have this bifurcated report that says that those 

inside who are entitled and those who are outside are not entitled 

and might have a different benefit. I am going to look into that, 

so I appreciate it. This could work. 

Mr. KELLEY. And I have taken your fight to V.A., and they have 

dug their heels in. With the Bakersfield cemetery, where it is at, 

they just are not going to budge, so— 

Mr. FARR. Well, what happened is that somebody in V.A. decided 

to build cemeteries in the middle of the state. In CA, you have the 

mountains on the eastern side, the Sierra Nevadas, and then you 

have this huge, long valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and then you 

have coastal mountain ranges, and then you have all the alluvial 

plain where all the coastal cities are, between that ocean and that 

coastal mountain range is where all our population is in California. 

It is where San Francisco is, and that is where Los Angeles is, 

Santa Barbara and San Diego is. 

If you draw a line down the center of the state, north to south, 

you go sort of halfway between the middle of the state, you go right 

down the San Joaquin Valley. Nobody lives there. It has been too 

hot. And I think Bakersfield is a big city. Has anybody heard about 

Bakersfield? Have they ever had a military base? Military bases 

were built along the coast, because that is where the Spanish discovered it. So we had bases in San Francisco and San Diego, Monterey, where all the military presence has been. 

Yet the VA built these cemeteries in the middle of nowhere. 

There is no support structure. You know, at Former Fort Ord we 

have the longest running military base in the western United 

States, and they say we cannot build a cemetery because we are 

within 70 miles of where they already built one. 

It takes over an hour to get there, because you have to go 

through these mountains, and yet as a crow flies, we are within 70 

miles. 

So we are just stuck. And I appreciate people really following up 

on the details. 

Mr. KELLEY. And I have continued to question the ‘‘as the crow 

flies’’ policy, that it is an okay baseline, but the geographical phenomena that can either be urban or rural phenomenon, just land 

structures that really need to be looked at by V.A., and not just 

have this pat policy of 75-mile radius. 

Mr. FARR. Well, one thing it does for California is you will never 

build a veterans cemetery anywhere near where people live. 

So that is all, Mr. Chairman. I hope we get an apology for the 

leadership. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hilleman, I want to make one other comment 

so that no one misunderstands my position. I would expect, salute 

and support every veteran service organization’s right to stand up 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
894 

and fight for its members. And if any Congress or any administration betrays American veterans, then I would say it would be the 

right thing to stand up and fight that fight. 

But I would also say—and I will say this to your commander and 

to Mr. Wallace—Mr. Wallace, someone with whom I have worked 

closely and have the greatest respect—that I would think the rules 

of decency, common sense, and fairness would dictate that you do 

not blindside the very people that you work closely with for a period of years because of a technical hypothetical problem in an 

issue that wasn’t directly related—when the overall bill wasn’t directly related to veterans. 

Maybe others have a different viewpoint about how you deal with 

those that you have fought together in the foxholes with, but that 

is my personal thought on that. 

Mr. Riley, sir, you may not want to come back up and sit at the 

table, but I would like to invite you to come sit up at the table. I 

do not have many more questions, but I have a few. 

Let me ask your thoughts—Mr. Blake, I might begin with you— 

the unemployment issue for Iraq and Afghan war veterans, it 

seems to me instinctively that, if a veteran comes back and doesn’t 

have a job for 6 or 12 months, the possibilities of increased mental 

health care problems would go up significantly, and I hope we can 

get some research—we had a hearing this morning to talk about 

that. 

Any thoughts you have as you have looked at the Independent 

Budget? And you spent untold hours on this. What would be your 

specific suggestions about what we could do to reduce unemployment for Iraq and Afghan war vets, which might be one of the better mental health care programs we could have, is to let them have 

the dignity of a job? 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I won’t profess to be an expert, but I would say 

that I would—I think some of the expectation was that the new 

G.I. Bill could have alleviated some of that possibility, and it is disappointing to see the unemployment rate still climb, because ultimately one way to overcome unemployment is through higher education, and so there is that benefit. 

I would suggest that, if there is a program that needs some serious—I do not know if overhaul is the right word, but it certainly 

needs to be looked into, is the voc rehab program, because that is 

really what it is—or a large part of its responsibility. 

And yet I think you would be hard-pressed to find very much 

people that believe that the V.A.’s voc rehab program is really 

working the way it is intended to work or serving its purpose. For 

a long time, it was sort of a joke that the voc rehab program got 

you educated and maybe got you a job, but it really wasn’t their 

concern to get you a job so much as it was to get you better educated to maybe get a job. 

And I think that is the wrong focus. I mean, ultimately, voc 

rehab should have the end goal of getting you employed and keeping you employed. I was sort of tooting our own horn. From PVA’s 

perspective, we have even started our own voc rehab program that 

is not just targeted at OIF/OEF, but it is targeted at seriously disabled veterans who have the highest unemployment rate. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
895 

Among our membership, spinal cord injured and in other catastrophically disabled, the unemployment rate is like 12 percent, 

somewhere in that neighborhood. So, I mean, there are some great 

challenges there. 

But I would suggest that the subcommittee could benefit by investigating further into the voc rehab program. I think there is 

more than can be done there. 

I do not know, because I did not really give you any specific information. I know there is some address of it in the I.B., and I will 

even ask Ray, who oversaw some of the employment portions of the 

I.B. 

Mr. KELLEY. I am going to echo what Carl said about the G.I. 

Bill. But historically, 70 percent of all veterans use some portion 

of their G.I. Bill. Only 3 percent graduate with a bachelor’s degree. 

It is 3 percent out of—70 percent use, 3 percent—18 months is the 

average usage of the G.I. Bill. 

We need to transition those veterans that are coming back to assimilate into college life. They are not doing it. It is not their inability to learn. It has everything to do with the culture that they 

have left, the culture that they are moving to. 

AMVETS has worked for the last 21⁄2 years with a program 

called SERV, Supportive Education for the Returning Veteran. And 

in that program, we have four—five campuses now throughout the 

United States. We have taken retention rates up to nearly 90 percent for veterans. 

What we have done is taken that first semester when veterans 

are back. They have an opportunity if they want to do—opt into 

only veteran classes. So English 101, chemistry, history, whatever 

those four classes are that are generally classes you need for any 

degree, veterans only. It takes away that reintegration portion. 

So combat veterans who are coming back used to working in an 

environment where they have to be on guard, now, all of a sudden, 

they are in a classroom where they do not have to be on guard. All 

they have to worry about is what is going on in class. It increases 

their concentration. 

And a byproduct of this is—we always thought from the beginning of the program that we need to focus on the positives of military instead of looking at veterans as people who are in need. And 

the positive out of this is that unit mentality has taken over. 

And so if Ray Kelley is not showing up to class, the other guys 

in that class are coming, knocking on my door. Ray, where are you? 

What is the matter? 

And they can identify signs that are—maybe I am starting to 

have destructive behavior, and help me find the right help. So we 

have gone from—it was on track. The retention rates are on track 

by the V.A. But the average civilian retention rate for graduation 

is 35 percent. We are at 90 percent. 

So I think, to echo what Carl said about education equals employment—and another thing that we are starting to parlay off of 

that is working to get internships in the communities where they 

are going to school and build those relationships, those networking 

relationships that these veterans have failed to have because they 

served our country. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
896 

They did not get to live in the community, go to school, and build 

relationships with business owners, so they have that personal relationship when they are ready to transition, so an opportunity, 

also, to build those relationships, network, and get their name out 

there, and prove that they are worth something to the business 

community. 

Mr. BLAKE. Another thing I would suggest—and I think—the one 

other thing I would suggest is—and I think this is probably outside 

of the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, but another concern we 

would have is on the vet side under Department of Labor. 

You know, a lot of the challenges veterans face is certification of 

their military skills that allow them to assimilate into a job or into 

an employment situation in the civilian workforce. You know, there 

are obvious challenges to figuring out how a combat infantryman 

converts over to just about anything in the employment sector, and 

yet you have leadership skills and you have all kinds of technical 

skills that most people do not necessarily realize upfront. 

I would also suggest that, you know, a lot of the programs under 

vets, particularly through the DVOP and LVER programs, the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program specialists and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives, there has been a lot of challenges there because, at the end of the day, those folks are beholden to the state employment agencies, and a lot of the funding 

comes—funding and direction comes from the state level. 

And so while their primary responsibility may seemingly be to 

help veterans find employment and keep employment, they are 

pulled away from other areas—into other areas by their states that 

ultimately have control over there. 

So I know there is even some discussion—and I will not say that 

we have developed an opinion on this yet—but there has been some 

discussion that has been floated around about whether to federalize 

the DVOP and the LVERs and some of that sort of thing, as well, 

that might be worth looking into. 

Mr. WILSON. Do you know that also some of the appropriations 

have not been sufficient to bring the DVOP and LVERs up to the 

level that we think they should be? I think it is 1,500—across the 

United States. We are looking at more like 3,000 as being more of 

an optimum number for them to be available to provide the resources to the veterans when they walk through that door requiring assistance. 

Mr. FARR. Can I suggest that perhaps the answer is not just 

more money, but it is really more collaborative effort? Vets are constituents of these silos that we have created, and these silos have 

gotten very sophisticated. 

And what has happened—I have just watched it in my district— 

the University of California at Santa Cruz, is having budget problems because of the state cutbacks. The vets now come with an 

ability to be a paying student. 

So schools are saying, ‘‘Huh, this is a revenue for us.’’—and so 

now they are reaching out to the vets to try to do the things to sustain vets in school, knowing that veterans have barriers to overcome. 

And I have seen community colleges do the same. Kids get into 

community college wanting to do something, for example, to get a 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
897 

good job like an airplane mechanic or some of the blue-collar jobs 

that need these technical schools. The schools are giving vets preassessments so that they can know where their barriers are. And 

then they get them into the remedial program. 

The schools do not want the vets to get into these classes, and 

find out they are over their head. Because then they drop out. 

We need to get all these different silos to wrap around one another so that they can individualize on the individual. I think we 

ought to be able to allow these vets to have employable jobs in the 

homeland security industry. 

Mr. KELLEY. But not if they—not if they—— 

Mr. FARR. But they have got to get certificates. 

Mr. KELLEY. Not if they have sought counseling for PTSD. They 

have just written off their security clearance if they go, so that is 

another issue that we need to—that barrier of stigma— 

Mr. FARR. If you can get us these things, you know, I am glad 

to fight for those. I know. The community colleges are looking for 

ways to get the vets in, to get them counseling, just like they do 

other students who come from other backgrounds, maybe with different issues. 

But we need to get them capable of pursuing their careers, of 

getting the skills necessary. In fact, what has happened in my district—I do not know if you have polled Santa Cruz, it’s probably 

one of the most antiwar colleges in the United States. You know, 

they had riots even when recruiters came. The program that has 

been incredibly successful is these vets. And guess what? They are 

having dialogue with the students who have never had dialogue before. 

And I just think it is a wonderful kind of reshaping of America 

of understanding of philosophies and attitudes, very healthy. And 

it is because of the G.I. Bill. 

So the question is this, how do you get these silos to start collaborating? We only have limited involvement in higher education 

from the federal standpoint. Most of it is giving money for research 

and giving money to students for loans and Pell Grants. 

But the curriculum and the attitude at the campus, the atmosphere is controlled locally. And we do have vets offices. We have 

county vet service officers in California. Every county has one, 

along with veterans offices in areas. 

But just getting those all together, it is why I gave you that Web 

site, Network of Care. Maybe we ought to expand it, and I will talk 

to Mr. Bronson and put it together. We will see if he wants to put 

the education factors into that, but it would be nice to get one stop 

so people could identify where they are in the United States and 

what services are right there in their immediate area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Riley. 

Mr. RILEY. I was a career soldier, so one of the things that—especially—people come back—I do not think the services do well in 

terms of taking care—look at how they are taking care of the 

wounded warriors now—but it ought—not just to the wounded. It 

ought to be applied to those—there needs to be a period of—transition assistance program—needs to become efficient. It needs to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
898 

have metrics that really measure getting people ready to either go 

on campus or whatever. 

The other thing is when I went down to New Zealand 2 years on 

exchange down there. I was tremendously impressed with how— 

was there, that you are going to come out with something that is 

basically on the record that is a credential. 

And they certify—and everything else. People actually made 

their choices in the service and were able to get the kind of schooling that seemed to fit their personality, and they got apprenticeship time credit, as well—when they were working—so I think 

there is a lot that can be done—by and large—so long. 

Mr. BLAKE. I want to second that, too, as it relates to—if you believe that TAP has its flaws, which it does, there is a sort of a parallel program, and that is DTAP, disabled transition assistance, 

and it is basically non-existent, and yet it is non-existent. 

And yet it has the responsibility of trying to transition the injured servicemembers off of active service and into civilian life and 

a workforce and education. And I do not know. I talk to people all 

the time that do not even know that—that have never heard of it 

or never seen it actually work the way it is supposed to. 

So while there has been some emphasis on trying to improve 

upon TAP—and yet it still has its problems—DTAP, which is supposed to be a parallel program, doesn’t even exist in most locations. 

Mr. RILEY [continuing]. They are not at all involved—personal 

paradigm shift—ready to then take on the culture of what you are 

going to be doing. And it is—once a soldier, always a soldier, in a 

sense, up until the—the time that you really have made the transition—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I wasn’t aware of AMVETS program, but at my 

alma mater, Texas A&M University, which is in my district, it has 

a lot of traditions of military, and its Corps of Cadets is still the 

heart and soul of the university. So they really have informally 

formed a group to circle together and work together and provide 

that cultural support. 

Mr. KELLEY. The SERV program has gone to Texas A&M and 

presented the programs. The issue is funding. As anybody that 

knows, works in education, that what they pay for this semester 

is from what they made from the semester prior. So they pay for 

their spring with what they made in the fall. 

And trying to find the funds to say, ‘‘We are going to have four 

classes to set aside classes for veterans,’’ that is four professors we 

have to pay for. We have to pay for those classrooms. That is about 

$10,000 per class. And in this budget, it is not there a lot of time. 

Mr. FARR. Do they have to have the pullout or the set-aside? 

For—special education in the lower grades, the attempt there is always to mainstream them. 

Mr. KELLEY. Well, it is—— 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Mainstreaming always seemed to work 

better, but it is going to take a different kind of counseling. 

Mr. KELLEY. Right. It is a transition program that was based on 

interviewing hundreds of Vietnam through First Gulf War veterans 

who said, ‘‘The problem I had with education, the reason I entered, 

dropped out, entered, dropped out, entered, dropped out, was when 

I got to the classroom, I could not concentrate.’’ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
899 

And drilling down into the reasons why they could not concentrate, it was because of the distractions in the classroom that 

were spurred by their military service, needing to be ultra-observant, wondering what is in that bag, who is passing by the hallway, 

what is question number one? Everybody else in the classroom is, 

what is question number one? 

So having that—all of them be veterans for that first semester— 

and, again, it is an option. They do not have to take it. But for veterans who have symptoms for PTSD or just having a hard time 

transitioning, it is a great tool, without forcing them into some sort 

of personal counseling, that it ends up being counseling for them. 

Mr. FARR. What is that program? Is it—— 

Mr. KELLEY. It is called SERV, S–E–R–V, Supportive Education 

for the Returning Veteran. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do any of these programs do anything along the 

lines of giving retiring military personnel at their choice of vocational test? You know, there are plenty of private entities out there 

that test what you should do or shouldn’t do. 

When I was in high school, I took one of those tests to a private 

company, and they told me, ‘‘Never be an architect. Don’t even 

think about it,’’ because I just could not put together, you know, 

two-dimensional boxes into three-dimensional box. So it was—you 

know, but it helps you figure out maybe where you might want to 

go. 

Any kind of help out there—— 

Mr. RILEY. Well, you have got education centers on a lot of the 

bases. But by and large, you are not going to be encouraged by a 

chain of command to go do that—take advantage of, but certainly— 

assessment in order to identify—values and skills are, we would 

overrun, because that education center is really a limited—a very 

limited facility, and it is usually, mainly staffed by people from the 

institutions of higher learning that they represent. 

So there is no real learning laboratory at all on the bases, but 

it is SERV what you are talking about. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I know the other appropriation committees, Labor, 

HHS particularly, deal with these programs, but since we are seeing, as the V.A. Appropriations Subcommittee, any ideas any of you 

have on this, please let us know. We want to work with you. 

I just think it is a huge problem. I think it is a shame that young 

Iraq and Afghan veterans—first of all, any unemployed veteran of 

any era at any time, to think, from the numbers I have seen in 

these young Iraq and Afghan war veterans have unemployment 

rates at 20 percent higher than the already high national unemployment rate, just it is something we need to deal with. 

And a little money spent up front would be a lot better than providing, you know, mental health care, medical services for the rest 

of their—— 

Mr. SEARLE. I think one of the other areas we can take a look 

at is the reserve component. Okay, I am a product of that. When 

I was a battalion commander from a battalion back from Bosnia, 

I actually had people who had to make the choice of going on unemployment, losing their job, basically, or leaving the Guard, okay? 

And there is still that mindset nowadays that, well, you know, 

they cannot discriminate against somebody who was in the Guard 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
900 

if they are working there and they cannot get rid of them, but 

eventually what will happen is, when they try to get a job, they 

say, ‘‘Oh, you are in the Guard? Okay, fine. Well, we will put you 

in consideration.’’ 

But it really is a negative point now, because a lot of these small 

companies, you cannot really blame them, because they are in it to 

make money. You have got to have a business. And if they have 

five employees or whatever, you know, one of their employees could 

be going back to Afghanistan in a year, you know, that is a mark 

against them, so there is some problems. 

And as far as—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think—I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. SEARLE. And as far as the TAP program and things, the 

Guard and Reserve does not get the same—you know, again, when 

I came back to Afghanistan a year-and-a-half ago, okay, we got to 

the gate, and they handed me a sack full—and I was a colonel— 

but they handed me a sack full of papers and said, ‘‘Have a nice 

day.’’ 

And that is what they did with the soldiers. There was not the 

effort to try to help them—you know, what do you need to reintegrate into the system? So I think the Guard and Reserve is 

not—— 

Mr. FARR. But, see, I think you cannot do that from Washington. 

You cannot do it from the department. You have got to be able to 

tie in, and that pack ought to be saying, okay, you are going to 

back to, you know, Pocatello, Idaho, in a remote area in the national sense, and here are the services that are available to you. 

And we have got to individualize that, because then you can 

wrap these things around and say, you know, guess what? You 

have got PTSD counselors in this town, and here they are. We have 

got a veterans’ organization in this town. We have got SERV going 

on at the university, and you can go check in with that there. 

I think that is the individualized package, because at that age, 

I mean, you are just interested in getting home. 

Mr. SEARLE. At 58, I was interested in getting home. 

Mr. FARR. And then you go into depression, because regardless 

of PTSD, you have got a re-entry crisis. Thing is, when you have 

lived overseas—I was in the Peace Corps. I was not in the services. 

But I will tell you, it was very hard to cope when I got home. Nobody understood what I did or cared that much, and, you know, the 

conversations were always short, because they did not understand, 

and they just had no idea what it was like. 

And that is just cultural shock. I mean, it goes both ways. Getting there is a cultural shock, too, but re-entry is really difficult. 

And I think that is why people join veterans’ organizations. I can 

at least go down and find a bunch of people that lived like I did 

and get into that alumni group. 

But we are not a country—with all the skills we have, we still 

do not try to individualize those to give you the information you 

need to cope with wherever you are ending up. 

Mr. SEARLE. I also believe there is a stigma, as was mentioned, 

about being an infantry guy. What are you going to with them? 

There is so much talk about PTSD now. You know, employers are 

sitting there saying, ‘‘Am I hiring an ax murderer?’’ You know, so 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
901 

I think the American culture, there is not that many people who 

have served, so there is kind of a wall developing between the military and the retirees or, you know, people who have gotten out and 

people who have never served. 

So they are actually starting to become afraid, I think, in some 

cases, some of the articles I read about veterans. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You just were a step ahead of me. I was going to 

ask about that. It would be hard to prove, but I have to believe 

there are a lot of employers out there that are afraid of that issue. 

And, you know—may be afraid they get somebody in that has a serious health care problem and their insurance rate is going to shoot 

through the roof. 

Obviously, there are a lot of other additional issues we can talk 

about. I want to follow up with you on the issue of electronic medical records between the V.A. and DOD and a lot of other things. 

I think we have a—— 

Mr. FARR. Three votes—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. They have started a series of votes. We have kept 

you here quite a while. Let me thank all of you for being here, and 

we look forward to working with you. 

When do you think you are going to have, Carl, something—2012 

fiscal year? 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I cannot really speak for our leaders—for the 

leadership of our organizations, but at this point, our decision is 

then to allow the GAO to do its part first, and then based on what 

the GAO’s findings are for their reporting requirements, which are 

supposed to be pretty substantial, I guess we will then make the 

decision how we proceed from there. 

But at this point—I mean, we are satisfied with everything that 

has happened thus far. I am not sure we are entirely convinced 

that the GAO has taken the ball and ran with it. You know, it just 

may be one of those things where we see what happens when we 

get to that point. And I hate to say that that is a position we take. 

It is sort of the position we are in. 

In the meantime, we have already talked to your staff a little bit 

offline, and we will be happy to continue to do so moving forward. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I hope we will take the approach that the second year of our multiyear appropriations is not an absolute mold 

that we cannot change in any way, because, you know, while we 

want to create some stability for the future, we do not want to create a straitjacket, if inflation costs go up, if there are other unforeseen problems we need to address, so—— 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I think the secretary has even sort of reiterated 

that point in the budget briefings that were back in February and 

in some of his staff briefing subsequently. So—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you all for being here. We stand in 

recess. 

Mr. FARR. Recess or adjourned? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
902 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1605 here 56870C.126
903 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1606 here 56870C.127
904 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1607 here 56870C.128
905 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1608 here 56870C.129
906 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1609 here 56870C.130
907 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1610 here 56870C.131
908 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1611 here 56870C.132
909 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1612 here 56870C.133
910 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1613 here 56870C.134
911 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1614 here 56870C.135
912 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1615 here 56870C.136
913 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1616 here 56870C.137
914 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1617 here 56870C.138
915 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1618 here 56870C.139
916 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1619 here 56870C.140
917 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1620 here 56870C.141
918 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1621 here 56870C.142
919 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1622 here 56870C.143
920 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1623 here 56870C.144
921 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1624 here 56870C.145
922 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1625 here 56870C.146
923 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1626 here 56870C.147
924 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1627 here 56870C.148
(925) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010.

PACIFIC COMMAND 

WITNESSES 

ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC 

COMMAND 

GENERAL WALTER ‘‘SKIP’’ SHARP, COMMANDER, REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA-UNITED STATES COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Good morning. I would like to call the 

subcommittee to order, and Admiral Willard, General Sharp, I 

want to welcome you both to our subcommittee. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss the fiscal year 2011 

force posture and military construction request for the U.S. Pacific 

Command and U.S. Forces Korea. Two key issues we will want to 

discuss in today’s hearing are the planned realignment of Marines 

and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam and the normalization of tours for military personnel serving in Korea. 

The strong partnerships with our allies, particularly Korea and 

Japan, are crucial to peace and success in the Asia Pacific Region. 

Our military’s forward presence would not be possible without the 

strong financial and public support that both the Koreans and Japanese provide. Both nations are investing large amounts of their 

own resources in the realignments that will better position U.S. 

armed forces to meet future challenges while simultaneously improving the quality of life for American military personnel. 

Although our subcommittee focuses on investments by our own 

government this fact provides an important context to our discussions today. Let me emphasize that even as the U.S. and Japan 

discuss details of realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, the U.S. 

Congress and this subcommittee in particular are firmly committed 

to our military construction funding for this realignment. 

At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw, our ranking member, for any opening remarks he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would simply want 

to welcome you all here today and kind of just emphasize what the 

chairman said, because I think where you are, you know, in terms 

of Korea, in terms of Japan, two great partners, and there are a 

lot of challenges with North Korea and with China, so I think our 

relationship with Japan and Korea is critical, and your work there 

awfully important. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
926 

And I just thank you for being here and look forward to hearing 

your testimony and asking some questions. So thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral Willard, I want to again welcome you in 

your first appearance before this subcommittee as commander of 

the U.S. Pacific Command, and I would like to take the personal 

privilege of welcoming Mrs. Willard here today. I had the privilege 

of representing Fort Hood, our largest Army installation in the 

United States, for 14 years through three combat deployments, and 

I know the sacrifices and service that our military spouses and 

children provide our country. 

And so thank you, Mrs. Willard, on behalf of all the families that 

benefit from your service and your family’s service to our country. 

Admiral, we would like to recognize you now, and you know this 

routine. Your entire written statement will be submitted for the 

record, but we would like to recognize you and then General Sharp 

for any opening comments you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And so 

that we can get to your questions I will be very brief in my remarks, but I do ask that my full statement be submitted for the 

record. 

Chairman Edwards, Congressman Crenshaw, and members of 

the committee, on behalf of the men and women of the United 

States Pacific Command, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

before you regarding the military construction needs and initiatives 

of the U.S. Pacific Command and my area of responsibility. I would 

also like to thank you for funding the MILCON accounts of fiscal 

year 2010, which have enabled us to execute projects that have improved the capabilities, readiness, and the quality of life for our 

many servicemembers. 

I am joined today by my wife, Donna, who you have already recognized, who has been by my side for 36 years, and she is an outstanding ambassador of our nation and a tireless ombudsman for 

our military families. 

I have now been in command of U.S. Pacific Command for about 

5 months, and although I am relatively new to Pacific Command 

I have served in the Asia Pacific Region extensively, to include my 

previous assignment as the Pacific Fleet commander. Over the 

course of these assignments I have developed a tremendous respect 

for the Asia Pacific and I believe that this region now, more than 

ever, is vital to our nation’s security interests and economic prosperity. 

Military construction continues to be an important enabler of ready forces in the Pacific. Your support for our $3 billion request 

in fiscal year 2010 is allowing Pacific Command to achieve its 

transformation, operational readiness, and quality of life requirements. 

Today my service components are aggressively executing the 

MILCON you provided. To date, approximately $1 billion have either been awarded or is out for bid. 

MILCON has enabled a significant capability enhancement, such 

as basing our F–22s at Elmendorf Air Force Base and continuing 

to grow the force bed-down of our Marines in California. We are 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
927 

grateful for your support and we request your careful consideration 

of our fiscal year 2011 request. 

I have categorized this year’s MILCON request for the Pacific 

Command area of responsibility in four broad areas: the Defense 

Policy Review Initiative, or DPRI, which includes the movements 

of 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam; the 

Republic of Korea transformation, which is growing—moving forward under the leadership of General Sharp; grow the force; and 

sustainment. In each of these areas our intent is to strengthen our 

alliances and maintain a ready force that serves our nation’s 

strongest commitment to the region and as a deterrent to those 

who would challenge our freedom of action or coerce our allies, 

partners, and friends in the region. 

In closing, I would like to thank this committee for your strong 

support that you continue to provide to the men and women of the 

United States military. Despite being involved in two wars, our retention and recruiting rates continue to be strong, which is a reflection of the quality of life initiatives that you have provided alongside the American people. 

On behalf of more than 300,000 men and women of the U.S. Pacific Command, please accept our sincere appreciation for the work 

that you do for this great nation. I look forward to answering your 

questions, whether related to—Command MILCON program or the 

Asia Pacific Region in general. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Admiral Robert F. Willard follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
928 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1634 here 56870C.149
929 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1635 here 56870C.150
930 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1636 here 56870C.151
931 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1637 here 56870C.152
932 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1638 here 56870C.153
933 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1639 here 56870C.154
934 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1640 here 56870C.155
935 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1641 here 56870C.156
936 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1642 here 56870C.157
937 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1643 here 56870C.158
938 

Mr. EDWARDS. Admiral Willard, thank you very much. 

General Sharp, welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL WALTER L. SHARP

General SHARP. Thank you sir. 

Chairman Edwards, Congressman Crenshaw, and other distinguished members of the committee, I really do appreciate this opportunity to come back again to report to you on the state of the 

United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and U.S. 

Forces Korea. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War. Since 1950 Congress and the American 

people have made an enormous investment in blood and treasure 

to first defeat and then now deter North Korean aggression. 

The alliance continues to reap the returns of that benefit—of 

that investment. The Republic of Korea now bears the majority of 

the burden of defending itself, and in 2012 wartime operational 

control transitions from Combined Forces Command to the ROK 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Beyond its borders, the Republic of Korea has become an important part of the international efforts to keep peace and respond to 

disasters. With significant forces deployed to Lebanon, Haiti, the 

Horn of Africa, and other missions, the Republic of Korea is fast 

becoming the global strategic ally envisioned by the 2009 Joint Vision Statement signed by President Obama and President Lee. 

With our long-term commitment of 28,500 troops we will continue 

to deter aggression and maintain peace not only on the Korean peninsula but throughout Northeast Asia. 

Last year I spoke of my three command priorities. Thanks to 

your support and funding I am able to report great progress in 

each one of those areas. First, the United States and the Republic 

of Korea alliance is prepared to fight and win. 

I flew here directly from our spring Exercise Key Resolve, in Foal 

Eagle, a combined exercise with ROK and U.S. forces. This exercise 

demonstrated that the United States and the Republic of Korea 

forces and staffs are trained and ready to fight tonight on the Korean peninsula. 

Second, the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance continues to grow 

and strengthen. Militarily, we will be prepared to transition wartime operational control to the Republic of Korea Joint Chiefs of 

Staff on 17 April, 2012. 

In last year’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise we successfully 

stood up and tested many of the post-OPCON transition command 

and control structures. Through our strategic transition plan, future Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises, and the final certification 

exercise, we will ensure the readiness of the ROK Joint Chiefs of 

Staff to accept wartime operational control in 2012 and the ability 

of the U.S. Korea Command to become the supporting command. 

The Republic of Korea, as you mentioned, is also defraying a significant portion of U.S. Forces Korea costs. Under a 5-year special 

measures arrangement—agreement—Korea will provide my command with approximately $700 million of cost-sharing funds this 

year. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
939 

My third priority: improving the quality of life for our command 

personnel. We are making substantial progress here, and with Congress’ support we will achieve all of our goals. 

We are improving the quality of life through two key initiatives. 

The first is the relocation of U.S. forces. By consolidating U.S. 

forces from the 105 USFK facilities that were maintained in 2002 

to 48 sites in two hubs we will make better use of resources and 

be better positioned to support our servicemembers and families. 

The second initiative, tour normalization, goes hand-in-hand with 

relocation. As we consolidate bases we are building world-class facilities and housing that are transforming U.S. Forces Korea from 

a command where 1-year tours are norm to a command where single servicemembers serve for 2 years and those with families for 3 

years. 

In the last 2 years, since June of 2008, the number of families 

in the peninsula has increased from about 1,600 to about 3,900 

families now. By keeping trained military people in Korea for normal tour lengths we will attain institutional knowledge, create a 

more capable force, and are better able to support the alliance and 

deter aggression and demonstrate our commitment to Northeast 

Asia. At the same time, we are eliminating unneeded unaccompanied tours and building strong families that are key to the retention and effectiveness in this time of ongoing conflict. 

Finally, I would like to provide you with an update on military 

construction. A total of $46.5 million in military construction has 

been requested by the U.S. government fiscal year 2011 defense 

budget. 

This request will fund the upgrade of electrical and natural gas 

systems at Camp Walker, the construction of a distributed mission 

training flight simulator at Kunsan, and the expansion of health 

and dental clinic at Camp Carroll. These military construction 

projects will, if funded, improve operations, training, and the quality of life for the command personnel, enhancing overall force readiness. 

To close, the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance has never been 

stronger. The alliance has successfully deterred aggression on the 

Korea peninsula for 57 years. In doing so, it has helped to make 

Northeast Asia a remarkably peaceful and prosperous place. With 

the Republic of Korea contributing a substantial portion of the alliance’s cost we are maintaining combat readiness and improving 

quality of life for our military personnel. 

I thank you for supporting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, DOD civilians, and families serving our great nation in 

Korea. And, sir, this concludes my remarks, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of General Walter L. Sharp follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
940 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1649 56870C.159
941 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1650 56870C.160
942 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1651 56870C.161
943 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1652 56870C.162
944 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1653 56870C.163
945 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1654 56870C.164
946 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1655 56870C.165
947 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1656 56870C.166
948 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1657 56870C.167
949 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1658 56870C.168
950 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1659 56870C.169
951 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1660 56870C.170
952 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1661 56870C.171
953 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1662 56870C.172
954 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1663 56870C.173
955 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1664 56870C.174
956 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1665 56870C.175
957 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1666 56870C.176
958 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1667 56870C.177
959 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1668 56870C.178
960 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1669 56870C.179
961 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1670 56870C.180
962 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1671 56870C.181
963 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1672 56870C.182
964 

Mr. EDWARDS. General Sharp, we thank you for your testimony 

and for your leadership of those forces and their families. 

Admiral Willard, I might begin our questions by just asking if 

you could update the subcommittee on the status of realignment of 

U.S. forces in Japan? 

REALIGNMENT OF U.S. FORCES IN JAPAN

Admiral WILLARD. Yes, sir, I will. First of all, important, I think 

to begin by emphasizing that the Japan-U.S. alliance remains a 

cornerstone to our nation’s strategy for security in Northeast Asia. 

This alliance, as is the case with our alliance with the Republic of 

Korea, is longstanding, as everyone on this committee knows, and 

of vital importance to both nations. 

Currently, the DPRI, Defense Policy Review Initiative, was intended to strengthen the alliance between the United States and 

Japan through a number of initiatives that take place in Japan 

and, as you suggested, with the move of Marines from Okinawa, in 

some instances to alleviate some of the burden-sharing on the people of Okinawa with regard to the number of Marines that are located there. 

So there are many moving parts to this across ministries in 

Japan and of interest to cross-departments in our government. And 

so to see this realignment with Japan through, it will take a concerted commitment of both the government of Japan as well as our 

own government and all of the necessary work associated with it, 

certainly by the Department of Defense, but I would offer my—you 

know, all of our agencies as well as the continued commitment of 

Congress. 

We are currently in an ongoing set of discussions over tacticallevel details—a particular airfield and its replacement facility on 

the island of Okinawa. As everyone is aware, the administration in 

Japan is relatively new. The administration leadership has elected 

to view into the realignment initiative details to include the 

Futenma Replacement Facility discussion. 

And I think in general that is to be expected with a new administration in place and an agreement that was signed by both nations 

several years ago by the previous Japanese administration. 

I think that Prime Minister Hatoyama is choosing this opportunity to view into the details of it and ensure that the Japanese 

government is comfortable with where the alignment initiative is 

headed. And they have committed to letting the United States 

know the results of this view into the detail, particularly with regard to a Futenma Replacement Facility by May of this year, and 

we are looking forward to hearing from the Japanese government 

their intentions and view and results of the review on this issue. 

We have discussed the move of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to 

Guam, and like the Defense Policy Review Initiative in total, that 

move itself has many moving parts. And I am sure we will discuss 

some of the details of them on Guam, but for the Marines in Okinawa the resulting Marines that are left behind as a ground force 

require the aviation capability that Futenma Replacement Facility 

represents to be colocated with them in accordance with the way 

in which our Marine forces routinely operate. And so the resolution 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
965 

of the FRF issue with the government of Japan is an important element within the broader DPRI. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Admiral, thank you very much. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GUAM

Admiral, let me maybe follow up a little bit, particularly as it relates to Guam, because I know that there have been some, I guess, 

challenges in terms of training, in terms of where that is going to 

take place, whether there is going to be any amphibious-type training. I know that kind of a dredging for a carrier mason, that there 

were some, I guess, environmental issues. 

Can you just kind of comment on—and I guess hearing you saying you are fairly optimistic about the Japanese kind of following 

through, you are going to hear in May, but just kind of specifically 

as it relates to Guam, touch on a couple of those challenges you are 

facing and how you think that is going to be resolved. 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Congressman Crenshaw. I would 

be happy to, and it is a good question. 

The move to Guam is a very important one for our U.S. Marines. 

I mean, the idea that 8,000 Marines and their families would relocate to Guam causes us to view comprehensively into what the 

needs of the Marines on Guam and throughout that region of the 

world, the Marianas Territories, should be. 

And as you suggest, there, you know, are clearly training requirements for the Marines that come with that lay-down, and they 

are being dealt with. In fact, during the Quadrennial Defense Review process this was addressed. The Marines have represented 

their needs, and we are working through the details of exactly 

what that will mean in the future. So we are addressing the Marines’ concerns with regard to training, and as the combatant commander in the region it is of great importance to me that we meet 

their training requirements. 

You refer to the environmental impact study that has been ongoing to support the Marine Corps lay down in Guam. This is the 

most comprehensive EIS that our Navy has ever undertaken, and 

it was performed alongside other agencies to include the EPA. 

The criticisms with regard to the EIS and its current status by 

the EPA are now being worked out between the Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, in this past 

week, Ms. Sutley, the president’s environmental advisor, representatives from the eight various agencies, and the Department of Defense—some of my senior officers—were on Guam to discuss some 

of the challenges and issues with the Guam government. 

Most of the criticisms had to do with Guam infrastructure, where 

the EIS and the DPRI initiative has mainly focused on the inside 

defense line requirements for a Marine Corps move from Okinawa 

to Guam and the resulting shortfalls inside the Guam infrastructure in a variety of areas—power, water, solid waste disposal, and 

so forth—that Guam may incur with the sizeable increase in population that the Marines and their families would represent. And 

again, its an issue that the Department of Defense and other agencies will work together to resolve. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
966 

So I am confident that the EIS, which will continue to be worked 

hard, will be concluded with a rod later this summer, as scheduled, 

and we have, as you suggest, worked to do—to resolve some of 

these issues with particularly EPA, both as relates to Guam infrastructure and some of their concerns with regard to the improved 

carrier facility, which now has an impact associated with some corral in the harbor area. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Do you have a better idea of how much that is 

going to cost kind of all together, and how confident are you that 

the Japanese are still committed to doing their share? 

Admiral WILLARD. I think the Japanese are committed, certainly, 

to doing their share of what has been agreed to with regard to the 

movement of 8,000 Marines to Guam. 

In terms of the Territory of Guam’s infrastructure, which is not 

captured, necessarily, in the DPRI agreement, there are various 

rough order of magnitude cost estimates I think that are currently 

being discussed and debated, and they swing pretty broadly. So it 

is likely to be several billion dollars of infrastructure improvements 

in Guam; the exact amount, I think, will need to be studied very 

carefully to ensure that we know exactly what is required in terms 

of water, power, roads, solid waste disposal, and so forth, for the 

comprehensive package. And that will be the work that will be ongoing in the next several months. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Farr. 

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

Admiral Willard, I want to thank you for being here. 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you for your service. 

I live down the street from the family home of General Joe—Vinegar Joe—Stilwell, and he left quite a legacy on the Monterey Peninsula and institutions that are dedicated to languages and cultural studies, including the Naval Postgraduate School. All the 

questions I have relate to the programs that are going on there and 

finding out whether they are relevant to your mission. 

IMET

I have suggested to a lot of the commands that come in here is 

the program that seems to be very, very effective is the International Military Education Program, the IMET. It has really been 

underfunded. It comes out of the State Department, and I think 

the operational commands ought to be talking about how we might 

beef that up and bring it back under the guise of the Defense Department. The drop-off in students coming into that program primarily are from your region. 

One of the things I wanted to ask you is that the school offers 

graduate education in both short-course and the long-term formats, 

and for stabilization and reconstruction operations. Unfortunately, 

few officers are currently slated for the degree-granting programs 

because the services have not received sufficient indicator that 

there is a requirement for focused education in this area from combatant commands. Now, I just wondered if there is the need for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
967 

that type of expertise in your region for stabilization and reconstruction operations. 

Admiral WILLARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. FARR. Have you ever expressed an interest in requiring those 

requirements come to your command? That is, you know, a chicken 

and an egg. General Mullen is keen on this, but there is sort of the 

lack of thought for people to have that specific training. You have 

FAOs but not stabilization and reconstruction. 

Admiral WILLARD. I think to this last point that you make, in 

terms of a community and a structure within the services that accepts those particular specialties as opposed to foreign area ops or 

other career-established community choices, there is work to do in 

that regard. So, you know, where reconstruction and stabilization 

fits inside our manpower, our expertise structures across the services I think would be worthy of a look. 

To your point of its level of importance, I think we have learned 

in the past 8 years just how important it is, and I would offer that 

for the past several years—and in my last assignment as the Pacific Fleet commander where I visited the Navy Postgraduate 

School we looked at the demographics of who was attending the 

foreign courses and who from the services were attending in postgraduate school those courses of study that would offer them skills 

in the cultural aspects of my region of the world at the time. 

We had work to do to improve the demographic representation 

of foreign service in the school, and likewise the services were increasingly, I think, utilizing Navy Postgraduate School as one example for their own graduate-level studies in many of these areas, 

to include reconstruction and stabilization and the courses that are 

offered there. 

So I think on the one hand we have some—you know, to Admiral 

Mullen’s point, I mean, we have to view into our service cultures 

and the associated communities to ensure that we are getting it 

right based on our lessons learned in this particular area. On the 

other hand, those of us, as you suggest, as regional commanders 

need to express our views with regard to the importance of—— 

Mr. FARR. I would really appreciate it if you could do that, because I think it is very appropriate expertise that we need to maintain. 

KOREA

General SHARP. Sir, along those lines, in Korea it is also important, of course, with what we are doing in Korea. And in fact, you 

know, the Republic of Korea is standing up a 3,000-man peacekeeping force dedicated really to go to U.N. peacekeeping missions 

and other types of peacekeeping missions that they are involved in 

now, and then others of the future. So the ability to be able to 

send, maybe, some of those officers to a school that can teach stability and reconstruction to foreign officers, I think also would—it 

is worth investigating. 

Mr. FARR. I find a keen interest among officers, particularly 

young officers coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, the awareness 

of what needs to be done and would like that skill set. But there 

doesn’t seem to be an ask among the theater commanders for those 

skill sets, so I think the communication needs to be strengthened. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
968 

And along that line, the Joint Education Research in Southeast 

Asia—the NPS and the National University of Singapore, NUS, 

have established a Joint Education Research Institute, the 

Temasek Defense Institute, to support security systems education. 

They have done systems of education in maritime security—stability, security, transition, and reconstruction issues, and other 

problems common to the interest of PACCOM. 

Singapore sends about 30 degree-seeking students to the NPS 

each year and the Joint Institute sponsors two annual conferences, 

one in Singapore and one in Monterey. NPS send three students 

per year to the joint program. And I wondered how PACCOM can 

collaborate with Tamesek Defense Institute as you respond to both 

the traditional and operational maritime domain awareness and 

maritime security issues and whether SSTR responsibilities is defined by OSD directive 3000.05 can be met? 

Which directive—— 

VOICE. Stabilization—— 

Mr. FARR. Stabilization. 

Admiral WILLARD. Well, first I would offer that Singapore, as you 

discussed, the number of students at NPS is the largest foreign investor in graduate-level education at NPS within the Pacific Command region. So of attendees in my area of responsibility Singapore 

takes up the most—takes the most opportunity at Naval Postgraduate School for purposes of education. 

As you suggest, our investment in the institute that they have 

created is relatively modest. Nonetheless, we are committed to a 

small number of students that do attend. 

If what you are asking is, can lines of communication between 

my educators at Pacific Command and the Singapore institute be 

strengthened, yes. I would be very happy to look into the details 

of what their curriculum offers for my officers as well as foreign officers in the region and determine where we might take advantage 

of that curriculum. 

[The information follows:] 

The strategic alliance between the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the National University of Singapore (NUS) that forms the Temasek Defense Systems Institute (TDSI) is a valuable education and research program. TDSI is a technical 

and intensive dual degree program, awarding an NUS Master of Science in Defense 

Technology Systems and an NPS Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Combat Systems Technology, Computer Science, or 

Operations Research. 

The focus on defense technology and systems presents a limited opportunity for 

PACOM to collaborate with TDSI, as PACOM engages directly with the Ministry 

of Defense and Defense Science and Technology Agency in Singapore. Direct engagement with TDSI on maritime domain awareness and maritime security technologies 

has largely been relegated to a Service component laboratory—specifically the Office 

of Naval Research—Global which has a permanent presence in Singapore and works 

frequently with TDSI. This has proven to be the most effective way to engage TDSI, 

although a few upcoming conferences may provide collaboration opportunities for 

TDSI students, science and technology professionals, and maritime security experts. 

NPS is currently planning a workshop (8th in a series) on cooperative research 

with TDSI, including a continuing effort in maritime security. The workshop will 

be held in Monterey from 27–29 April and is jointly sponsored by TDSI, NPS and 

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. An invite has been sent to HQ 

USPACOM and attendance is under consideration. In addition, there are a few upcoming, PACOM-sponsored Maritime Security conferences in Southeast Asia that 

may be of interest to TDSI students. Invites for those conferences will be provided 

to the NPS liaison officer, who can ensure they reach the target TDSI audience. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
969 

Mr. FARR. I will send you a follow up on that to get more details 

of specific—— 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

ACCOMPANIED TOURS IN KOREA

Mr. EDWARDS. General Sharp, I want to thank you for the initiatives you have taken to allow more of our troops serving in Korea 

to have their families accompany them. Could you update us on 

where we are? I remember at one point I think just 10 percent of 

the troops were accompanied. Can you tell me where we are today 

and where we are going forward? I think we have three phases of 

our effort for—— 

General SHARP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Normalization of those tours. 

General SHARP. Yes, sir, and thank you for that question. We 

are—force level in Korea, as you know, is 28,500 troops, and Secretary Gates has stated that is the force level that will remain in 

Korea for the foreseeable future. So about half of that is married, 

so about 14,000 are married. 

We have gone from, in the summer of 2008, of about 1,600 command-sponsored families to today in Korea we have 3,900 command-sponsored families. The phase one of the tour normalization, 

which will be complete by the end of next year, will get us to about 

4,900 command-sponsored families. So 1,600 to 4,900 in about a 3- 

year period, and I am confident we are going to be able to make 

that 4,900 goal. 

The 4,900 goal is really—it derived by looking at what do we 

have capability-wise, infrastructure in Korea today with some modest increase, but mainly what we have in place today to make sure 

we are providing adequate medical, adequate schools, adequate 

housing for those families. And I am comfortable to be able to move 

to the 4,900 point by next year. 

By the way, we happen to have also about 1,300 non-commandsponsored families, so those are the families that have to—they are 

going to come on their own. They are mostly younger families that 

have come with their servicemember who is on a 1–year tour, but 

they are also living in Korea, that we are taking care of by allowing 

them to—if they live off post we do give them housing allowance. 

Mr. EDWARDS. They do. 

General SHARP. They do get housing allowance, yes, sir. And we 

make sure that where they do rent off post is adequate and up to 

standard. They are allowed to use our PX and commissary, of 

course, they get Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime, they 

generally—their kids do not go to our school because most of them 

have non-school-age kids. As I said, most of these are the younger 

soldiers that are there for currently a 1–year tour. 

So that is kind of the status of where we are right now up 

through phase one of tour normalization. The goal, then, is to go 

from that 4,900 up to the maximum of over 14,000 families. 

Phase two is going to take place really over the next 4 to 5 to 

6 years, and it—we really won’t grow much in families. We hope 

to be able to grow up to about 6,000 families. But what will happen 

over that year is the moves from where we are—— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
970 

Mr. EDWARDS [continuing]. Grow to 6,000? 

General SHARP. Grow to 6,000. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

General SHARP. What is really going to happen during that period is we are going to consolidate and we are going to move. We 

are going to be going down from over 100 facilities, bases, camps, 

and stations across to about 48. 

The big one, of course, is the move out of Yongsan, out of Seoul, 

and out of where Second Infantry Division is now north of Seoul, 

and consolidate down at Camp Humphreys, build the infrastructure down there at Camp Humphreys, and then after that is complete then we are going to be able to increase to full tour normalization. 

The Department of Defense right now, in fact, is looking at how 

long that is going to take and what is the cost of that, and you will 

see that—the results of that and the way ahead to make that happen in the 1217 Pom submission that will come next year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there any ballpark number—I would not expect 

you to have an exact number, but any ballpark number as to what 

the ultimate cost would be for medical facilities, and housing, education facilities, to allow full normalization of coming tours? 

General SHARP. So the ballpark, you know—and this really is ballpark—is in the order of magnitude of about $3 billion plus another $1 billion for housing, which may not be a MILCON cost; we 

may be able to do it through private ventures. That does not include the cost of Kunsan Air Force Base, which, as you know, is 

the southernmost air force base that is in pretty remote areas right 

now, but for where we are going to have the majority of our troops 

with families, Osan, Daegu, and Camp Humphreys, again, that is 

a really, really rough order of magnitude. 

And what we are trying to do is work through—is, you know, as 

I said, the department is looking at the funding of that, the costsharing that we get from the Republic of Korea to be able to help 

do some of that, and that is what we are working our way through 

right now, that you will get next January with the next budget. 

Mr. EDWARDS. My concern—and obviously no one would be more 

concerned about our troops than you because you are leading them 

and you know the sacrifices they are making—my concern has been 

during the Iraq and Afghan wars you have situations where someone is gone to Iraq and comes back home and then is reassigned 

to Korea and comes back home, and maybe after a short stay they 

are reassigned to Iraq or Afghanistan. You could, I mean, theoretically have someone be away from their family and children for 3 

years. I hope that doesn’t happen very often if at all. But the cost—$3 billion, $4 billion—if you even don’t count the housing need, if that is done on a privatized basis, $3 billion, obviously, in this budget at a time of war is a huge military construction lift, but is there any way in this interim period any stopgap 

measures could be provided that might help save—— 

From your testimony it sounds like the families that aren’t coming with the troops are those that may have school-age children. 

In the interim period, as you are going to phase two and then 

phase three, if you are providing a housing allowance so that they 

can find decent housing even if we don’t have DOD-sponsored housVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00970 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
971 

ing, is it availability of educational opportunity for their children 

that would hold some of these families with the school-age children 

back, or is it access to health care? 

If it were education, for example, is there not something we could 

do less expensively to provide some kind of educational opportunity 

to these families? You are making tremendous progress—more 

than anyone has made—and I salute you for that. But it is still a 

long time while we are still at war where these families are being 

forced, basically by our lack of commitment of resources they are 

being forced to live apart from their families. And given the sacrifices we are already asking of their families I don’t feel good 

about that. 

Is there anything that could be done that would be far less expensive in the interim to either address the health care or the education situations? 

General SHARP. Sir, first off, I really thank you for those comments and I agree completely. You know, the ability to be able to 

keep families together and to have servicemembers on 2- and 3- 

year tours in Korea not only helps along those lines but, as I said 

in my opening statement, greatly increases our capability just because you don’t have to train someone new every year. And it really does demonstrate our long-term commitment to not only the Republic of Korea but Northeast Asia, which I think is hugely important. 

SCHOOLS

The long pole in the tent really is schools. We need, in order to 

be able to go to full tour normalization, somewhere between 13 and 

15 additional schools for our kids. That has been helped—the recent money that ODEA has brought forward to schools has helped 

some, but even with that we are still on the order of magnitude of 

13 to 15 schools. 

We are examining alternatives to be able to—all that doesn’t 

have to be of MILCON. There may be some public-private ventures 

that—similar to what we are doing in housing. But to be honest, 

we have not been able to find a way yet in order to be able to crack 

that nut to be able to build those schools. And the phasing of them 

as we move down to Camp Humphreys—we have got to make sure 

that is right also as we go across. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I realize that at some of these more remote outposts it is just not possible and the consolidation will help there, 

and no amount of money until you get that consolidation completed 

would solve every family’s problem, but as I understand what you 

are saying education is the long pole in the—— 

General SHARP. And we are doing—through BAH, you can—in 

most of the locations you can find—— 

We are working through that. You know, we don’t have any problem giving decent housing in Seoul, of course, and as we move 

down to Camp Humphreys it is not as developed as Seoul—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. 

GeneralSHARP [continuing]. And so again, the amount of housing 

that we want to put on post at Camp Humphreys versus off post 

is—literally, we are working through those details right now with 

market survey analysis as to what is available off post and what 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
972 

will be available as we move through down there. Daegu—we are 

in better shape down at Daegu where—because there is some very 

good housing that is located off down there. 

On the schools, we are trying to—I mean, for example, we took 

some barracks that we no longer needed up at Camp Casey and we 

are renovating them, and I will open a K–8 at Camp—up at Casey 

this next school year. We are renovating some facilities that we no 

longer need down at Daegu right now, and they will also—they will 

be open in another year that will allow more school folks to come 

down there. But those are, as you would appreciate, you know, 

stopgap measures so that we can take care of the families mainly 

that we have got during phase one coming in and do that in the 

best way possible. 

But what we really owe you—and like I said, I am confident that 

you will get it on our next budget submission, which will be in time 

to really then start building these facilities, doing the, you know, 

the 13, 14, 15 period as we are doing all the moves and consolidating so that we are ready for the next step to go to full tour normalization. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you for the efforts you are making. 

And our subcommittee would like to work with you to see if there 

is anything additional we can do over the next several years to help 

some of these families stay together. 

General SHARP. Sir, I really appreciate that comment, because as 

you know, many years in the past that has not been the way. We 

have not been able to get MILCON for Korea. But your support 

and the committee’s support to do that in this important part of 

the world in the future I think really is critical and will make a 

huge difference. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, General Sharp. We will look forward 

to working with you, sir. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHALLENGES

Admiral Willard, let me ask you—every combatant commander 

has their unique challenges, and you have certainly got some 

unique ones in your corner of the world. You have got North Korea; 

you have got China. Both are developing nuclear and military capabilities kind of at a rapid pace. 

We read about North Korea testing missiles, et cetera. China is 

actually certainly modernizing their military. So can you give this 

committee kind of your overall assessment of how you think you 

are doing with dealing with those two pretty significant challenges? 

Admiral WILLARD. Yes, I can, and thank you for the question. I 

think there are five areas that I focus into in the Pacific that are 

the big management issues that we have ongoing. You have named 

two of them. One of those is China, one of those is North Korea. 

The others are our relationship with India, our dealing with 

transnational threats to include terrorism, and the work that we 

do to improve our alliances and strategic partnerships. And we 

have talked about the transformation on the Korean Peninsula and 

DPRI as two examples of attempts to strengthen our alliances 

through realignments with our partners. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
973 

In the two that you mention these are significant issues for U.S. 

Pacific Command. In the case of North Korea, as General Sharp 

has already discussed, this is very much an issue of continued deterrence in the armistice state that we find ourselves; also in dealing with provocations out of North Korea, as we experienced last 

year with ballistic missile tests and continued development of their 

nuclear programs; and seeking that international commitment in 

the framework of six parties to deal with those issues. 

But for Pacific Command, also the proliferation threat that Korea 

represents, and we have had to deal with both shipborne and airborne transport of illicit arms out of North Korea, and we continue 

to view for vessels of interest and other movements that might indicate that proliferation is occurring. So in the Korea—the North 

Korea dynamic it is very much a regional issue. These are concerns 

that Japan has over their safety from North Korea—concerns that 

I think the People’s Republic of China have over North Korea and 

its continued challenges. 

In the case of China it is different. China is, as you suggest, a 

growing military power in the region. It is also a pretty massive 

economic power in the region. The amount of influence that China 

has gained over the past decade or so in the Asia Pacific Region 

is profound, and they are virtually everywhere. And wherever I 

speak to senior leadership, military or civilian, inevitably a discussion related to China is part of that engagement. 

On my part, we view China in two areas. One is the charter that 

I have to improve the military-to-military relationships with China 

and to maintain a degree of stability in our interactions when we 

encounter one another either on the seas or in the air in the region. 

So I am endeavoring to improve our relationship with China as 

their military grows and their influence in the region grows. It is 

challenging. As you know, China has suspended the mil-to-mil relationship with the United States for the time being as a consequence of the Taiwan arms sales announcements. That is not unusual. 

So if you look across the engagements with China by our government, the one that is lagging furthest behind is the military-tomilitary relationship, which we are, you know, in our discussions 

attempting to convince them that it is in their best interest as well 

as that of the United States and the region in order to maintain 

a continuum of that engagement. 

The other side of my responsibility is to maintain my presence 

in the Western Pacific. We have been guarding the water and airspace in that area of the world for the past 150 years, long before 

the PLA Navy reemerged over the past 20. 

There are very critical, vital to our economies and the economies 

of our friends and allies in the region, sea lines of communication 

and air lines of communication that criss-cross the waters in that 

region—South China Sea, East China Sea, Taiwan Strait, you 

know, as we move commerce out of the Strait of Malacca north or 

vice-versa, and across the Pacific. More than $1 trillion a year of 

commerce moves on the water in this region of the world, and we 

have been there to protect and we continue—we will continue to be 

there to secure it. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
974 

So that is a large responsibility that I bear. And as we or the 

regional partners are uncertain regarding China’s long-term intentions with that growing military, then it is my responsibility to 

maintain the readiness, and presence, and posture, as we have already discussed, of our forces in the Asia Pacific in order to be prepared to contend if we don’t get this right. 

But I would emphasize again that it is in all of our interests, I 

know, and in all of the region’s interests as well, that the relationship with China grow into one that is constructive in every way, 

and comprehensive, and representing capabilities on both sides to 

secure this important region of the world. 

WARTIME CONTROL

Mr. CRENSHAW. Could I ask General Sharp, kind of along those 

lines, I know you had mentioned in your opening statement that 

I guess in 2012 you are going to have the Republic of Korea assume 

the wartime control, and it sounded like that is going well. And it 

seems I read somewhere there are like 20 kind of criteria you are 

kind of dealing with. 

Can you just highlight a couple? Again, is it correct to say that 

things are moving in the right direction, we are well on our way 

to have that? 

Talk about those areas that you are dealing with, those 20 criteria, how far along we are with that. And I guess if there are any 

MILCON kind of implications of all that we want to kind of still 

maintain our same commitment, which I assume we are, but does 

that have any kind of impact on our military construction down the 

road? 

General SHARP. Thank you, sir. We are moving and I am very 

well to be prepared for OPCON transition in 2012, and I am confident from a military perspective we will be ready for that. 

As you know, if we were to go to war today I, as the commander 

of Combined Forces Command, would be in command of all the 

forces, both the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. That is when we— 

if we were to go to war. 

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Today, in armistice, the ROK chairman, the ROK JCS is responsible and in command of all of the Korean forces there that deal 

with all of the armistice issues that—I mean, deal with all the 

provocations that are going on in North Korea, all the training requirements of the ROK military. So after 2012—or in 2012—he, 

then, will be able to maintain that and then take command also of 

the U.S. forces that come to the Republic of Korea. 

I will maintain national—the Korea Command commander will 

maintain national command and control—national OPCON control—of those forces and we will be in a supporting to supported 

relationship. 

The progress that we are making is really tremendous, and we 

are—we have—the 20 figure that you have really comes out of our 

strategic transition plan, which are 20 different tasks with many 

sub-tasks that we have milestones for, we have specific criteria to 

be able to accomplish on a timeline to get us to 2012. I lump those 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
975 

20 into really four different areas. The first one is—the four different areas are plans, organizations, processes, and systems. 

So under the plans, we are now on the second version of the 

overarching plan. That is one plan—it is a bilateral plan between 

the Republic of Korea and the U.S. where both countries will commit to the missions, the forces, the tasks that each one of our forces 

will do after 2012. Again, we are on the second version of that. 

We have exercised that plan now twice during our summer exercise, Ulchi Freedom Guardian. We will exercise it two more times, 

one this coming summer and one in summer of 2011, and then also 

the final version of the plan we will exercise in a certification exercise in early 2012. So I am very comfortable where we are there. 

On the organizational side, of course we have to stand up a new 

headquarters because Combined Forces Command will no longer 

exist, so from a U.S. perspective we are standing what will be 

called Korea Command, KORCOM, and the Korea Command will 

be both a warfighting headquarters and a Title X headquarters. 

I am already starting to order my people against the manning 

document for that Korea Command headquarters, so we are working through the details of that. We will actually start standing that 

up at an initial operating capability here very soon this year and 

we will be fully operational capable by the fall of 2011. 

The ROKs are doing the same thing on their side. They are adjusting what they need in their Joint Chiefs headquarters in order 

to be both a Joint Chief headquarters, but more importantly a 

warfighting headquarters. And again, they have stood up those organizations. 

And then finally, under the organizational construct we are also 

standing up a large number of coordinating cells and centers that 

will coordinate—that will be up and operational both in armistice 

and in wartime that will coordinate, for example, between the Seventh Fleet U.S. naval component and the ROK navy in a supporting to supported relationship. So all of that is progressing very 

well. 

On the processes, we have been working very hard, in some 

sense because of what has been going on in North Korea with the 

provocations over the last year, the processes to make sure that we 

in Combined Forces Command—what we see, what we say, what 

we do is exactly the same as on the ROK JCS side, and that will 

be very similar process in place after we become KORCOM and we 

will be working back and forth to the ROK JCS. 

As part of all that process I also have to say the relationship that 

we have with the embassy in Korea with the—is fantastic. We 

work on a daily basis to make sure that all elements of power, both 

on the U.S. and the ROK side, are really tightly working together. 

And then the last one is on systems, and what we really are focusing on in the systems area is the command and control system, 

the C4 system, to make sure that we see the same picture—the 

same operational picture—we have the same database if there were 

enemies that units are, when we go through crisis action planning 

to determine what to do we see the same picture out there, and we 

are able to do it on a real-time basis. And again, we are making 

great progress along those lines. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
976 

If there is any area that I spend probably the most amount of 

time making sure it is right it is that, because I am absolutely confident with the professionalism of the Korean military. Get the 

right command and control system, get the right processes in place 

and organizations, they are more than ready to take responsibility 

of the lead of the war fight in defending their own country. And 

so again, from a military perspective I am very confident that we 

will be prepared for 2012. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is that going to have any military construction 

implications—kind of levels stay the same or increase? 

General SHARP. That is all accounted for in the move—what we 

need for the move down to Camp Humphreys. That is not required, 

but when we move down to Camp Humphreys, which will be after 

2012—the headquarters will move after 2012—what we will have 

in place down there will allow—will fit right into the OPCON transition construct. 

We are fine even before then because where really I command 

out of now for my Combined Forces Command, it is out of a bunker 

called Command Post Tango, and we will maintain that as we 

move down to Camp Humphreys for the—to be the command center down there. So the MILCON that we need in order to be able 

to execute OPCON transition is on track and in line with the move 

down to Camp Humphreys. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Sam? 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions for 

both the general and the admiral, and then I have to go to Homeland Security appropriations. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We are not sticking by the 5–minute rule today, 

so you—— 

SOFA

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Well, General, I am really fascinated by your report. I represent 

former Fort Ord, and I think the 17 years I have been in Congress, 

and there isn’t a day that goes by I don’t deal with BRAC issues, 

so I am just amazed to hear what you are doing in Korea. I would 

love to go just do a comparison of—UXO’s, the complex, land title 

transfers, RCIs, everything you can imagine. You have returned 37 

installations—were those installations where we owned the title or 

can we own land in foreign countries? 

General SHARP. This is sofa-agranted land, so we have certain 

rights and authorities of what we can build on the land, but—— 

Mr. FARR. It is leased land—— 

General SHARP. We really don’t pay for it, but they have given 

us the land really since the end of the Korean War, where a lot 

of the camps, you know, that we have now consolidated into to become much more efficient and effective, and then we returned that 

land—— 

Mr. FARR. When you returned the land do you have to live by 

American standards for clean-up or is it Korean standards? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
977 

General SHARP. What the standards are that are agreed to in the 

sofa is known as—basically, if there is any known imminent substantial endangerment to life then we will—— 

Mr. FARR. That is our—— 

General SHARP. That is our responsible. But only if it is imminent and substantial endangerment to human health that we have 

to do it. 

But the other, you know, the other part of that is, the infrastructure that we built on these, you know, is—Koreans get, and so 

there is, you know—— 

Mr. FARR. They get that free—— 

General SHARP. They get that free. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. As is. 

General SHARP. As is. And we don’t, you know—again, the environmental requirements are just as I described them. 

Mr. FARR. Time doesn’t allow, but I would really be interested in 

seeing how you did this joint designing, planning, and construction 

that, as you say, will be one of the best Army installations in the 

world and Camp Humphreys. Do you use the RCI process, you 

don’t need to do that? 

General SHARP. No, sir. Again, the—— 

Mr. FARR. So we build the housing on bases for our military with 

our MILCON. That means essentially all—— 

YONGSAN

General SHARP. No, let me back up. Camp Humphreys is really 

a consolidation of two international agreements. One is called the 

Yongsan Relocation Program, where the Koreans came to us in 

2002, 2003 and said, we would like you to move out of Yongsan, 

and we will acquire the new land for you to move out of Yongsan 

so we can return that very, very valuable piece of land where we 

have been since the end of the Korean war. We will acquire the 

land and we will pay for the new facilities to be able to move all 

of the, you know, my headquarters and everything else out of 

Yongsan. We said, ‘‘That is very good but you have to pay for it,’’ 

and they agreed to do that. 

At the same time, we said we want to do some consolidation of 

our Second Infantry Division, which was spread out through many 

different posts, you know, north between Seoul and the DMZ, and 

we—— 

Mr. FARR. So this will be the headquarters of the Second Division? 

General SHARP. It will be the headquarters for Second Division, 

and Eight Army also. 

Mr. FARR. So who is paying for the construction of the new facilities on Camp Humphreys? 

General SHARP. As I said, for all of the facilities that we are replacing that we are from Yongsan, where my headquarters for 

Combined Forces Command is, the Koreans are paying for that. 

Mr. FARR. With sort of a lease agreement, or—— 

General SHARP. Again, it is sofa-agranted land. They will build 

the facilities; we will use them for as long as we are in Korea, 

which is a long, long time. And then the facilities that are needed 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
978 

to replace what we have up in Second Infantry Division, it is a burden-sharing agreement between us and the Republic of Korea. 

Mr. FARR. You command more troops in Korea than most of the 

sizes of the cities that I represent, and it is—is 28,500 the largest 

military personnel in any one country? 

Admiral WILLARD. Well, I mean, Iraq and Afghanistan have a lot 

more—— 

General SHARP. And Japan has what, 50,000 or so, sir? Something like that. 

Mr. FARR. Japan is even larger. And even after closure of Okinawa in moving to Guam? 

Admiral WILLARD. It is not closing Okinawa, sir, we are—right 

now there are about 18,000 Marines in Okinawa, and not withstanding those that are committed right now into Iraq and Afghanistan, which reduces that number, but total assigned are about 

18,000, and the DPRI agreement with the Japanese was to relocate 

8,000 of those Marines, so we leave about 10,000 behind. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I hope we have the time to visit this 

region and these issues. You represent Fort—you used to represent 

Fort Hood. You know more about BRAC than most people. And I 

am just curious, I would love to see the design and planning, because of what I have been dealing with. The biggest problem is 

that there was no planning and you just threw things in here and 

way over there, and there is no interconnectivity. 

Admiral, you were mentioning the maritime domain and again, 

going back to the Naval Postgraduate School, I don’t know if you 

are aware they have put together a special operations command 

with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and what the 

two do is conduct a quarterly field experiment focused on maritime 

interdiction operations and port security. 

They have field experiments and they have focused on rapid 

ship-to-ship, ship to boat communications for boarding parties and 

for port authorities, and from what I understand, this allows them 

to search for radiation and explosive sources while maintaining 

connectivity to the command and control organizations and communicating with senior experts located away from the interdiction site. 

Singapore participates as a coalition partner. So the question is, 

do you think that there are other PACCOM nations that would be 

interested in becoming coalition partners on the maritime domain 

awareness field experiment, and if so, could we work with you on 

getting those countries together with the program? 

Admiral WILLARD. Yes, sir. The answer, I think, is yes and yes. 

I would offer, the Singaporeans have been particularly forwardleaning with regard to technological development with the United 

States, and very specifically with the United States Navy. So in my 

previous capacity as the Pacific Fleet commander I was briefed on 

these studies, the work that we were doing at Navy Postgraduate 

School, in some instances with the Singaporeans, and again, this 

is something that they have proposed in the past and we have look 

for the venues in which to conduct these science and technology 

kind of experiments. 

And there are a variety of others that we are teaming with 

Singapore on right now. So they have a particular interest in this 

for obvious reasons, given their very strategic location on the Strait 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
979 

of Malacca and their interest in securing the Singapore Strait. 

Maritime surveillance, maritime security, and in this instance, 

interdiction capabilities and the communications associated with 

them, their ability to remotely sense weapons of mass destruction 

or, you know, items of concern—these are shared interests between 

the United States, in our current efforts in counterterror and so 

forth, and Singapore, and as a consequence these programs have 

developed. 

Mr. FARR. I heard that Singapore has one of the best harbors in 

the world on security—I think it was Singapore. 

Admiral WILLARD. It is very impressive. I have had an opportunity to view their command and control operation both on the civilian side and on the military side, and look at their rapid response capabilities, and they have—they have very, very advanced. 

This is their national interest, obviously, because of the amount of 

merchant traffic that they deal with and what the consequence of 

any incident with regard to that merchant traffic would be. So they 

are, again, very high-tech and very accomplished in doing—— 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Transponders on every little vessel, everything? 

Admiral WILLARD. They order that vessels operating in the 

Singapore Strait have—carry a transponder system—— 

Mr. FARR. Regardless of size? 

INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC

Admiral WILLARD. What they cannot do is, the international traffic that—there is a 300–metric ton limit to AIS transponder capabilities, which is common to merchant traffic throughout the world. 

In various locations they have attempted—various countries have 

attempted to develop transponder systems at low cost that even 

fishing fleets, for example, that don’t require them, would utilize. 

All Singapore can do is enforce Singapore, you know, origin vessels, 

and they do. So they order that even small boats carry a transponder. But they can’t enforce the international traffic through the 

Strait of Malacca. 

So we all have a challenge in the sense that only the vessels at 

a reasonably high tonnage—merchant traffic—will carry transponders at all times. The other thing that we can’t do is ensure 

that the captains turn them on. 

So, you know, so at the end of the day the idea of transponders 

is a very good one. The idea that we would go below 300 metric 

tons and identify everyone’s location is a great one. At the end of 

the day the owners have to buy into the benefits of it as well. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I look forward to working with you—and both 

you gentlemen—in trying to make the mission even more relevant 

and successful. 

Admiral WILLARD. Look forward to it, sir. 

General SHARP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sam. 

General Sharp, in talking about the relocation facilities in Korea 

you said we will be in Korea a long, long time. I believe I would 

be correct in interpreting that as meaning our U.S. commitment to 

our partnership with the Republic of Korea is enduring and that 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
980 

there are absolutely no plans to reduce the commitment of our 

troop levels at 28,500, and if anything in partnership with the Republic of Korea we are working to invest to improve the facilities 

of our troops. 

General SHARP. Yes, sir. That is exactly right. And Secretary 

Gates has said that on numerous occasions, as has the president. 

And I think that, you know, as we look at the importance of 

Korea within Northeast Asia, a place that has—we have been there 

for, you know, since the Korean War, kept relatively stable, as I 

said in my statement, and in a country that has demonstrated they 

want us to be there and has demonstrated that for a long period 

of time and has recently codified in the Quadrennial Defense Review. 

Our commitment to Korea and security and stability in Northeast Asia is enduring, and we are working very hard to make it 

even—you know, the relationship and the strength of the Republic 

of Korea-U.S. alliance even stronger in the future. And as you 

pointed out earlier, the whole concept of tour normalization and 

having families and servicemembers there longer I think is a clear 

demonstration of that commitment. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. Well, thank you very much. 

GUAM

Admiral, I have some other questions we can submit in writing, 

but I only have one other I would like to discuss while you are in 

person in regard to Guam. This may not be an exact analogy, but 

one of the challenges we saw in BRAC dealing with CONUS military construction is, the process didn’t fully take into account that 

when you expand the new Walter Reed at Bethesda, the hospital 

there, said there is going to be massive congestion, and we have 

some limited defense programs to improve roads within defense installation’s border, but not really a good program to say, ‘‘Look, realistically we know having this many more people coming into Bethesda and into Fort Belvoir every day is going to put some real 

pressure on the infrastructure there.’’ 

In Guam, taking that limited analogy and applying that to 

Guam, it sounds as if the real challenge is that despite the tremendous commitments that we have between the Japanese and ourselves for infrastructure there tied into the relocation of our forces 

in Japan, the civilian government in Guam, I guess, has limitations 

on how much it can spend on infrastructure. I think you mentioned 

in your comments a few minutes ago that it could be several billion 

dollars. 

Tell me, is this road infrastructure, sewage, and water infrastructure? And if so, could you give me some concept of the size of 

the revenues of the government in the Territory of Guam? 

[The information follows:] 

In an independent auditor’s report from June of 2009, the annual revenue of 

Guam for fiscal year 2008 totaled $820.5 million. 

Admiral WILLARD. Not very expertly, but I will see if I can characterize Guam for you as it relates to DPRI. First of all, I take your 

analogy and agree with it, that clearly there are community impacts in the sense that, you know, traffic and schools and residenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00980 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
981 

tial and other infrastructure impacts certainly come with any 

move, whether it is a BRAC move or, in this case, a move associated with an agreement between two nations. 

The MILCON request, in fact, for this year and next year includes some of the access road improvements that the Department 

of Defense can fund into and out of the Marine Corps installations 

that are envisioned on Guam. So there is some road infrastructure 

improvements that are associated and captured in the DPRI work 

that we are doing. 

For the government of Guam there is obviously a broader plan 

that should probably be in place. In the areas that were debated 

between EPA and the Navy in the environmental impact study 

that has been ongoing these infrastructure areas that I mentioned 

earlier in power generation, they have a high sulfur output power 

plant, but right now that is on waiver with regard to emissions; 

water, which is a well aquifer in the northern part of the island 

and as reservoir that is on Navy property in the southern part of 

the island; solid waste disposal, which they have had challenges 

with in the past. 

In these various infrastructure areas I would offer that the government of Guam would say that their funding is very limited in 

terms of their ability to meet their own needs, and they have, I 

think, with some frequency discussed with Congress that those 

needs should be met, you know, through other means, other departments’ contributions by the United States. 

Again, in terms of the scope of this, the Guam estimates have 

ranged, I think—or Guam government estimates for infrastructure 

improvements have been in the $6 billion range, and other estimates I have seen are in the about $2.3 billion range, so it is somewhere in between there is the likely improvement cost of completely correcting Guam’s infrastructure challenges that predated, 

in many cases, the DPRI agreement. So these are infrastructure 

challenges that when a typhoon impacts Guam, for example, inevitably come to the fore and we are worried about silting in the reservoir and how we are going to supply water throughout Guam, or 

the power infrastructure, whether or not the wire is buried or exposed to the environment. 

So again, Guam’s infrastructure is modest and in need of improvement, and I think the movement of Marines there would be 

viewed by the Guam government as aggravating those shortfalls 

and their seeking—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any time you are relocating 8,000 Marines and 

doing other things it is going to be complicated and not easy. Do 

you see anything that is a deal-killer? Do you believe we can resolve whatever challenges we face? 

Admiral WILLARD. I do, Chairman. You know, again, I think the 

EIS is very revealing. I mean, there are a lot of public comments 

that we are attempting to, you know, to work our way through and 

answer in that regard, and then there is the EPA criticisms of, you 

know, the lack of infrastructure development inside the EIS that 

we will also quickly attempt to answer. 

There will have to be legal and policy, I think, challenges overcome across the interagency, not just Department of Defense, but 

in resolving, you know, the—some of Guam’s challenges in all of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
982 

this. As you suggest, it doesn’t come without work, but I think that 

we can resolve these things and get where we need to get in the 

DPRI. 

Mr. EDWARDS. One thing I would ask of your folks is, the equivalent of your—the equivalent to the Army Corps of Engineers in the 

Navy is what? It is the—— 

Admiral WILLARD. Naval Facilities Command. 

NAVAL FACILITIES COMMAND

Mr. EDWARDS. Naval Facilities Command. What I would ask the 

Naval Facilities Command is they be open and transparent in 

working with us. I can only imagine the kind of inflation you might 

face when all of a sudden this construction begins, and they are far 

more expert in managing construction than I am, but I don’t know 

what plans they have to control inflation and prevent the costs 

from just exploding, but as costs and the cost estimates change I 

hope they would stay in close touch with us so we don’t have sticker shock at some point. 

And I am sure they are 100 steps ahead of me on this question, 

in terms of planning the workforce, raw materials processes, but 

nobody can predict with absolute precision the cost of a project like 

that, so I just hope—you know, in BRAC we started out with a $19 

billion program and it became a $32 billion program, and I hope 

we can watch these costs and hopefully manage them better than 

that, but at the same time there realistic needs that drive up the 

cost we can—— 

Admiral WILLARD. Very much agree that we need to very closely 

manage it, and we will work very closely with your committee and 

with Congress across the board in ensuring that we all understand 

what this requires. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don’t have any more questions. Just in terms 

of dollars, we, I mean, we have seen, like, a $10.2 billion cost overall that we would—our share would be probably $4.5 billion. 

And then as you point out, Admiral, I have seen those same estimates in terms of just the infrastructure in Guam—one of the 

numbers I saw was about $3.2 billion and half of that was roads, 

and there were things like there is a hospital there that needs to 

be upgraded. So there is a lot of—and those are outside the $10 billion. So we do need to kind of just keep an eye on all those different things. 

And I would simply just, Mr. Chairman, just like to thank both 

these individuals for their long and distinguished service. 

General, you were here last year and we talked about our grandchildren. I just want you to know I have got another grandchild 

since you were here last. 

And Admiral, I don’t know if you have got any grandkids, but we 

would both tell you that it is a very good program. 

Admiral WILLARD. I have two granddaughters and a grandson, 

and it is a wonderful program, as manic and—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. As a friend of mine says, grandkids are not 

overrated. But again, thank you for your service. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
983 

And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to get 

this MILCON—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. As a late-blooming father—I didn’t become a dad 

until I was 44—the only way I can relate to that conversation is 

they think I am a grandpa at the PTA meetings. [Laughter.] 

Admiral Willard, General Sharp, thank you both for your service 

and thank you for being here today. We look forward to continuing 

to work with you and support the magnificent men and women 

that you have the privilege of representing. 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Chairman. 

General SHARP. Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(985) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010. 

U.S. ARMY BUDGET 

WITNESS 

GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS. [presiding]. I call the subcommittee to order. I 

have been told that we might have a series of votes and then could 

end up having an appropriations bill on the floor, which would not 

allow us to continue. That would be closer to 4 o’clock. 

I was going to cut out my hour-and-a-half opening comments, so 

let me just make a few brief remarks. 

General Casey thank you for being here. It is good to have you 

back before the subcommittee again. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the fiscal year 2011 

military construction and family housing budget for the U.S. Army. 

And as the last decade has been, the next few years will be a critical time in the history of the Army for four reasons. 

First, the Army will execute a drawdown of forces in Iraq while 

ramping up forces in Afghanistan for a period of uncertain duration. Secondly, and this is amazing, roughly one-third of the Army 

will be on the move due to BRAC and the realignment of our global 

defense posturing. Third, the Army will continue to execute billions 

of dollars of military construction and family housing to accommodate the addition of 65,000 active-duty soldiers. And fourth, the 

Army will transition the Guard and Reserve to an operational 

force, requiring major changes in the way we train, equip and build 

our citizen soldiers. 

Before I formally introduce our witness, I would like to recognize 

Mr. Wamp, our ranking member, for any comments he would care 

to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the tradition of Senator 

Montgomery, you start right on time, but I had at my Energy and 

Water Committee Hearing Secretary Chu, and I was able to get 

there quickly enough to ask my questions so that I could get here. 

And I was cutting it really close, but I am grateful for the courtesy. 

And, of course, Chief Casey knows us about as well as anybody 

that comes before this subcommittee and communicates about as 

effectively with us as anyone in the services. And he is an extraordinary American. We are always grateful that he is here, and we 

stay in touch with him, so I am sure we are going to have some 

questions today. But at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I think 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
986 

we ought to give the Army whatever they need and give General 

Casey whatever he needs and support him with all of our hearts. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. CARTER. I move we adjourn. [Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. I guess Judge Carter, should we let them know 

now that—— 

Mr. CARTER. Now we are going to Fort Hood. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For 5 minutes Judge Carter and I were the only 

two here in this room. We went into session, and all MILCON is 

being moved to Fort Hood, Texas. [Laughter.] 

So with apologies to everyone else. 

Chief, as I said this morning at the Army caucus with Judge 

Carter, you don’t need any introduction to this subcommittee, but 

we do want to thank you for your 40 years of incredible service to 

our Army, to their families, to our country. We thank Sheila as 

well for all that she continues to do for Army soldiers and their 

families and quality of life. 

You have led our Army through such a challenging time with 

transformation, with reorganization, increasing numbers, war in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don’t know, as I said this morning, of 

any business corporation that could face that kind of change and 

challenge and still remain what it is and keep its culture and its 

heart and soul. And you have done that with the Army. It is a 

great tribute to you and every soldier and every soldier’s family 

serving this great, great Army. 

You have been through this process. Any written statements you 

have we will submit for the record. 

General CASEY. I will do that—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. We would like to recognize you for any opening 

comments you care to make. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, JR. 

General CASEY. Thanks, and I will do that. And it strikes me, I 

just recall that last year this was the first hearing I did, and it was 

the day before the budget actually came out. And this year it is the 

last one. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, free at last, free at last. 

General CASEY. What I would like to do is just give you an update about the Army and what we have done here over the last 

year. And as I said last year, and as I have been saying really since 

2007, that we are out of balance. We are so weighed down by the 

current demands that we cannot do the things that we know we 

need to do to sustain this force for the long haul and to continue 

to prepare ourselves to do other things. 

And in 2007, you know, with your help, we put ourselves on a 

plan centered on four imperatives to get back in balance by 2011. 

Our imperatives were we have to sustain our soldiers and families. 

They are the heart and soul of this force, and what you all do in 

this committee with the military construction is a clear demonstration to our soldiers and families in this space that the country appreciates what it is that they are doing. 

Second, we have to continue to prepare our soldiers for success 

in the current conflict. We cannot flinch on sending well-trained, 

well-equipped soldiers in harm’s way. And we are making great 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
987 

progress on that. I remember it took from about 2003 to 2006 to 

get a full complement of up-armored Humvees into Iraq. We put 

a full complement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 

into Afghanistan in about 18 months, and the newest version—it 

is not all there yet, but we got that going in about 9 months. So 

the department is doing much better in this. 

Third, we have to reset them effectively when they come back, 

and that is the people and equipment, give them the time that they 

need to get reset. 

And then, lastly, we have to continue to transform for an uncertain future. And a lot of what this committee does supports that 

transformation. It supports our growth. It supports our conversion 

to modular organizations. It supports the global re-basing, bringing 

the forces back from Germany and Korea. So there is an awful lot 

about what we have done here that we could not have done without 

the committee’s support. 

This budget that we are putting out today, we are talking about 

today, gives us the resources to get us back in balance, to get us 

where we said we wanted to get in 2007. And I think that is very 

important. And with this budget plus the drawdown in Iraq we will 

get very, very close to the goals that we set for ourselves in 2007 

by the end of 2011. 

Let me just give you a quick update on six of the key areas of 

getting back in balance. 

First of all is our group. And we were told in 2007 to increase 

the size of the Army by 74,000—65,000 in the active force, the rest 

in the Guard and Reserve. When I got here later in 2007, I went 

to the Secretary of Defense and said, ‘‘We have to do that faster,’’ 

because we originated this program for 2012. And with Secretary 

Gates’ support, we moved it forward into 2010, and we actually fit 

in this program the people in last summer, active, Guard, Reserve. 

Even as we finished that, though, it was clear to us that we did 

not have enough. We are still having difficulty manning our units 

effectively to send to Iraq and Afghanistan, because we have about 

30,000 soldiers that we could not put in units, because, one, they 

were already deployed, they were in warrior transition units recovering, or they were temporarily not deployable. So Secretary Gates 

allowed us to increase by another 22,000 over 3 years. That is temporary growth, and there is no structure attached to it, so there are 

no facilities or anything that is required in fact. 

We are on track and on pace to complete that growth on schedule, or I will tell you that we will make a decision later this year 

whether we go beyond 15,000 and grow the full 22, and then we 

will make a decision sometime, probably next year, whether we 

keep it or whether we begin to draw down. 

Personally, if the drawdown in Iraq goes as it is planned, I would 

prefer not to keep the growth, because the personnel costs are just 

so high, but the growth very much on track. 

Second, probably the most important element of getting back in 

balance is increasing the time the soldiers spend at home, the 

dwell time. And it is important not only from the fact that they get 

to spend more time with their families, it is important primarily 

from the fact that they need to recover themselves. And we have 

just completed a study last year that demonstrates what we all inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 00987 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
988 

tuitively knew, that it takes about 2 or 3 years to recover fully 

from a 1-year combat deployment. And that is why it is so important to get to 1 year out, 2 years back for the active force in the 

short-term, and then ultimately to get to 1 year out, 3 years back 

for the sustainable rate over the long haul. 

I will tell you that because of the growth of the drawdown in 

Iraq, we were able to meet our portion of the 30,000 plus-up in Afghanistan, which is around 22,000 without having to go to increasing the time in theater to 15 months without having to come off 

a stop loss and without—and still managed to increase our dwell. 

And I will tell you I have been out traveling around the last few 

weeks, and I have seen several brigades now at home for 18 

months. And the difference between being at home for 18 months 

and being home for 12 months is night and day. And the pace and 

tempo of their preparations is much, much more manageable. 

The third element is a reorganization. And the reorganization 

has two parts. One is a conversion to modular organization. And 

we set out to do that in 2004, and we are 90 percent done. And 

that involves converting all 300-plus brigades in the Army to modular organizations. All that obviously involve facilities as well. 

The other part of it is rebalancing, where we move soldiers out 

of skills that were relevant in the Cold War into skills more relevant in the 21st century. For example, sir, we have stood down 

200 tank companies, artillery batteries and air defense batteries 

and we have stood up an equivalent number of civil affairs, psychological operations, special forces companies. 

That reorganization is taking place. Taken together, that is the 

largest organizational transformation of the Army since World War 

II, and we are doing it while we have been sending 150,000 soldiers 

over and back every year. 

The fifth, we are putting the entire Army into a rotational model, 

and this is probably not very visible to folks up here, but it is a 

huge institutional reorganization within the Army. If you had to 

think about it, we were largely a garrison force that lived to go to 

the combat training centers to prepare. Now we are on a constant 

rotational cycle, so we have to adapt all of our internal systems, 

our education systems, our personnel systems, our family support 

systems to support that kind of Army. It will allow us to sustain 

this over the long haul. 

And finally, re-stationing. You mentioned a third of the Army on 

the move, a lot of it in the next 2 years. We are on track to complete the BRAC relocations on schedule. It has not been easy, but 

I will tell you that the plus side of it is the quality of the facilities 

coming onto our installations as a result of the BRAC. It is a great 

retention tool for us. 

So bottom line in those six areas, good progress. And I am seeing 

that with the drawdown in Iraq, I can see where we will get to 

where we set out to get in 2007 by the end of 2011. 

That said, we are not entirely out of the woods yet. And the effects of the last 81⁄2 years at war are going to be with us for a 

while. And I know there are concerns about suicides and about increased reliance on drug and alcohol counselors, and those are real, 

and they are not going to go away just when they get to 2 years 

at home. These are effects that are going to be with us for a while. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
989 

Now, I would like just to go back and recap a little bit with what 

we have done with the committee, really, to support that over just 

between 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, so over the last 4 years. 

We got the military construction money to complete BRAC last 

year, and we are well on our way to executing that, but that is closing 12 active component installations, about 400 Reserve centers, 

moving five schools and 11 two-star, three-star and four-star headquarters. We will give you a new phone book here in a couple of 

years and let you know how we came out. 

The growth—we had the money this year to finish the brigade 

combat teams, and we have money now to finish the combat support and combat service support units by 2013. On the re-basing, 

we brought home about 40,000 folks, and we will get the rest of 

them back here by 2013. Again, all of that involved facilities. 

The Army modular force, as I said, almost 300 brigades have 

been converted. Lots have been required, new facilities, and that is 

well on the way. I think we will complete that here by 2013 as 

well. 

Great progress on the warrior transition units—20 complexes already in progress, one more in the 2011 budget—huge progress. 

Barracks—we have added 31,000 training spaces just in 2007 to 

2010, 36,000 permanent party barracks. We basically cut in half 

the number of soldiers we had in inadequate facilities. And I think 

this is maybe the first time I am coming in here and telling you 

the completion dates for training barracks and permanent party 

barracks has not changed over the course of the year. We are still 

on track, so that is good. 

And then, lastly, what you are doing for the families—149 child 

development centers, 24 youth centers, four new hospital starts, 37 

clinics. The families see that, and it is a huge, huge help to our retention. And so we are doing a lot that we could not have done 

without the support of the committee, so I just wanted you to have 

a little scorecard of what you have done. And I really appreciate 

it. 

So I will just close by saying I could not be prouder of the men 

and women in this great Armed Forces. We were talking earlier 

this morning about is it just the economy that makes it—that is 

for people staying in. And that is part of it for sure, but we are 

lucky enough as a country to still have hundreds and thousands of 

men and women who want to make a difference in the world. And 

they are coming in the Armed Forces. 

So thank you very much. And I am happy to take some questions. 

[Prepared statement of General George W. Case follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
990 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1733 here 56870C.183
991 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1734 here 56870C.184
992 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1735 here 56870C.185
993 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1736 here 56870C.186
994 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1737 here 56870C.187
995 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1738 here 56870C.188
996 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1739 here 56870C.189
997 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1740 here 56870C.190
998 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1741 here 56870C.191
999 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1742 here 56870C.192
1000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1743 here 56870C.193
1001 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1744 here 56870C.194
1002 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1745 here 56870C.195
1003 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1746 here 56870C.196
1004 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1747 here 56870C.197
1005 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1748 here 56870C.198
1006 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1749 here 56870C.199
1007 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1750 here 56870C.200
1008 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1751 here 56870C.201
1009 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1752 here 56870C.202
1010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1753 here 56870C.203
1011 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1754 here 56870C.204
1012 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1755 here 56870C.205
1013 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1756 here 56870C.206
1014 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1757 here 56870C.207
1015 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1758 here 56870C.208
1016 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1759 here 56870C.209
1017 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1760 here 56870C.210
1018 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1761 here 56870C.211
1019 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1762 here 56870C.212
1020 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1763 here 56870C.213
1021 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1764 here 56870C.214
1022 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1765 here 56870C.215
1023 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1766 here 56870C.216
1024 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1767 here 56870C.217
1025 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1768 here 56870C.218
1026 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1769 here 56870C.219
1027 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1770 here 56870C.220
1028 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1771 here 56870C.221
1029 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1772 here 56870C.222
1030 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1773 here 56870C.223
1031 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1774 here 56870C.224
1032 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1775 here 56870C.225
1033 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1776 here 56870C.226
1034 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1777 here 56870C.227
1035 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1778 here 56870C.228
1036 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1779 here 56870C.229
1037 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1780 here 56870C.230
1038 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1781 here 56870C.231
1039 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1782 here 56870C.232
1040 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1783 here 56870C.233
1041 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1784 here 56870C.234
1042 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1785 here 56870C.235
1043 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1786 here 56870C.236
1044 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1787 here 56870C.237
1045 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1788 here 56870C.238
1046 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1789 here 56870C.239
1047 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1790 here 56870C.240
1048 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1791 here 56870C.241
1049 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1792 here 56870C.242
1050 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1793 here 56870C.243
1051 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1794 here 56870C.244
1052 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1795 here 56870C.245
1053 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1796 here 56870C.246
1054 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1797 here 56870C.247
1055 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chief. Thank you for the scorecard. 

That is a much kinder scorecard than most Americans give Congress these days. 

But I think this committee has a right to be proud of its work 

on a bipartisan basis on these quality-of-life issues, and we take 

that seriously, because when you are fighting for a Joint Strike 

Fighter, new nuclear aircraft carrier, there are a lot of business 

lobbyists running around the halls of Capitol Hill lobbying because 

it is in their economic interests, but not many coming around asking for new hospitals or day care centers or training barracks, so 

it is a privilege for us to work with you on that. 

Why don’t we start the questions with Mr. Wamp? 

TRAINING NEEDS

Mr. WAMP. Thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

Number one, I compliment you on your testimony. It was not 

even written, and it was incredibly concise and articulate and very 

effective, but it is all just inside of you, and that is why you are 

who you are, General Casey. 

When you talk about the training component as you go through 

this modular transformation, what are the MILCON needs in the 

new training paradigm for this persistent conflict? Are there any 

things that you see here after 40 years that we need to key into? 

I understand your specific requests and needs for now, but what 

new training needs are there in terms of facilities for training the 

men and women to the level at which your priorities call for? 

General CASEY. Yes, that is a great question. And, you know, we 

are now getting to the point where the soldiers have 17, 18, 24 

months at home. They will begin to start training on things other 

than preparing for Iraq and Afghanistan. And that part of our 

training infrastructure has not been exercised as much as it has. 

Now, back in February 2008, we implemented a doctrine of full 

spectrum operations, and offense, defense and stability operations 

applied simultaneously no matter where you are on the spectrum 

of conflict. And we have yet to take that to our training facilities 

and our ranges and really figure out what that means. And that 

is a process that we have started at the combat training centers 

in putting in scenarios that allow our forces to operate against hybrid threats rather than just insurgents. 

And I think our understanding of that is going to grow over time, 

so I would say we have plenty of money in this to upgrade ranges, 

but as our concept for training evolves, I think we may come forward here with some additional requirements for adapting our 

ranges. 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. WAMP. My nephew, who is an Army National Guardsman 

from Tennessee just got back from his second tour in Iraq. My 

world at home is seen through Fort Campbell and seen through unbelievable Tennessee Army National Guard deployments—multiple 

deployments. I know families that have been deployed four times. 

Probably three and four were totally voluntary. They said they 

would go back again, because it is important work. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1056 

But from your perspective—and I have been with General 

McKinley a whole lot lately. He has been in Tennessee a lot, and 

to have the top soldier in the National Guard wearing four stars 

kind of speaks to one force performing today in this persistent conflict and incredible deployment and of the need for the National 

Guard to continue to come up more at parity with our active component. 

How do you think that is going? And, like, on the MILCON side 

I know it is still a small percentage of MILCON needs that go to 

the National Guard, but do you think—do you feel like it is coming 

into balance, speaking of the balance of Guard and active? 

General CASEY. Absolutely. In fact, half the Guard are combat 

veterans today. That is a fundamentally different Army than it was 

a year ago. Actually, in this budget the military construction for 

the Guard is the highest they have ever had in the base budget. 

And so we are definitely continuing to invest not only in military 

construction, but also in the equipment side of things. 

Mr. WAMP. Do you know what percentage it is? I think last year 

was only 8 percent. Do you know what the percentages of the total 

MILCON project that is designated for the Guard? Is there a percentage? 

General CASEY. Well, 874 of—so it is about one-eighth, a little, 

about one-eighth, one-eighth. 

Mr. WAMP. So up from 8 percent to 12 percent. Okay. 

General CASEY. So, anyway, your point on the Guard and Reserve training and training facilities. One of the things that the 12- 

month mobilization policy has caused us to do is get much more efficient in the training. And so we are going back to I think it is 

about six locations around the country. We are putting Guard and 

Reserve training centers, and we are upgrading them so that, you 

know, that we can continue to this. 

And that is a much different mindset than we had, you know, 8 

years ago because we can let this stuff lay fallow because we only 

needed it for the big one. Now we are constantly mobilizing and demobilizing 70,000 to 80,000 Guardsmen and Reservists a year. And 

that has been continuous. That is a different ballgame. 

DEPLOYMENTS

Mr. WAMP. And then my final question, in case I cannot come 

back after these votes, Mr. Chairman, is—and Mr. Crenshaw is 

here, Mr. Carter is here—in terms of deployments, and I don’t 

want anybody in your position or the commander-in-chief to telegraph what we are planning to do or when we are planning to do 

it, but if Afghanistan goes according to the plan and we are able 

to fix our up-tempo and modify these ratios back towards 3-to-1 ultimately, when do you see that beginning to change in terms of this 

continuing 1-to-1, close to 1-to-1 ratio? What is the timeline you 

see—2 to 3 years? 

General CASEY. Well, even with the plus-up in Afghanistan, we 

get 70 percent of the active force to 1 year out, 2 years back by the 

end of 2011, and we get 80 percent of the Guard and Reserve to 

1 year out, 4 years back at the end of 2011. 

Mr. WAMP. Wow. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1057 

General CASEY. And the rest comes in 2012. And those that don’t 

make it are in the 18 to 24 range. So we will continue to get better, 

assuming the drawdown—— 

Mr. WAMP. So assuming, then, and under your definition, we will 

get back to sustainable deployment levels by 2012. 

General CASEY. Well, I would say we get back to acceptable levels in 2012, but I think it is probably going to be 2013 or 2014 before we get to 1-to-3, 1-to-5, which to me is sustainable. One-to-two 

is a heckuva lot better than 1-to-1, but it is not sustainable. I 

mean, that means that you are saying to a young lieutenant coming in at 1-to-2, ‘‘You are going to be gone for 10 years of your 30- 

years’ career.’’ 

Mr. WAMP. And if you were saying, in your position after 40 

years, to anyone still here as a policymaker at that point, after we 

get back to more normal rotations, where does that leave the need 

of the United States military in terms of our investment in capability going forward? I know we are not hollowed out to that point 

because of this long-term investment, but are we short. Are we adequate? Do we need to invest? 

I mean, going back to the Reagan years, you get to a point where 

you know in your heart we need to invest in our military again. 

I am talking about infrastructure, facilities, equipment, bullets and 

bombs. Do you think at the end of that period, when we are back 

to a more normal deployment tempo, will we need the nation to invest heavily in our military again to just get us back up to a preparedness level? 

General CASEY. I don’t think—I mean, we have invested majorly 

in our military over the last 6 or 7 years. And so from a facilities 

perspective, from an equipment perspective, you know, we are in 

pretty good shape, and then there are things programmed that will 

just continue to help us get better. 

SUSTAINMENT

The issue is going to be sustaining, sustaining that over the long 

haul, because just on the facility side, I mean, we have significantly 

increased the amount of facilities on our installations. And so now 

we got to maintain them. So it will be probably in different bins, 

but we are going to have to invest a lot to sustain this force. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. I was just thinking your paper was excellent, really 

great—we should get it out there for everybody to understand 

where the Army stands today. When I arrived in Congress about 

17 years ago, I think the attitude around here was the future was 

not going to be the Army. It was going to be Star Wars. We are 

going to fight all these battles from the air, and we were going to 

do it all by technology. 

VOLUNTEER FORCE

And it is just amazing how things have turned around. This global war on terrorism has really made it people-to-people, but I don’t 

think it changed the soldier, because I think the soldiers are alVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 01057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1058 

ways interested in human nature, human beings, but it certainly 

made us prepare little bit differently. 

When I just read the roles of the land forces where you wrote, 

‘‘Over 3,900 American soldiers have given their lives, and more 

than 25,000 others have been wounded during this long period of 

sustained conflict ever fought by an all voluntary force. Today’s 

Army has over 255,000 soldiers and more than 18,500 Army civilians serving in nearly 80 countries around the world, with the remainder stationed within the United States supporting domestic 

missions, resetting from recent deployments and preparing for upcoming deployments.’’ 

And I was struck by the fact that it is the longest period of sustained conflict, and we have done it all with volunteers. It has not 

discouraged people from continuing to volunteer. You know, I represent the Monterey Peninsula, and I am too much on this committee talking about it, but I remember General Abizaid said that 

the institutions on the Monterey Peninsula were a national treasure, and so much of what we do is relevant to your mission. 

DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

And so my questions are kind of down in the weeds, but it relates to the Defense Language Institute. The Army has proposed in 

the FYDP in 2012 and 2013 to include $49.5 million for another 

barracks and classroom remodeling. Some of that classroom building was supposed to have been funded by the budget last year, but 

fell out. 

And last year the Army civilian leadership suggested a decline 

in student enrollment in the DLI in the outyears. But given that 

the fiscal year 2013 FYDP recommends new barracks, does that 

mean that the Army thinks the DLI enrollment will continue to 

grow? What are the future enrollment projections? Do you know 

that? 

What I am trying to say is that we have got to better understand 

these languages and cultures. I remember one of the specialists 

coming back from Iraq when we were putting billions of dollars 

into IEDs, and he asked a fundamental question: ‘‘Why don’t we 

study what makes people set these things off in the first place?’’ 

I love that question. You cannot do that until you understand 

cultures and so on, and the DLI obviously plays a big role in that. 

Where do you see the future of the school going? Do we need more 

linguists? And do we need more FAOs and AOs and folks with that 

kind of specialty? 

General CASEY. Absolutely. I only see the language requirement 

grow. And we have done a lot of work on—I call it—the core skills, 

the FAOs and the intelligence analysts and those folks. What we 

are seeing now—and this is also predicated on demand from theater—is Stan McChrystal is saying, ‘‘I want one Dari speaker per 

platoon that is at a 1-to-1 level.’’ 

Now, so we need to do that. Now, all of those folks are not going 

to go to Monterey, and they are talking about mobile training 

teams that go out, spend some time at the bases, putting language 

labs on bases and everything. But, I mean, we all know the direction that is going, and the language and culture are a huge part 

of our ability to be effective in this century. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1059 

STABILIZATION RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. FARR. How about the other side of it is that once we are 

there, understanding how to do stabilization and reconstruction. It 

seems to me that is a whole new MOS that has come out of this 

conflict, and we now have a department at the Naval Postgraduate 

School that is educating our military. But the problem is that every 

command sees they need people with that background, but we have 

not created the MOS for it. And I wondered whether you thought 

that was worth doing. 

General CASEY. Yes, I think we talked about this last year and 

about creating a special MOS for that. Now, when we look at our 

doctrine, as I mentioned full spectrum operations, those stability 

operations, we consider that to be something that the entire force 

does. But as you suggest, we do need specialists there, and I don’t 

know where that went in last year’s, so I will go back and revisit 

that. I will send you a note on that, where we are with that stability and—— 

Mr. FARR. Appreciate that. Thank you. I wanted to comment 

on—— 

General CASEY. I may finally get there one day. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. We are going to stick to the 5-minute rule 

only because of the pending vote. This is a 15-minute vote, three 

votes after this. 

Judge Carter. I would like to recognize you now. 

Mr. CARTER. General Casey, good to see you again. Two times in 

a day is pretty special. All of my questions are all kind of tied together, so I can get a bunch of answers pretty easily. 

The Quadrennial Defense Review is complete. The Army has a 

better picture of its construction requirements for the next few 

years. Can you talk about the military construction of the Army 

and how that may be affected? We know the FYDP undergoes adjustments, but do you anticipate significant cuts in construction 

programs and installations as we track out 5 years of time? 

And as you look at that, are you doing planning, because if you 

do start to draw down the Army, it will probably be the retirements and incentives to get out, which leaves younger soldiers filling in the blanks, and those younger soldiers would then tend to 

be barracks soldiers more than off-post-soldiers. 

And we have been talking about barracks construction. Several 

questions have been asked about barracks construction. What do 

you see down the road for that? And finally, what about privatization? The Navy told us they are on hold on theirs. Are we still 

thinking about it—barracks? 

BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION

General CASEY. Barracks probably yes, okay. 

Mr. CARTER. That is a big question. 

General CASEY. Can we do that last one first? That is simple. 

You know, we had that pilot program going on at four places. We 

are generally satisfied with the results of that. Frankly, my own 

personal view is we have done so well with the family housing privatization, if it works half as well for barracks, we will—we will 

be in good shape. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1060 

Now, you know, what is the crystal ball say after the QDR? And 

as you may know, we are in the throes now of putting together the 

2012–2017 program. And so we are trying to figure out what that 

crystal ball says. You know, we are not planning any major force 

structure reductions right now. I cannot get there right now. 

We have to get back to at least 1-to-2 for a few years, and then 

all of the sudden they get to 1-to-3. Well, if you cut the force, you 

are never going to get there. Otherwise you have to accept the fact 

that—— 

Mr. CARTER. I agree with that. 

FORCE STRUCTURE

General CASEY [continuing]. You don’t you think you can do less. 

You have to do better. 

But that said, we were talking about this in the other room. You 

know, we don’t have big aircraft carriers or satellite programs or 

bomber programs that people can cut. We have force structure. 

That is it. And all our big dollars are in force structure. Forty percent of our budget is in the personnel side. And so when we get 

cut, we get substantial cuts, we either have to take down force 

structure or stop modernizing. 

And we are not there yet, but as I look at 2012–2017, that period, I just cannot imagine that the budgets that we have been getting over the last 4 or 5 years are not going to start to taper off 

and come down. And so we are looking at that, but right now there 

are no major force structure reductions planned. 

You will see us—we have got two combat aviation brigades to 

base, and there are discussions going on now about whether or not 

these two brigades come back from Europe. And that was deferred. 

The decision on that was deferred again until after the NATO Strategic Concept is finished. So those are some potential large construction builds that are out there. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. Thank you. 

General CASEY. Thanks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. CARTER. Good answer. Straight answer. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Congressman, I am going to recognize Mr. 

Crenshaw. 

In terms of procedure, if staff would let us know when there are 

3 minutes left on this vote, and then I think what I will do is go 

up and vote on the first vote, vote on the second vote immediately 

when it opens, and then come back down. 

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

I don’t know how many of you can stay or need to go to other 

meetings, so I am going to leave that to you. But at least I will 

come back down immediately after the second vote. That will leave 

us a range of about 10 minutes or so before the next vote. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield my 

time to you to now go to vote. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That would be good. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1061 

MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just maybe just one question, General. We had 

a really interesting discussion yesterday. We had some of the VA 

folks, particularly mental health services, and then we had kind of 

the consumer side. We had the head of one of the veterans groups 

from Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And we were just talking about the fact that so often we got 

great trained troops that go off to fight, best trained in the world, 

best equipped, and their training starts away ahead of time before 

they actually go to the battlefield. Then when they come home to 

go back to society or go back to their career or go back to their family, we don’t really—there is not much training there. Maybe somebody comes in and says, ‘‘Well, getting ready to go back. You got 

any—need any help, or whatever—thoughts?’’ 

And one of the things that came out of that was that so often 

when particularly in counseling and mental health in today’s world 

because of the two battlefronts we are in, when people come back, 

they really don’t want to talk to anybody. They don’t know people, 

if they come back. And there is a 1-day and somebody comes in and 

says, ‘‘Well, I just want to tell you about the services we have got 

if you need counseling, you need some this, whatever.’’ 

And this all became in a—I don’t know what size unit it might 

be, but if there were somebody in that unit that was kind of 

trained and charged to kind of help in that transition back, that 

they would actually be part, you know, if they would serve in a 

unit for 2 or 3 years or if they are in deployment for a year or 

whatever, then when everybody came back, there would be this one 

kind of one-stop shopping where one of the individuals would have 

a little bit of training that might go on over the course of time, but 

just somebody that everybody would know and have worked with 

and fought with. 

And if they had any thoughts, they could kind of, you know, go 

to this individual that—and I guess the question is, is that something you all thought about? Does that make sense? I mean, I am 

sure there are some problems with that, but it seems to me it 

might help the transition back just like the transition going in 

terms of training. 

General CASEY. It makes great sense. In fact, we started a program in October called Comprehensive Soldier Fitness. And I think 

I talked about it last year. It was conceptual last year. We physically started it in October, and one of the main elements of that 

program are what we call master resilience trainers. 

And these are sergeants, and there are a few family members 

that we have taken to the University of Pennsylvania. And there 

is a 10-day training program that they grow through there. And 

our goal is to put one of these folks in every battalion in the Army 

by the end of this year to do exactly what you say. There is a soldier there that understands resiliency and how to help folks deal 

with tough challenges. And you go see this, the guy who is always 

there, just exactly like you said. So we think this has great possibility. 

The other elements of the program—there is an online survey 

that a soldier or family member and soon a civilian can do in the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1062 

privacy of their own home. And it gives you a strength rating in 

the five key areas of fitness—physical, emotional, social, spiritual 

and family. You just get a little bar graph. If you have long bars, 

you are okay. If you have short bars, you need a little work. 

Then it allows you to connect to some online self-help modules, 

again, that you can do in the privacy of your own rooms there. And 

then to the rest, the master resilience trainer, he ties all that stuff 

together. Three hundred eighty thousand soldiers have taken that, 

and family members have taken that assessment tool already to 

date, and our goal is to have them all completed here by the summer. So it is exactly the right direction to go, and we are moving 

out in that direction. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And we will stand recessed until immediately 

after the second vote. 

[Recess.] 

PERCENTAGE OF ARMY SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ AND AGHANISTAN

Mr. EDWARDS. I call the subcommittee back to order. 

General Casey, this vote will be kept open for a while. And I 

talked to Judge Carter and Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Wamp and I talked. 

We felt that additional questions we would have we could submit 

in writing and to allow you to get back to your very, very busy 

schedule. 

I just want to ask one question, if you might know the answer 

to this. In your testimony there have been 3,900 soldiers that have 

lost their lives in service in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

General CASEY. Soldiers, right. There is more than that when 

you take all the services—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I know every serviceman and woman, soldier, 

sailor, airman, Marine, Guardsman, who has served during this 

time period over the last decade have sacrificed and served our 

country, but just to know the numbers, do you know what percent 

of all the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

approximately what percent have been soldiers? 

General CASEY. Oh, of the total. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Of the total. 

General CASEY. It has been a while since I have looked at that. 

I want to say it is—it is better than 70 percent, but I am not 100 

percent sure. 

Does somebody know that back there? 

Mr. EDWARDS. We can get that number. 

General CASEY. I can get that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

Army Soldiers make up 73 percent of the total military personnel killed in action 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We can get that number in writing. And that is 

not to denigrate in any way the sacrifice of the other services, but 

just it underscores the incredible sacrifice of American soldiers and 

their families in this war against terrorism. 

Mr. Wamp, do you have any additional questions? 

Mr. WAMP. Let him go back to his responsibilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1063 

Thank you, General Casey. As Chet and I said on our way down 

here, it is an incredible privilege for us to be across the table from 

you, based on who you are and who you represent. And the freedoms that we take sometimes for granted in this country are in 

your hands. We are grateful for you. 

General CASEY. Well, thank you. Don’t discount the role that you 

all play in allowing us to do this. So thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right. It is a privilege. And let us know how 

we can continue to work together. Thank you, Chief, for appearing 

here today. 

General CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. We stand adjourned. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You bet. Thank you, Zach. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Wamp] 

RESTORING BALANCE

Question. For the last three years, we have heard or read in your testimony the 

importance of restoring balance to an Army that has experienced and is experiencing the cumulative effects of years of conflict. FY11 budget represents the final 

year of a four-year plan that began in 2007 to restore balance to the Army. Your 

testimony though contains a statement that we have heard before and that is that 

today’s Army remains out of balance. 

Describe some of the progress that has been made towards achieving the balance 

that we all want the Army to achieve? The FY11 budget request represents the final 

year of a four-year plan that sought to achieve balance. Will the Army’s balance be 

restored by the end of FY11? 

Answer. We have a plan to get ourselves back in balance that is centered on four 

imperatives—sustain our soldiers and families, prepare our soldiers for success in 

the current conflict, reset them effectively when they returned, and transform for 

an uncertain future. 

Our first objective was to complete the January 2007 directive to increase the size 

of the Army by 74,000. Originally, we planned to do that by 2012. However, with 

the support of Congress and Secretary Gates, we completed it last Spring. When 

that did not prove to be sufficient, we were granted by Congress a temporary increase of up to 22,000 Soldiers. Currently the Army is utilizing 15,000 additional 

Soldiers, and will evaluate later this year whether we need the other 7,000. 

Given this growth and the continued drawdown of forces in Iraq, our force planning assessments indicate about 70% of the active component and 80% of the reserve component will achieve BOG:Dwell goals (1:2 and 1:4) by 2011. This has also 

allowed us to meet the need for additional forces in Afghanistan without returning 

to 15-month deployments and without going back on stop loss. 

Our second key objective was to increase the time our Soldiers spent at home, perhaps the most important element of putting ourselves back in balance, for several 

reasons. One, our Soldiers need time to recover from repeated combat deployments. 

Indeed, we recently completed a study that demonstrates what we intuitively knew, 

that it takes two to three years to recover from a one-year combat deployment. 

So it is very important that we reach our near-term objective of two years at home 

between deployments for active force and four years at home between deployments 

for our Reserve components. As demand decreases, we plan to move to more sustainable goals of three and five years, respectively, between deployments. More time 

at home also gives us more stable preparation time for the next mission and more 

time to prepare to do other things. When you’re only home for a year, you barely 

have time to finish your leave before you have to begin preparing to go back. 

Additionally, as time at home increases, we will be able to train more units for 

full spectrum operations, and gradually regain some of the skills that have atrophied over the past several years. 

Our third objective was to move away from our Cold War formations to organizations that are more relevant for the challenges we’ll face in the 21st century. In 

2004 we set out to convert all 300-plus brigades in our Army to modular organizations. Today we’re almost 90 percent complete, and these formations are demonstrating their versatility and their value in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1064 

We also set out to rebalance the skills within the force, to move away from skills 

that were necessary in the Cold War to skills more needed today. This involved converting, retraining and equipping around 150,000 Soldiers from all components to 

new jobs. Today we’re almost 75 percent complete with this rebalance. 

By way of example, in the last six years we have stood down around 200 tank 

companies, artillery batteries and air defense batteries, and we’ve stood up a corresponding number of military police, engineers, civil affairs and Special Forces 

companies. This has paid tremendous benefits in the current operations. Together, 

the rebalancing and the modular conversions represent the largest organizational 

transformation of the Army since World War II, and we will have done this while 

fighting two wars. 

Fourth, we are moving to put the whole Army on a rotational readiness model, 

much like the Navy and Marine Corps have been on for many years. This model 

will allow us to more efficiently and effectively provide a sustained flow of land 

forces that are trained for the full spectrum of operations to our combatant commanders. It will also allow us to have forces available to hedge against unexpected 

contingencies in a way that is predictable and sustainable for this all-volunteer 

force. 

A force package of one Corps headquarters, five Division headquarters, 20 Brigade 

Combat Teams (BCTs) and approximately 90,000 enablers is available as the 

BOG:Dwell goals of 1:2 and 1:4 come to fruition. The Army will shortly publish the 

Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) schedule for FYs 12–14 as FY11 serves as a 

bridging year for full implementation. 

Our fifth objective was to complete our re-stationing, and we’re just over halfway 

through these efforts. We are on track to complete the BRAC by the end of 2011. 

This will affect over 380,000 Soldiers, family members, and civilians. And while it 

creates a lot of turbulence, the construction on these new installations will significantly improve the quality of life for our soldiers and families. 

So the bottom line is that we’ve made progress, but we still face challenges as 

we work to restore balance and set the conditions for the future. 

Question. What are the remaining impediments to achieving balance? 

Answer. The most significant impediment to achieving balance is the continued 

high demand on our forces and equipment, which places significant stress on our 

Soldiers, Families, units, and equipment. By giving Soldiers more time at home between deployments, we have more time to better prepare them for the reset mission. 

We’ll also be able to see more units training for the full spectrum of operations and 

we will gradually get back some of the skills that atrophied over the past several 

years. 

In order to fully achieve balance, the Army must complete one three year cycle 

at the BOG:Dwell goals of 1:2 for the active component and 1:4 for the reserve component. 

Question. What can this Subcommittee do as we begin deliberations on the FY11 

bill to further help the Army achieve balance? 

Answer. Timely and full funding of the Army’s FY11 budget request will help ensure the Army is ready to meet the needs of the Nation and continue the process 

of restoring balance while setting the conditions for the future. Over the last eight 

years, the Army has received significant portions of its funding for combat readiness 

through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) appropriations. This recurring reliance on OCO funds and an overlap between base and OCO sustainment programs 

means that the Army’s base budget does not fully cover the cost of both current and 

future readiness requirements. Because of this reliance, a precipitous drop or delay 

in OCO funding will not fully fund the readiness of our Army for the current conflict. The Army continues the orderly restoration of the balance between base and 

OCO requirements in its FY11 base budget request. This request fully funds Army 

authorized end strength and brings $965 million in Operations and Maintenance 

(O&M) expenses back into the base rather than keeping those requirements in OCO. 

Question. Are there any MILCON priorities that didn’t make it into the budget 

that would help? 

Answer. No, the FY11 Budget supports the Army Campaign Plan priorities. The 

FY11 priorities include Grow The Army (GTA), Global Defense Posture Realignment 

(GDPR) and Army Modular Force (AMF). The FY11 Budget request includes the 

most urgent requirements of the GTA, GDPR, and AMF priorities. Future requirements for these priorities will continue beyond this year’s request. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1065 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STUDY ON SUICIDE PREVENTION

Question. The Army recently began a study in collaboration with the NIH looking 

at suicide prevention. Please provide the Committee with the current status of this 

study? 

Answer. The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Service Members 

(STARRS) started to receive data from Army sources in January, 2010, following a 

detailed process of identifying relevant data sources, entering into a Data Use 

Agreement with the Army and demonstrating compliance with the Army’s Information Assurance protocol. Parallel Data Use Agreements with applicable DoD data 

sources are in process. The Study is scheduled to begin new data collection from current Soldiers and new recruits over the next six months. 

Army STARRS will report progress and findings to the Army on a quarterly basis, 

as well as on an ad hoc basis as new findings arise. In the coming year, the Study 

is scheduled to deliver initial findings on risk and protective factors for suicide and 

related outcomes, based on analyses of historical data, as well as very detailed new 

information on the characteristics, exposures and experiences of current Soldiers 

and new recruits. There will be particular focus on known risk factors for suicide, 

such as mental health problems. In subsequent years, the Study will follow Soldiers 

over time, identify those who have particular negative (or positive) outcomes, and 

deliver practical, actionable information on specific risk and protective factors for 

suicide to help the Army prevent suicide and improve Soldiers’ overall psychological 

health. 

From a scientific perspective, it is too early for there to be substantive findings. 

In the interim, and at the request of the Army leadership, The National Institute 

of Mental Health (NIMH) has provided a report on civilian ‘‘best practices’’ regarding suicide prevention and behavioral health care. NIMH and the Army are working 

together to identify where relevant interventions could be implemented by the 

Army. The Army transferred $10M to NIMH in June 2009 to cover the FY09 expendi- tures. An additional $10M is programmed for FY10. 

WARRIOR IN TRANSITION COMPLEXES

Question. Provide the Committee with the current construction status of Warrior 

in Transition complexes in the U.S. by location? 

Answer. There are 18 Warrior in Transition Complex projects under construction. 

The construction status follows: Fort Carson Soldier and Family Assistance Center 

(SFAC) is 94% complete; Fort Stewart SFAC is 99% complete; Fort Riley Barracks 

(Brks), Administrative/Operations (Admin/Ops), and SFAC is 99% complete; Fort 

Campbell SFAC is 99% complete; Fort Polk SFAC is 36% complete; Fort Drum Brks 

and Admin/Ops is 99% complete; Fort Hood Admin/Ops is 6% complete; Fort Campbell Brks and Admin/Ops is 13% complete; Fort Bliss Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC 

is 22% complete; Fort Bragg Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 0% complete; Fort Hood 

Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 6% complete; Fort Sam Houston Brks, Admin/Ops, 

and SFAC is 2% complete; Fort Belvoir Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 0% complete; 

Fort Lewis Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 6% complete; Fort Richardson Brks, 

Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 0% complete; Fort Wainwright Brks, Admin/Ops, and 

SFAC is 0% complete; Fort Benning Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 1% complete; 

and the Fort Leonard Wood Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC is 0%. 

There are seven projects that are still pending an award of a construction contract. The projects are: Fort Carson Brks and Admin/Ops; Fort Stewart Brks and 

Admin/Ops; Schofield Barracks Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC; Fort Knox Brks, 

Admin/Ops, and SFAC; Fort Polk Brks and Admin Ops; Fort Drum Brks, Admin/ 

Ops, and SFAC; and the Fort Sill Brks, Admin/Ops, and SFAC. 

Question. How much is included in the FY11 request for WITs, by location? 

Answer. We only have one barracks construction project which is part of the Fort 

Eustis Warrior Transition Complex in FY11 for $18M. 

Question. Does this complete all U.S. Warrior in Transition Complexes? 

Answer. Yes, this completes all planned Warrior Transition Complexes in the 

United States. However, the Warrior Transition project that was scheduled for Germany was deleted from the FY10 program and will be relooked in the FY12–17 

POM. Additionally, we will continue to assess the need for Warrior Transition facilities at other installations. 

INADEQUATE OVERSEAS HOUSING

Question. Provide the Committee with the current status of inadequate overseas 

housing including the cost to bring overseas housing up to adequate status? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1066 

Answer. The Army is continually assessing the condition of its government owned 

housing and will program accordingly to keep them to standard. The Army has 799 

inadequate overseas government owned homes. All inadequate units are located at 

Baumholder, Germany. The Army Family Housing construction program will replace 102 homes in the FY10 and FY11 construction program. The Army has programmed, through the future year defense program, for the replacement of the remaining 697 homes to standard at a cost of approximately $362 million. 

FY 2011 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST

Question. Does the FY11 Military Construction budget request include an adjustment to reflect the current construction market economy? 

Answer. Yes, cost adjustments were made to FY11 Active, Guard and Reserve 

major construction accounts to reflect current market conditions. 

Question. If so, what is that adjustment? 

Answer. The re-pricing for the FY11 Military Construction program assumed a reduction of approximately $195.3M of both the Continental United States and Outside the Continental United States construction costs, but excludes Planning and 

Design, Minor Construction and Host Nation. 

Question. Was this done on a project by project basis or across-the-board reduction? 

Answer. The re-pricing for the FY11 Military Construction program was an across 

the board reduction, excluding Planning and Design, Minor Construction and Host 

Nation. 

ARMY BRAC 2005 

Question. Provide the Committee with a current assessment on the implementation of BRAC 2005? 

Answer. The Army is committed to completing BRAC by September 15, 2011. Program funding and execution are on track to allow the Army to complete all BRAC 

2005 actions by that date. The Army will award the remaining BRAC 2005 construction projects in FY10, which will enable the completion of all BRAC closure and realignment actions within the statutory timeline. The Army portion of the BRAC 

2005 construction program is worth $13.4B and consists of 328 projects with only 

21 remaining to award. 

Question. How many BRAC 2005 construction projects have yet to be awarded? 

When will they be awarded? 

Answer. As of 5 April 2010, there were 21 projects left to be awarded. All of the 

projects are scheduled to be awarded by August 2010 with 75% of them awarded 

by the end of May 2010. 

Question. What is the cost estimate of the BRAC 2005 construction that has yet 

to be awarded? 

Answer. The 21 projects remaining to be awarded have an estimated cost $634M, 

$296.2M of which is for six projects under construction that are incrementally funded. 

Question. What is the latest date that the Army can award a BRAC construction 

project and still meet the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline? 

Answer. The remaining BRAC projects are all scheduled to be awarded by the end 

of the FY10. There are many factors that affect a construction schedule, the most 

important being type of project, weather and location. The type of projects remaining are mostly small or incrementally funded projects that have started and will be 

operationally complete so we are able to meet all BRAC closure and realignment actions within the statutory timeline. 

INCREMENTALLY FUNDED PROJECTS

Question. Does the OMB oppose the incremental funding of military construction 

projects? 

Answer. Yes, the policy of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to fully 

fund military construction projects. OMB and the Department of Defense (DoD) developed criteria that must be met for a project to be considered for incremental 

funding. These criteria were included in the DoD Financial Management Regulation 

(FMR Vol 2B, Chap 6). However, recent requests for exceptions to this policy—even 

when incrementally funding large projects can save tens of millions of dollars thru 

efficiencies—have been rejected. 

Question. Are there any incrementally-funded projects in the FY11 budget request? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1067 

Answer. Yes, we have four previously authorized incrementally-funded projects in 

the FY11 budget request. 

Question. Where are they located? 

Answer. They are located at Ft. Wainwright, AK, Wiesbaden, GE and two projects 

in Vicenza, IT. 

Question. What is the FY11 cost for these projects? 

Answer. The FY11 cost for these projects is $140.5M: Ft. Wainwright—$30M; 

Wiesbaden—$59.5M; and two Vicenza projects—$25M and $26M. 

Question. Does FY11 represent the final year of funding for these projects? 

Answer. Yes, for the two Vicenza, IT projects and the Wiesbaden, GE project. 

They are in their final year of funding. Ft. Wainwright, AK funding continues beyond FY11. 

ARMY MODULAR FORCE

Question. Is the Army 88 percent complete with reorganizing into Modular Force 

BCTs? 

Answer. As of 24 March 2010, the Army was 88% complete with the modular brigade conversions (266 of 301). For Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), the Army had 

begun or completed the modular conversion of 96% (70 of 73). Of the 70 BCTs, 23 

are still in the conversion process; two Active Component BCTs are in the middle 

of their 12-month conversion (one finishes in August 2010 and the other in September 2010) and 21 Army National Guard BCTs are in various stages of their 48- 

month conversion (seven finish in September 2010, ten finish in September 2011, 

three finish in March 2012, and the last finishes in September 2012). 

Question. Does the budget request include sufficient funds to support the remaining conversion into modular BCTs? 

Answer. Yes. The (FY11) funding request supports the remaining modular conversions and the Army has sufficient funding to equip the modular forces as they convert. The 172nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team will be the last Brigade Combat 

Team to convert and that is scheduled for FY13. 

Question. How much is in the request for this? 

Answer. The FY11 budget request includes $1.584B for Transformation of the 

Modular Force: $1.268B in Military Construction, Army, and $316.5M in Military 

Construction, Army National Guard. 

[Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Carter] 

ENSURING ARMY INSTALLATIONS HAVE ADEQUATE BARRACKS AND MOTOR POOL

SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE RETURNING FORCES AND EQUIPMENT

Question. As we redeploy our Iraq forces by December 2011 in compliance with 

the Status of Forces Agreement, do you believe the Army will have sufficient barracks space to accommodate the increased number of stateside forces while keeping 

in compliance with one-plus-one standards? 

Answer. As we redeploy our Iraq forces by December 2011 in compliance with the 

security agreement, the Army will not have sufficient barracks space to accommodate the increased number of stateside forces while complying with one-plus-one 

standards. Our analysis shows sufficient barracks space to accommodate the re-integration of units and Soldiers to Fort Bliss, TX, Fort Drum, NY, and Fort Riley, KS. 

The data for Fort Lewis, WA, shows there to be a significant shortfall of available 

barracks spaces that comply with one-plus-one standards by December 2011. However, the Army is committed to having completed the Army-wide permanent party 

barrack buyout program by 2013 with occupancy available by 2015, to include all 

requirements resulting from the draw down in Iraq. 

Question. Additionally, if the Army is planning to return all equipment from Iraq, 

will all installations have sufficient motor pool space to adequately accommodate the 

returning up-armored equipment along with unarmored equipment currently in use 

at installations for training purposes? If not, what is the plan for ensuring installations can adequately accommodate all personnel and equipment over the next several years without overcrowding either? 

Answer. The Army has implemented a four step process to provide disposition for 

equipment and materiel excess to United States Forces—Iraq. Disposition for all excess equipment and materiel is categorized in one of four ways: (1) consume in 

place; (2) redistribute within theater; (3) transfer; and (4) dispose. Equipment that 

was deployed along with the units from home station will return with the unit to 

home station. There is adequate motor pool and storage space to accommodate that 

equipment. Theater Provided Equipment (TPE) procured outside standard Army 

procedures and policies, such as the accelerated procurement of Mine Resistant AmVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 01067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1068 

bush Protected (MRAPs), will require planning and programming to provide required support facilities. Adequate storage space is available for equipment identified to fill Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) requirements. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1069) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

WITNESSES 

KELLY B. HRUSKA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION 

MARY KELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MILITARY CHILD EDUCATION 

COALITION 

SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY KENNETH O. PRESTON 

SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS CARLTON W. KENT 

MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY RICK D. WEST 

CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE JAMES A. ROY 

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Well, we will do something that Congress rarely does. We will start 1 minute early. 

I want to welcome everybody to the hearing. The committee will 

come to order, and I want to welcome everyone to this, the last 

hearing of our series of hearings on the 2011 fiscal year budget for 

military construction accounts and for the V.A. and other related 

agencies. 

Today’s hearing will address what has been a major and consistent interest of this subcommittee: the quality of life for our 

servicemembers and their families. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review emphasizes the importance of preserving and enhancing 

our all-volunteer force. It makes a number of policy and budgetary 

commitments to sustaining that goal. 

This subcommittee plays a crucial role in ensuring that that 

promise is fulfilled, and we intend to do everything we can to support our families, especially at a time when our nation is asking 

so much of them during a time of multiple deployments and a time 

of war. 

Today, we will hear about the strains that the war is placing on 

our military families and the steps that both the services and nongovernmental organizations are taking to address these problems. 

And this year, we are going to do something a little bit different. 

We are going to have two panels, rather than one. In our first 

panel, we will hear from representatives of the National Military 

Family Association and the Military Child Education Coalition to 

gain their perspective on quality-of-life issues. 

And then after the conclusion of this panel, we will begin with 

our traditional panel consisting of the four senior non-commisioned 

officers (NCOs) of the respective services. 

Before I proceed, I want to thank all of our witnesses for rearranging your schedules. We had a not-so-small blizzard get in the 

way of our originally scheduled date for this hearing. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1070 

At this point, I would now like to recognize our ranking member, 

Mr. Crenshaw, for any opening comments he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me say, I didn’t realize this is the last hearing that we 

are going to have, so I am a little disappointed, because some of 

the hearings I have are not as interesting as these hearings. So— 

but time flies when you are having fun, as they say. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And I am sitting in for Representative Wamp, 

who many of you know and who serves as the ranking member. He 

has a conflict, but I think this is one of the most interesting hearings that he finds, and as I—do I. So I just want to let you know 

that he still cares a great deal about quality of life and couldn’t be 

here today. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I would just echo your words of welcome. Ladies, the work that you do, the organizations you represent, I just 

appreciate so much what you are doing. And the folks sitting behind you, they come here every year, and I always look forward to 

it, because you get to hear the real scoop. And these are folks that 

are out on the front lines and they get to tell us what they are 

hearing from, really, the backbone of our military. 

We talk a lot about all the equipment and all the strategy, but 

it is the men and women that really make our military what it is 

today. So I look forward to this time. And, again, thank you for 

your leadership, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Ander, thank you very much. Very well said. 

Let me now introduce our first panel of witnesses. Kelly Hruska 

is the government relations deputy director for the National Military Family Association. 

I won’t go through her entire and very impressive resume, but 

she has been in this position since June of 2007 and has been a 

Navy spouse for 16 years, and we thank you for that service and 

your family’s service to our country. Her husband is a Navy captain. 

She is the president of the Naval Officers’ Spouses’ Club of 

Washington, D.C., and many, many other organizations she has 

been active in, supporting our military troops over their years and 

their families, as well. She holds a master’s of public administration degree from Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania. 

Dr. Mary Keller is the president and CEO of the Military Child 

Education Coalition, known as MCEC. She is one of the founding 

members of MCEC and has been the executive leader of it since 

1998. She has served as a teacher, an administrator in Texas 

schools for over 21 years, including 8 years with Killeen Independent School District, a district I had the honor of representing 

before Judge Carter was able to assume that honor is representing 

the Killeen area and Fort Hood. 

Dr. Keller holds a doctorate in educational administration from 

Texas Tech and is the author of a number of publications on military children and education. 

Thank you, both, for being here, and thank you for the work, as 

Mr. Crenshaw said, that your organizations do, week in and week 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1071 

out, and being a voice for military families. I think one of the reasons that this committee feels so passionate about supporting quality-of-life issues is that when the debate in Congress is whether to 

fund Joint Strike Fighter or nuclear aircraft carriers or build nuclear submarines or other major weapons programs, there are naturally hundreds of business lobbyists willing to come to Capitol 

Hill and lobby for those interests. 

There are not many knocking on our doors asking for better education, support, health care, quality of life, you know, housing for 

our military families. And you and those who will speak on the second panel are the voices for these great Americans that, as you 

know, are sacrificing so much for our country. 

So we thank you for what you are doing. We thank you for being 

here. Ms. Hruska, if we could begin with your testimony. Your full 

statement will be submitted for the record. We would like to ask 

if you could summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes or so. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY B. HRUSKA

Ms. HRUSKA. Great, thank you. 

Chairman Edwards and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the National Military Family Association would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the quality 

of life of our military families, the nation’s families. 

Your recognition of the sacrifices of these families and your response to legislation to the increased need for support have resulted in programs and policies that have helped sustain our families through these difficult times. Our association believes policies 

and programs should provide a firm foundation for families buffeted by the uncertainties of deployment and transformation. 

Standardization in delivery, accessibility and funding are essential. Programs should provide for families in all stages of deployment and reach out to them in all geographic locations. Families 

should be given the tools to take greater responsibility for their 

own readiness. 

At every military family conference we have attended in the last 

year, childcare was one of the top five issues affecting families, 

dropping care being the most requested need. Some installations 

are responding to these needs in innovative ways. 

For instance, in a visit to Kodiak, Alaska, we noted that the gym 

facility provided watch care for its patrons. Mom worked out on the 

treadmill, while her child played in a safe, carpeted, and fencedin area right across from her. Another area of the gym, previously 

an aerobics room, had been transformed into a large play area for 

mom and me groups to play in the frequently inclement weather. 

These solutions aren’t expensive, but they do require thinking 

outside the box. At our Operation Purple Healing Adventures 

Camps for families with the wounded, ill and injured, families told 

us there is a tremendous need for adequate access to childcare on 

and near military treatment facilities. Families need the availability of childcare in order to attend medical appointments, especially mental health appointments. 

Our association encourages the creation of drop-in childcare for 

medical appointments on the DOD or V.A. premises or partnerships with other organizations to provide this valuable service. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1072 

In May 2008, our association commissioned the Rand Corporation to do a longitudinal study on the experience of 1,500 families. 

Rand followed these families for 1 year and interviewed the nondeployed caregiver, a parent and one child per family between 11 

and 17 years of age, at three time points over the year. 

The research addressed two key questions: How are school-age 

military children faring? And what types of military—issues do 

military children face related to deployments? 

In December, the baseline findings were released in the journal 

article in pediatrics. Findings showed, as the months of parental 

deployment increased, so did the child’s challenges. The total number of months away mattered more than the number of deployments. 

Older children experienced more difficulties during deployment. 

There was a direct correlation between the mental health of the 

caregiver and the well-being of the child. Girls experience more difficulty during reintegration. 

About one-third of the children reported symptoms of anxiety, 

which was somewhat higher than the percentage reported in other 

national studies on children. And in the initial findings, there were 

no differences in results between services or components. 

What are the implications? Families facing longer deployments 

need targeted support, especially for older teens and girls. Support 

needs to be in place across the entire deployment cycle, including 

reintegration, and some non-deployed parents may need targeted 

mental health support. 

One way to address these needs would be to create a safe, supportive environment for older youth and teens. Dedicated use activity centers for our older youth would go a long way to help with 

this. 

Our association is an outgrowth of the study results. We will be 

holding a summit in early May where we will be engaging with experts to isolate action items to address the issues surfaced in the 

study. We would be happy to share these action items with you, especially as they relate to military construction issues. 

During the course of this study, Rand researchers also found that 

living in military housing was related to fewer deployment-related 

challenges. For instance, fewer caregivers who lived in military 

housing reported that their children had difficulties adjusting during deployment as compared to those caregivers who needed to rent 

their homes. 

In a subsequent survey, the study team explored the factors that 

determine a military family’s housing situation in more detail. 

Among the list of potential reasons provided for the question, ‘‘Why 

did you choose to rent?’’, researchers found that the top three answers were there was—military housing was not available, renting 

was most affordable, and the preference not to invest in a home at 

that time. Privatized housing expands the opportunities for families to live on the installation and is a welcome change for military 

families. 

Our association continues to be concerned that there will not be 

enough commissaries to serve areas experiencing substantial 

growth, including those locations with servicemembers and families 

relocated by BRAC. The surcharge was never intended to pay for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1073 

DOD and service transformation. Additional funding is needed to 

ensure commissaries are built or expanded in areas that are gaining personnel as a result of these programs. 

Our association wishes to thank Congress for recent enhancements to educational opportunities for military families, in-state 

tuition, post–9/11 G.I. Bill transferability, the Fry Scholarship for 

surviving children, and other initiatives have provided families 

with more educational opportunities than previous years. 

We thank you for your support of our servicemembers and their 

families and we urge you to remember their service as you work 

to resolve the many issues facing our country. 

Working together, we can improve the quality of life for these 

families. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Kelly B. Hruska follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1074 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1858 here 56870C.248
1075 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1859 here 56870C.249
1076 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1860 here 56870C.250
1077 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1861 here 56870C.251
1078 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1862 here 56870C.252
1079 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1863 here 56870C.253
1080 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1864 here 56870C.254
1081 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1865 here 56870C.255
1082 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1866 here 56870C.256
1083 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1867 here 56870C.257
1084 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1868 here 56870C.258
1085 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1869 here 56870C.259
1086 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1870 here 56870C.260
1087 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1871 here 56870C.261
1088 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1872 here 56870C.262
1089 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1873 here 56870C.263
1090 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1874 here 56870C.264
1091 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1875 here 56870C.265
1092 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1876 here 56870C.266
1093 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1877 here 56870C.267
1094 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1878 here 56870C.268
1095 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1879 here 56870C.269
1096 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1880 here 56870C.270
1097 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1881 here 56870C.271
1098 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Hruska, for your excellent presentation. 

Dr. KELLER. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARY KELLER. 

Dr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to 

you, and good morning to Mr. Crenshaw. 

We are so excited to have the opportunity to talk about the over 

2 million children whose parents are serving our nation in the active-duty forces, the National Guard, and the Reserves. I would 

really like to hone in, sir, on the 1.1 million children who are school 

age, K–12. And just to give you a little scope, that is the size of 

the New York City public schools, if all of those kids were in one 

school district. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the members of this subcommittee are 

really asking the right kinds of questions. What do we really know 

about the quality of life for children and for their families? And, of 

course, parents are happy when their kids are happy. In Texas we 

say, if Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy. 

But, you know, those answers really aren’t precise. We have too 

many stories and too many anecdotes. We in the Military Child 

Education Coalition have spent 14 years in the field with educators, with parents, with students. In the past 4 years, we have 

trained over 70,000 military connected parents about how to be 

more engaged with schools, how to have a good parent-teacher conference, how to ask the right kinds of questions when you are new 

to a school or you are just suddenly a single parent because the 

other parent has been deployed. 

We have also trained thousands and thousands of educators. 

And, by the way, most educators have no personal experience with 

military. So the child’s life is predominantly spent in school, when 

they are not at home. So how do we know how the kids are doing? 

What is the report card? And that is what I would like to talk to 

you about. 

No parent would be satisfied with a report card coming home 

that was full of stories unless your child was in kindergarten. Then 

you are okay with smiley faces. But we are not okay with smiley 

and frowning faces. We need to know how the kids are doing precisely. 

When we know how kids are doing—and that is, their academic 

performance, their attendance, their graduation rates, their retention rate—you have done so much to set kids up right for college 

readiness, for workplace readiness, and to give military families 

those opportunities, but are they prepared? 

They might be able to get into college, but can they stay in college and complete? Are they ready for the workplace? Are they 

ready to choose a military life? And the way that we know that is 

really knowing how kids perform in school. 

Sir, what we have known for the past decade in public schools— 

and as you said, I have experience as a school administrator and 

teacher—is we know how kids are doing. For kids in general, we 

know their academic performance. We know if they are in special 

programs. We know what kinds of patterns of course-taking that 

we see in kids’ portfolios. We do not know this about military kids. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1099 

We don’t even know the most basic question: What schools do 

military kids attend? This is true for the kids in the active-duty, 

but it is really true for kids in the National Guard and Reserves. 

All kids deserve for us to have the very best information. Their 

parents deserve that information. Local educators deserve that information. Policy leaders, both in local communities, on school 

boards, and you deserve that information, and commanders need to 

know, how are my kids doing? 

What we would ask you to do is consider what is already in place 

as a superhighway, and that is the capacity of the Department of 

Education, and we worked very closely with them—they have been 

great—and the states to collect data on students, which they already do, and that is school performance, how kids are doing in 

special programs, and that data can be disaggregated by grade 

level, by gender, so the great point NMFA has brought up in their 

research about how girls are doing, we don’t know what the implication is on their school record. 

What we need to do is switch on the field to enable parents, 

when they enroll their child, to indicate, is that child a military 

child? And that means either active-duty, National Guard or Reserve. When that happens, the schools collect the data. It rolls up 

to the states. The states then, from the over 80 percent of military 

kids who are in public school, will roll that data up to the National 

Center for Educational Statistics. 

Then we can answer the questions that we can’t answer now. So 

there are too many decisions—unfortunately, because we don’t 

have the data—being made on stories and not substance. So then 

we don’t have the measurement to know what programs are really 

working, if funding appropriately plays. Are there grade levels? Are 

there—are there genders that need to be focused on more at certain 

times through schools and communities, through after-school programs? Are military youth programs aligned with what is also 

going on in the schools? 

So how can we get that report card on kids? And that is why I 

would ask your support in what we feel is so important, and that 

is getting the great report card so that everyone knows about the 

well-being of the military child in school. Again, that is 1.1 million 

children who are K–12, so that we have the information so we can 

set them up for the future. 

We have been working with Gallup organization on the Gallup 

student poll. Over 250,000 kids were polled in October; 25,000 kids 

indicated that they were military-connected kids. The results go 

into three bins: hope, engagement and well-being. 

What we know is, 25,000 of 250,000 kids indicated that they 

were military-connected kids, and their voice deserves to be heard, 

not only in how they see their school’s capacity to serve them in 

a school environment, but how is their voice heard in their own 

academic performance? Because this is what sets kids up for their 

future. 

So we ask your help for this, because we believe that we can get 

better data on kids, we can make better decisions. And this is 

something that we can sustain. As our chairman of the board, General Ben Griffin, says, we have got to take for the sake of the child 

to heart. This is something that we believe needs to happen and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1100 

that it can help everyone, and that is from the engaged parent to 

the meaningful opportunities that happen for kids at schools to the 

important things that are going on in communities, both military 

and civilian. 

Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

[Statement of Dr. Mary Keller follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1101 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1887 56870C.272
1102 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1888 56870C.273
1103 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1889 56870C.274
1104 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1890 56870C.275
1105 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1891 56870C.276
1106 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1892 56870C.277
1107 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1893 56870C.278
1108 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1894 56870C.279
1109 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1895 56870C.280
1110 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND MILITARY FAMILIES

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Keller. Both of you made excellent 

presentations, and your passion is certainly very clear. And thank 

you for being a passionate lobbyist on behalf of these great kids 

and military families. 

Dr. Keller, could I ask you, what is the status of the Department 

of Education process, in terms of collecting this kind of information? Have they agreed to it, is it a matter of getting it done, or 

they agreed to certain parts of it, but not other parts? Where are 

we? 

Dr. KELLER. They have agreed to open the field that would be 

for children who are active-duty, National Guard or Reserve. What 

they haven’t agreed to, and that is the finer grain data, and that 

would be by service branch, which may not be that important, if 

you can figure it out by location. 

What they have agreed to, sir, is to make that part of the reauthorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

which you know is a complex process. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, okay. Are there other areas where we need 

to collect information so we have this report card that would go beyond the scope of the Department of Education? 

Dr. KELLER. Yes, sir. We are officially concerned about the 1 in 

7 children who are in special education programs, or at least we 

think they are in special education programs. Again, it is a problem 

of data of not knowing precisely. 

If we get that data, sir, then it could give you more information 

on this committee and the decisions that you make that may have 

to do with ways that we can support families such as childcare, because we have children that have an amplified need. 

CHILDCARE

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Hruska, let me just say, you mentioned in your opening comment, at the very top of your list of issues, childcare is one of the 

top five needs you hear. And let me just say, an example of where 

this testimony today can make a difference is the testimony of our 

noncommissioned officers, many of whom are sitting behind you, in 

the last several years that really inspired and encouraged this subcommittee to add over $1 billion for childcare facilities around the 

country. 

And the Department of Defense finally caught on and decided 

$20 million a year just isn’t going to even come close to letting us 

catch up with the needs. I hope once that program is completed, 

you know, we will make some real strides in terms of making it 

more available on our military posts. And I thank you for bringing 

up that issue. 

OLDER CHILDEN ADJUSTING TO DEPLOYMENTS

Let me just ask one question, and then we will go to the other 

members for their questions. The Rand report said that it is older 

children that seem to have the most difficult time adjusting to 

Mom or Dad being deployed for a period of time. 

Ms. HRUSKA. Yes, sir. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1111 

Mr. EDWARDS. What specifically, teenage years? What age? 

Ms. HRUSKA. Yes, sir. It seems to be the older teen or the teenagers, the 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds. Now, I just want to remind you, 

these are the baseline findings. And so the longitudinal results 

should be released at the beginning of next month. 

But we are seeing—and I believe Dr. Keller has seen this, as 

well—that it is older teens that are having difficulties. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. That is interesting. And while we focused 

on childcare for the need of some of the youngest children, we 

haven’t had a lot of discussion in this subcommittee about youth 

activity centers for teenagers. Do most military installations have, 

you know, significant-sized youth activity centers for teenagers? Or 

is it the hit-and-miss proposition? 

Ms. HRUSKA. I think it is a hit and miss. It really is. You have 

got some installations that have excellent programs, others that it 

is lacking. And this is a tough group. I think we have all struggled 

with trying to find the right mix of programming for teenagers. 

But what we are finding also is that teens—especially if they 

have younger siblings—are taking on many of the responsibilities 

of caring for those younger siblings. So having a place where they 

can go to just have fun and relax and not, you know, have to take 

care of their little brothers and sisters is really critical. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, thank you. Thank you both. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, talking about teenagers and then talking about education, I mean, one of the most interesting things about this subcommittee—and I think one of the most challenging things—is 

there is always something new. There are always some new challenges. 

And I guess when you deal with people, people are complicated, 

and there are problems. We talk about big military systems, and 

then we realize we have got to deal with the men and women, the 

active-duty folks, and then we realize they got wives and husbands, 

and then we realize they got kids. 

So this is really helpful, I think, to us to—we had a hearing not 

long ago, just mental health of active-duty folks. And we realized 

we train them to go in to battle, but we don’t do a very good job 

of helping them come home and deal. And now we hear the same 

kind of situation with kids. I mean, it is kind of obvious, but I 

guess we don’t always focus on it. When Mom or Dad goes off, it 

brings a certain amount of anxiety. 

SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

And you mentioned special needs. One of the things I have been 

real interested in, just one of my priorities in Congress in general 

has been special needs. In fact, I have got some legislation—I think 

most of the members of this committee are co-sponsors of it, but 

it just—it deals with people with special needs. The federal government, we help people save for retirement, and we help people save 

to go to college. And it is a concept where we actually help people 

to save if they use those dollars for special needs, education, transportation, all the things that you all are dealing with. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1112 

And I was interested to learn that because of my involvement 

there, you see so many of the challenges that most people don’t 

face, and then you realize, yes, even in the military, we have got 

to deal with that. 

And I read there is a new program called ECHO, or something 

like that, that—is that working? I mean, that is an interesting— 

we finally get to that point where we want to deal with that in the 

military. Can you tell me a little bit about how that is going? Are 

there things that we can do to make that better? Do you know 

much about that? You mentioned it when you talked about special 

needs? 

Dr. KELLER. It is especially true for families who have a child 

who is autistic. You know, a family with a child who has autism, 

of course, has some special challenges, but because the ECHO component of TRICARE extends, you know, the medical capacity of the 

family to seek services, I would really like to brag on the Marine 

Corps. 

I think they have done a really good job of getting information 

out to parents, and they have done a good job of putting case workers out. It is hard to navigate, so it is hard for a family to say, 

‘‘Here, I have a child with special needs, so now I have to navigate 

the school system, may have to navigate the medical world, and, 

oh, by the way, I have my military benefits that I have to figure 

out, too.’’ 

By having that concierge that helps you with your child figure 

out what can they access, especially when you have a parent who 

is working as a single parent because their spouse is deployed. So 

I think that the ECHO program has great potential. It looks like 

it has great promise. I think it is still early. They are trying to get 

the information out and help families know, what can you access? 

How do you most effectively access that, as well? 

Ms. HRUSKA. And, Mr. Crenshaw, if I may add that, in this 

year’s National Defense Authorization Act, Congress created the 

Office for Community Support for Military Families with Special 

Needs, which all special needs families are extremely grateful for 

and our organization is grateful for it, as well. 

The problem was that it wasn’t really funded. And so DOD is 

really trying to get the office up and running to do what it was intended to do, but without that funding, it is—they can only do so 

much. 

And the whole idea of the office was to help create a standardization across the services for all families with—that have a family 

member with special needs, covering all diagnoses, and to help provide a standardization in terms of detailing or I should say assignments—and the assignments process, the family support process. 

And then also the medical, which is really critical, because—and 

the educational, because you can’t discuss special needs without 

looking at that family support piece, the educational piece, and the 

medical piece as intertwined. So we really urge you—we know that 

you have quite a deal of influence to see if we could find funding 

for that office this year. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. And, finally, I will put in a plug for my 

legislation, as you all go back, because basically it is very simple 

and straightforward. It allows—if you have a special needs child, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1113 

you can take after-tax dollars, you can just set up a simple account 

and that money goes tax-free. And as long as that money is used 

for education or medical purposes, you know, dealing with that special needs, it is just a way—it seems to me, if we—we help people 

retire, we help them save for college, this is something that we 

really, I think, have an obligation, you know, as a society, and that 

would help, you know, above and beyond what is going on in the 

military, but I think it is great, because I think the more you see, 

the more you understand there are people that really need some 

help. 

And so thank you for what you are doing there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—you mentioned the lack 

of funding for the special needs program. Is there any more funding in the president’s budget or proposed for this year? 

Ms. HRUSKA. I don’t believe so, sir, but I can double-check and 

get back to you. 

Mr. BERRY. How much more funding do you need? 

Ms. HRUSKA. Last year, in the authorization, they used the figure $50 million. 

Mr. BERRY. Fifty? 

Ms. HRUSKA. Fifty million, but there was nothing appropriated. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I don’t think there is a member of this committee that does not sit on it because they care about what happens to our military and their families and when they come back 

and the way they are treated as veterans. And we appreciate you 

all being here to help keep us informed as to what we need to be 

doing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Bishop. 

CONGRESSIONAL MILITARY FAMILY CAUCUS

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank both of you for being here and thank you for your 

testimony. I just have a brief comment, and I hope that you are 

aware, both of you, of the newly formed caucus, the Congressional 

Military Family Caucus, which was formed for the very purpose of 

being able to address the kinds of issues that you have raised 

today. 

And, of course, we hope that you will certainly be in touch with 

the members of our caucus and attend and be supportive of the 

various briefings that we have in that regard, because it certainly 

helps us, as we go through this process, and, of course, the members of that caucus serve on various committees, and, of course, 

this is one of the committees that will be pivotal, as well as the 

authorizing committees. 

And if you can just be close to us, in terms of expressing your 

needs, your concerns, and your aspirations, we want to be available 

to be as helpful as we can possibly be. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1114 

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION NEEDS DUE TO BRAC

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. Thank you. 

And thank you for your leadership on that caucus. 

And I only have one additional question. The other questions I 

will submit in writing, but it is a question I thought of as I listened 

to Mr. Bishop speak. He has expressed concerns over the years, 

very eloquently, about the need for construction funding for schools 

at bases that are growing dramatically because of BRAC. And we 

have seen some problems around the country. 

Ms. Hruska, you mentioned something—you referenced that, 

some of the challenges that bases that are increasing because of 

BRAC or reassignments. Any thoughts from either of you on, are 

we meeting the needs with this BRAC process about to conclude a 

year from now? Are we providing the educational needs, particularly the construction needs, for those bases that are seeing so 

many new kids come in? 

Dr. KELLER. Sir, from my experience as an area superintendent 

and a school administrator, it takes a long time to build a school 

and to get the teachers that you need. Honestly, it is the teachers 

that are the most important component, so it takes a while to get 

that ramped up. 

So I see the greatest challenge is we are out in schools everywhere, and we are there in the districts that are growing or districts that are changing, and that is keeping ahead of when the 

student population is expected to come so that I think the challenge certainly is funding and having the timing so that the funding is there, you know, when you need it, so you have that building 

in those classrooms that are ready so that kids aren’t in portable 

buildings or, you know, have to drastically change attendance 

zones so that—for the military child, that can mean one more transition. 

And anything that we can do to provide predictability, consistency and quality for the military child is the same that we want 

to provide for any child. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, Ms. Hruska—— 

Ms. HRUSKA. I would echo Dr. Keller’s remarks, as well, keeping 

ahead of it. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I don’t know if we are going to have another 

BRAC round in our lifetime, but if we do, I hope the transportation 

infrastructure needs on and actually off post and the school construction needs are taken into account in that budgeting process. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, will you yield on that question? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. Yes. Mr. Bishop. 

IMPACT AID

Mr. BISHOP. One of the—since the bulk of military children, particularly older elementary school age, are actually receiving their 

education off post as opposed to on post, we have got a real dilemma in terms of funding that school construction, because many 

of the local school districts that are impacted, that are plussed up 

with BRAC, are having challenges, particularly with the economy, 

of being able to meet the needs of those expected—that influx of 

students. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1115 

And we have been struggling now for several years with this 

committee and this committee trying to figure out how to actually 

get that funding done, because the impact aid is an after-the-fact 

kind of aid, and it is small, and it does not really address the problem in time to assure the quality of life and quality of education 

for our military children who are attending schools particularly offpost. 

And so we could—we would appreciate, I think, your input and 

your advocacy for Congress or the Department of Defense to be actively engaged in a proactive planning and funding for these communities of impact. The Office of Economic Adjustment is one of 

those vehicles that is possible, but it has not in recent years been 

used adequately to address that. 

And I am hoping that we can get some help, because we sort of 

haven’t moved off the dime, if you will, to get it done. And, of 

course, time is running out for the influx of those children. BRAC 

is moving on. And a lot of progress is being made on the military 

side. But in terms of support for the families and those children 

that have to be educated, that is not moving as rapidly as we 

would like. 

And your advocacy on that would be very helpful. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well said. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

GUARD AND RESERVE FAMILIES

Mr. CRENSHAW. Would you mind just one quick question? And I 

just wonder, of the Guard and Reserve families, are they affected 

differently than some of the active-duty families? And do we—you 

know, today’s world, you know, there are so many being deployed 

today, are we reaching out to them in a different way or as well 

as we can? 

Dr. KELLER. Yes, sir, absolutely, the children of the National 

Guard and the Reserves are affected in some ways that are different and some ways that are the same. Generally they don’t move 

as often in terms of changing schools; however, that is not always 

true. I mean, they may move, to live with another family or there 

is another reason that the family needs to move. 

They don’t move as frequently as the children of the active duty. 

So in terms of school transition, usually their experience is not as 

intense as the children of the active duty. 

And in terms of deployments and separation, their experience is 

absolutely as intense, and sometimes much more isolating. You 

know, the children of the active duty, if they are around an installation, are with other children who have the same experience, the 

kids in the high school with other kids in the high school who have 

the same kind of experience. 

And we found that peer-based programs—that is why we have 

our programs at 230 high schools—it is peer-based programs, because students honestly listen to each other for support when you 

are in middle and high school. This is much harder to do for children of the National Guard and Reserves because they may be the 

only child. 

And this is why we are with the Army and the Operation Military Kids program, where you are getting a lot of other kids to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1116 

speak out and to work together. But, still, it is extremely hard to 

serve some kids because they can be so isolated. 

So we train educators and in communities that have no military 

presence, you know, how can they reach out? How can they ask the 

questions? And interestingly enough, even in communities with a 

large active-duty presence, honestly, I feel guilty. When I was an 

area superintendent of Killeen, I never asked the question of which 

students’ parents serve in the National Guard or Reserve, because 

we were so focused on the active-duty component. 

And I think that sometimes those kids get invisible because they 

don’t see themselves as military kids until that parent is activated, 

mobilized, or deployed, or comes back profoundly changed. 

So it is by far more difficult to support the children of families 

in the reserve component. 

Ms. HRUSKA. And, sir, it is not just educators, but we have got 

to educate all of the adults that come in touch points with our military kids, whether, you know, regardless for component so that 

they understand to ask the question and, you know, if they see that 

a kid may be quiet or there has been a change that, you know, talk 

with them and ask, you know, do you have a parent deployed? 

But it is not just educators. It is our Cub Scout leaders, our Girl 

Scout leaders, you know, our caregivers, physicians, school nurses. 

We really need to educate everyone to start asking those questions. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And you are aware of that. And as you reach 

out, you—it is almost like an individual augmentee. You know, 

when you are in the Navy and you go to Afghanistan, you kind of 

leave your helicopter or your friends and you go off kind of by yourself. 

And I imagine if you are a kid, if you live on a base or, you know, 

everybody else is in the military, you kind of understand. But if 

you are just out there isolated and you are—all of a sudden your 

mom or dad is gone for 6 months and you don’t have any buddies 

that, you know, are kind of part that active-duty circle of friends, 

as you say, you are almost all by yourself. 

So it is great that is something you recognize and doing what you 

can in your organization to reach out to them. So I commend you 

for that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Berry, anybody? Any additional questions? If not, thank you 

both for your testimony, and I hope you will look at yourselves and 

your two organizations as a major resource for this committee. And 

please stay in touch with our staff and how we can work together, 

because I know individually and members of the organizations you 

represent today are constantly out meeting with military families. 

We welcome your feedback. 

Thank you both. 

We will now begin our second panel and would like to ask our 

witnesses to come forward. 

As we begin this panel, let me thank each of you and all of you 

collectively for your total of 125 years of military service to our nation. We think that among the four of you, you represented our 

country for an equivalent of a century and a quarter is very, very 

impressive. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1117 

And I also want to say that if you ever had any questions about 

whether your testimony on Capitol Hill makes a difference, the 

members of this subcommittee stand as proof that the answer to 

that question is yes. 

I could give many examples, but the one I would underscore is 

the one I mentioned just a moment ago, and that is that you were 

the voices that came to this subcommittee several years ago and, 

for 2 or 3 years running, said that one of the top quality life concerns you heard from our servicemen and women and their families 

was the need for more affordable, quality, safe and secure childcare 

centers at our military installations. 

And a direct result of your leadership and input on that is the 

additional billion dollars that we have put out through this subcommittee into investing into new childcare centers. And I look forward to the day when all of that money has been fully invested and 

those centers are up and operating. So I thank you for coming 

today and would emphasize the importance of your testimony. 

Let me just quickly formally introduce our witnesses. I won’t go 

through all of their resumes in great detail. Obviously, they 

wouldn’t be in the positions they are in without an incredible 

record of service. 

But for the record, Sergeant Major of the Army Kenneth O. Preston was sworn in to his position on January 15th of 2004. He has 

served in the Army since June of 1975 and was at 1st Cavalry Division of Fort Hood in Germany. And prior to becoming sergeant 

major of the Army, he was a command sergeant major for Combined Task Force 7 in Baghdad. 

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent is a returning 

witness, as well. He became Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps 

on April 25th of 2007, has nearly 34 years of service, completed his 

basic training in March of 1976. He served as Sergeant Major of 

the Marine Forces Europe and the first Marine expeditionary force 

at Camp Pendleton prior to becoming Sergeant Major of the Marine 

Corps. 

Sergeant Major, welcome. 

Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Rick West is a returning 

witness, as well, and he assumed his position on December 12th of 

2008. He has served approximately 29 years in the Navy after enlisting out of high school in 1981. He is a submariner whose assignments include service on the staff of Commander of Submarine 

Force U.S. Pacific Fleet and Chief of the Boat aboard the USS 

Portsmouth. He most recently served as fleet Master Chief for U.S. 

Fleet Forces Command prior to becoming the Master Chief Petty 

Officer of the Navy. 

Master Chief West, welcome. It is good to have you here. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, 

James Roy, this is Chief Roy’s first time to testify before this committee, and I hope you will enjoy the experience and visit us many 

times in the future, Chief. He became Chief Master Sergeant in the 

Air Force on June 30th of 2009 and has served in the Air Force 

since 1982. 

He has served in numerous roles, including civil engineer, various assignments in the U.S. and overseas, most recently served as 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1118 

the senior enlisted leader and adviser to the commander of the U.S. 

Pacific Command and also served as command chief master sergeant of U.S. Forces Japan in the 1st Fighter Wing. 

I am going to leave it to each of you to introduce the noncommissioned officer leaders of the Reserve and the Guard, but let me say, 

on behalf of our committee, how deeply grateful we are for the 

service of the members of the Guard and Reserve. 

As Mr. Crenshaw, pointed out, they have been playing an incredibly vital role in our war against terrorism, our war in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and we know that the demands on our families in the 

Guard and Reserve have been tremendous. 

So I want to thank the leadership here of the Guard and Reserve 

for all that you do. We could not be doing what we are doing in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world today were it not 

for the tremendous Americans, the citizen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen 

and Marines, who are serving in the Guard and Reserve. And we 

thank each of you for your leadership. 

With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw for any opening comments he would care to make. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No, I will just reiterate what I said earlier, just 

welcome you all back. Thank you for all that you do, and particularly for being able to kind of be our eyes and ears of the men and 

women that you deal with every day. And as the chairman pointed 

out, when you bring those concerns to us, it means a lot, because 

I know you are there talking to those people, and they can speak 

freely with you, and I hope you will always speak freely with us, 

because we are here to try to make changes for the better. So 

thank you for your service. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. And we will 

never ask you if an OMB budget is adequate, but we might reserve 

the option of asking you if there are some unmet needs or what you 

might do with additional investments for our military troops and 

families if you haven’t. 

With that, Sergeant Major Preston, if you would begin. And you 

are all familiar with this process. We will submit your entire testimony for the record, but we would like to recognize each of you for 

your opening comments at this time, and then we will have questions and answers in discussion. 

Sergeant Major. 

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT MAJOR KENNETH O. PRESTON

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Chairman Edwards, thanks very much. 

Representative Crenshaw, members of the committee, thanks 

very much for the opportunity to come in and represent again the 

soldiers, civilians and families of America’s Army. 

The Army right now today has about 260,000 soldiers currently 

deployed to 80 countries around the world. It is no secret very 

busy. In fact, more soldiers deployed today than we had at the 

height of the surge in Iraq in 2007. 

When you look at the Army, the Army is represented by three 

components, the active component, the Army National Guard, and 

the Army Reserve. 

And I have two senior command sergeant majors with me today 

I would like to introduce. First, Command Sergeant Major Richard 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1119 

Burch, newly appointed command sergeant major for the United 

States Army National Guard, and Command Sergeant Major Michael Schultz, the newly appointed command sergeant major for 

the United States Army Reserve. 

Both of these command sergeant majors represent 569,000 citizen soldiers. We could not do what we do today as an Army or a 

nation if it weren’t for their contributions. 

I want to begin by saying thank you to the committee’s leadership and this committee for all your support in years past in taking 

care of soldiers and their families. As General Casey reported in 

his testimony a few weeks ago, we are now on track and getting 

close to meeting our goals that we established in 2007 for putting 

the Army back into balance. 

The number-one question I received from soldiers as I travel— 

and this is—this past year and in years past is, when will soldiers 

receive more dwell time between deployments? And as I speak to 

those soldiers and their families, I talk about the dwell time, I talk 

about the contributions of this committee and what you have done 

to help put the Army back into balance, which we are now beginning to see more predictability and stability in soldiers’ and families’ lives. 

The one concern or worry that keeps me awake at night is stress 

on the force. Stress on the force comes in many different forms 

across all three components of the Army, the active, the Guard and 

Reserve, depending on where you serve in the operational force or 

the generating force. 

Indicators of stress on the force can be seen in the increase of 

suicide rates again this past year, post-traumatic stress is also 

high, and we have watched divorces this year tick up a little. 

I believe the training and the programs we are executing we 

started this past year and will continue to execute this year are 

having a positive impact and making an impact on these disturbing 

trends. This committee’s support in past years for family housing, 

soldier barracks, childcare, new services, pay, and especially your 

help this past year with our aging hospital infrastructure has had 

a tremendous impact on helping us retain our very best soldiers 

and their families. 

I could not be more proud of the men and women who choose to 

volunteer and serve in America’s Army. And with that, I will say 

thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1120 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1919 here 56870C.281
1121 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1920 here 56870C.282
1122 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1921 here 56870C.283
1123 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1922 here 56870C.284
1124 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1923 here 56870C.285
1125 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1924 here 56870C.286
1126 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1925 here 56870C.287
1127 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1926 here 56870C.288
1128 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1927 here 56870C.289
1129 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1928 here 56870C.290
1130 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1929 here 56870C.291
1131 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1930 here 56870C.292
1132 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1931 here 56870C.293
1133 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1932 here 56870C.294
1134 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1933 here 56870C.295
1135 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1934 here 56870C.296
1136 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1935 here 56870C.297
1137 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1936 here 56870C.298
1138 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1937 here 56870C.299
1139 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1938 here 56870C.300
1140 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1939 here 56870C.301
1141 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1940 here 56870C.302
1142 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1941 here 56870C.303
1143 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1942 here 56870C.304
1144 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1943 here 56870C.305
1145 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1944 here 56870C.306
1146 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1945 here 56870C.307
1147 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1946 here 56870C.308
1148 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1947 here 56870C.309
1149 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1948 here 56870C.310
1150 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1949 here 56870C.311
1151 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1950 here 56870C.312
1152 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1951 here 56870C.313
1153 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1952 here 56870C.314
1154 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1953 here 56870C.315
1155 

Mr. EDWARDS. Sergeant Major Preston, thank you very much. 

And Sergeant Major Burch and Sergeant Major Schultz, thank 

you both for being here today and for your leadership, as well. 

Sergeant Major. 

SERGEANT MAJOR CARLTON W. KENT

Sergeant Major KENT. Good morning, Chairman Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Welcome back—welcome back to the subcommittee. 

Sergeant Major KENT. Thank you, sir. Chairman Edwards, Congressman Crenshaw, and distinguished members, first of all, I 

would just like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

speak on the behalf of all our Marines and families and the quality-of-life issues that we have. 

I would tell you straight up front right now, gentlemen, that the 

Marines are very proud of serving this great nation. As the Commandant and I travel around, they never complain about anything. 

Even though in combat and very austere environments, they never 

complain, because they know that their families are being taken 

care of because of what you do on this committee. And that is a 

great thing. 

As we travel around, Marines just want to continue to live up to 

our warfighting legacy that has started back since 1775. And they 

continue to do that. And we are very proud of them as a Marine 

Corps, but we still have some work to do. 

As we travel around, we hear families, and they are not shy 

about telling us if there is some work to do. And our Commandant 

has taken the lead on this, and he is ensuring that we take care 

of our families and the Marines so they can continue to fight and 

concentrate on our nation’s battles and win. 

So, again, gentlemen, it is just an honor for me to be here and 

to represent the Marine Corps. And I will be open for any questions. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1156 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1956 here 56870C.316
1157 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1957 here 56870C.317
1158 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1958 here 56870C.318
1159 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1959 here 56870C.319
1160 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1960 here 56870C.320
1161 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1961 here 56870C.321
1162 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1962 here 56870C.322
1163 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1963 here 56870C.323
1164 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1964 here 56870C.324
1165 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1965 here 56870C.325
1166 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1966 here 56870C.326
1167 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1967 here 56870C.327
1168 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1968 here 56870C.328
1169 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1969 here 56870C.329
1170 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1970 here 56870C.330
1171 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1971 here 56870C.331
1172 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1972 here 56870C.332
1173 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1973 here 56870C.333
1174 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1974 here 56870C.334
1175 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1975 here 56870C.335
1176 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1976 here 56870C.336
1177 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1977 here 56870C.337
1178 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1978 here 56870C.338
1179 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1979 here 56870C.339
1180 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1980 here 56870C.340
1181 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Sergeant Major Kent. You represent 

the Marine Corps well. We are honored to have you both here 

today. 

Master Chief West. 

MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RICK WEST

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, Mr. Chairman, Representative Crenshaw, members of the committee, thank you very much 

for the opportunity to come before this committee today. I consider 

this a distinct honor and a privilege in one of the most important 

aspects of my job as Master Chief Petty Officer of our Navy. 

Joining me today is Master Chief Ronnie Wright, representing 

the Navy Reserve force. Our Navy Reserve personnel stand shoulder to shoulder with their active-duty counterparts, serving our 

Navy and our nation around the world. 

In my first year, I have made it known across our fleet that our 

Sailors’ and their families’ quality of life is of vital importance to 

the operational readiness and mission effectiveness. 

Our Navy is the finest in the world. And your Sailors are making 

a difference every day. Between our traditional maritime requirements, counter-piracy operations, and the many non-traditional 

missions we have adopted in support of overseas contingency operations, the strain on our Sailors and their families is even greater 

than it has ever been. 

And as of April 1st, 39 percent of our force is underway, and approximately 23,000 of those Sailors are into CENTCOM, 13,000 of 

those are boots on ground, Sailors’ boots on ground, and that is the 

engine that drives our great Navy, and that is the people, our people, our Sailors, with their families’ support. We are a global force 

for good. 

And my wife, Bobby, and I, we understand firsthand the anxiety 

of war and its impact on the family stability. With both having 

military experience, we thought it would be easy to be Navy parents, but nothing can prepare you for the day your child deploys 

in harm’s way. Our oldest son, a Navy diver, just returned this 

past Sunday from a 6-month deployment. 

Navy families understand and have accepted a military lifestyle, 

just like we have. They are brave, strong, resilient, resourceful, and 

every bit as dedicated and patriotic as those of us that wear the 

cloth of our nation. And I firmly believe that how we support our 

Sailors that we send to war truly defines who we are as a Navy 

and as a nation. 

Mr. Chairman, subcommittee, on behalf of our Sailors and families, thank you very much for ensuring they are well supported, appreciated, and given the quality of life they deserve. And I look forward to answering your questions, sirs. 

[Prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Rick West follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1182 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1984 here 56870C.341
1183 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1985 here 56870C.342
1184 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1986 here 56870C.343
1185 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1987 here 56870C.344
1186 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1988 here 56870C.345
1187 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1989 here 56870C.346
1188 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1990 here 56870C.347
1189 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1991 here 56870C.348
1190 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1992 here 56870C.349
1191 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1993 here 56870C.350
1192 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1994 here 56870C.351
1193 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1995 here 56870C.352
1194 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1996 here 56870C.353
1195 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1997 here 56870C.354
1196 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1998 here 56870C.355
1197 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1999 here 56870C.356
1198 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2000 here 56870C.357
1199 

Mr. EDWARDS. Master Chief West, thank you. 

And let me just say that it is always so impressive to me, as 

someone who represented Fort Hood through three combat deployments, whether I am meeting with Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines, it is amazing to me how many of our leaders in the military 

have sons and daughters who, after all the sacrifices you asked of 

them, all the times they have moved away from their favorite 

friends in school to move to a new school where they knew no one, 

how many of them volunteer to serve in the military. 

And it is a great compliment to you and your family and to all 

the other families that have sons and daughters serving. And I 

thank you for that. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. And let your son know we appreciate 

his service. 

And Master Chief Wright, thank you for your leadership in the 

Reserve and for being here today. 

Chief Roy. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT JAMES A. ROY

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Thank you, sir. Chairman Edwards, 

Congressman Crenshaw, members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to tell you about America’s Air Force and our families of that Air Force. 

As you might tell, the pollen count in D.C. is pretty high, and 

I apologize for having to reschedule our meeting yesterday. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to meet with you yesterday, but we will reschedule that, so thank you. 

It is an honor and distinct privilege to join my fellow senior enlisted advisers here today to represent one of the finest Air Forces 

among the world and, of course, those young men and women that 

make up the United States Air Force. 

Our Air Force is more than 702,000 strong, with more than 

510,000 uniformed Airmen and more than 192,000 Air Force civilians making up the total force team. Two members of the total 

force team join me today: Chief Master Sergeant Chris Muncy, the 

Command Chief Master Sergeant for the Air National Guard; and 

Chief Master Sergeant Dale Badgett, the Command Chief Master 

Sergeant for the Air Force Reserve Command. 

We appreciate the incredible support of the members here and 

from the entire U.S. House of Representatives, which continue to 

be a vital part of our success. We are greatly appreciative of your 

efforts, actions, and legislation, that have led to the expansion of 

servicemembers and veterans pay and benefits. We also appreciate 

the visits by the House members to our servicemembers in the field 

and to the wounded warriors in health care facilities. 

To represent all the Air Force wounded warriors, I am joined 

here today by Technical Sergeant Chris Frost, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technician wounded in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF). 

Our airmen are on the front lines in a variety of theaters of operations, providing Airmanship skills to combatant commanders 

around the world. They are deploying at an increased rate, leaving 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1200 

behind families and friends. We must make sure our Airmen and 

their families are safe, healthy, and well educated. 

My spouse, Mrs. Paula Roy, who joins me here today, speaks 

with many family members and works with our staff to try to meet 

the Air Force needs. It is my distinct honor to be with you here 

today to tell you about America’s Air Force and what we do on a 

daily basis. 

Thank you again. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant James A. Roy follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1201 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2004 here 56870C.358
1202 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2005 here 56870C.359
1203 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2006 here 56870C.360
1204 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2007 here 56870C.361
1205 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2008 here 56870C.362
1206 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2009 here 56870C.363
1207 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2010 here 56870C.364
1208 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2011 here 56870C.365
1209 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2012 here 56870C.366
1210 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2013 here 56870C.367
1211 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2014 here 56870C.368
1212 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2015 here 56870C.369
1213 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2016 here 56870C.370
1214 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2017 here 56870C.371
1215 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2018 here 56870C.372
1216 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2019/2100 here 56870C.373
1217 

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

And, Chief Master Sergeants Muncy and Badgett, thank you for 

being here. And, Sergeant Frost, thank you for representing everyone who has been wounded in combat. 

I was in my hometown of Waco this past week, and we had a 

group called Ride 2 Recovery. And many of these wounded warriors 

had no use of their legs or they gave one or two legs in service to 

country—350-mile bicycle ride from San Antonio to Arlington, 

Texas. 

And I told them, if I had tried to join them—I am in half-decent 

shape—I would be on the road to the hospital as opposed to recovery. But thank you for your service and sacrifice for our country. 

With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw to open up to 

questions. 

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To start, I would like to ask maybe each one of you all a question 

about housing. This is something that I think we talked about before. With the housing market kind of going down, people watching 

the value of their homes go down from 20 percent to 50 percent, 

we are seeing it in Florida, and we are seeing it in Texas. We are 

probably seeing it everywhere. 

And, you know, if you are not in the active military, you can kind 

of maybe wait, hope your house goes back up in value before you 

sell it, but if you get employed somewhere and you have got to 

move, you don’t have that luxury. And I know we have got, I think, 

the housing assistance program. 

And I wonder, could each of you all tell how—what you hear, 

how you see it? Number one, is it working? And, number two, do 

folks know that it is available to them, you know? Because, I mean, 

if we got a good program and nobody is taking advantage of it, then 

it really doesn’t work that way. 

Well, so I would love to hear what each of you have to say, just 

briefly how you see it working and how you see people taking advantage of it. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I will start out. The Homeowners 

Assistance Program has been used very widely, I know, across the 

Army. A lot of—a lot of soldiers and families out there are taking 

advantage of it. 

I have had some Soldiers come back in and ask, for those who 

purchased the house after the deadline—because right now, it is, 

you know, 2006 and prior, and went back in and did some research, 

and, you know, of course, the housing market at that point, when 

you look at 2007 and beyond, it had already dropped 10 percent, 

and so the housing market was on the way down. 

I think a lot of buyers went in with the intent to buy, take advantage of a dip in the market, and then be able to sell it at some 

point down. Of course, it has not recovered. 

But, overall, I mean, the Homeowners Assistance Program has 

been, you know, very well received, and we have worked very hard 

at getting the messages out to ensure, you know, soldiers and families know about the program and can take advantage of it. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1218 

It is tied in with our Corps of Engineers, you know, because they 

are the ones that do the housing inspection and, you know, make 

the determination for, you know, the value of the property. 

And maybe—and each of you all, could you—do you think we 

ought to extend it for another year? I mean, because we are still— 

I don’t think the housing market has bottomed yet, but comment 

on that, if people say, yes, we will still need that kind of assistance. 

Sergeant Major KENT. It is a need, sir. The program is great, but 

I think starting off at first, it was just like the red tape, you know, 

to get through and, you know, like the paper shuffling. And that 

is the issues, you know, we have always got. 

You know, we turn in this paperwork, then they want more paperwork. And I think that was the issue initially, but I think that 

we are actually through that now, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Got you. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. I think—and the feedback I am 

hearing from the fleet, that is—we are still getting some, ‘‘It is too 

hard, too much paperwork.’’ And also, sir, I am seeing, just like the 

Army and Marine Corps, it is working, but you still continue to 

have geo bachelors that we have to support in all of our fleet areas, 

due to the nature of the fact that our homes are—they have lost 

value. 

You know, some of us are able to wait and recover, but we have 

really ramped up our counseling services, our financial programs. 

Our Navy and Marine Corps relief society has stepped up, and I 

don’t see it as a huge issue in our fleet, but I do get some feedback 

with some negative comments on it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Got you. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Sir, just a comment, as the sergeant 

major had said, I think the program started off very, very slowly. 

For one particular instance, I met a young E–6 at McGuire Air 

Force Base in New Jersey. The young member had just moved from 

Las Vegas. 

Her spouse was a civilian, but had went forward into the U.S. 

Central Command (USCENTCOM) theater of operation, was working within there, and she was just in tears, because she could not 

make ends meet, and she did not want to give up her house, because of all the implications of that. And she was trying to hang 

on to everything that she had. 

Now, having fast-forwarded that just a few months, I met with 

a group of Airmen just the other day. And a young lieutenant colonel came to me and told me that—how important this program was 

and how effective it was. So just in a few months, I have noticed 

a change and the process starting to work very well. 

QUALITY OF LIFE IN MAYPORT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Let me ask—let me ask Master Chief 

West a kind of a specific question. It relates to Mayport. My colleagues on the subcommittee always enjoy when I talk about 

Mayport. And as you all know—or certainly you know—that the 

Navy has decided to homeport a nuclear carrier at Mayport. 

And there had been the conventional carriage there before, but 

the question—it is like a lot of things. You hear arguments about, 

well, you are going to disperse the fleet, which makes sense. You 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1219 

need to have a backup nuclear maintenance facility on the East 

Coast, which makes sense. 

But when it gets down to the quality of life for the men and 

women in uniform, I guess we haven’t talked much about it. We 

are going to be asked as a subcommittee to fund the remaining 

work to be done to—the upgrades from Mayport to homeport a nuclear carrier. 

And so I think it would be important to hear from you that some 

of the quality-of-life issues that the men and women that are going 

to come there. For instance, you always hear—and I think it is 

true—Mayport is actually the number-one requested post in the 

Navy, so I assume these quality-of-life issues are kind of being met. 

But comment on just your view of just the cost of living in the 

Mayport-Jacksonville area, the kind of schools that we have down 

there from your perspective, just overall quality of life, not necessarily compare it to other places in America, but just make sure 

that we have got all the ducks in a row and all those quality-oflife issues, from your standpoint, are certainly being met or probably exceeded, so I would love to hear your thoughts on some of 

those areas. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question, sir. I will tell you, both locations that I know that we have 

talked about provide great quality of life. When I go to Mayport, 

though, those Sailors are really impressed with the quality of life 

that they receive in that particular area. 

I look to something called BAH, basic allowance for housing, as 

an indicator for me on what the quality of life and how that will 

affect our junior Sailors, which as you know, if a carrier is 

homeported there, we will have many more junior Sailors flowing 

in. 

But for example, an E4 with dependents in Mayport gets about— 

gets about $200 to $300 less than they would up in the Norfolk 

area, for example. I will use that, since that is one of the places 

that we have a lot of our carriers at, sir, as you know. 

But that in the BAH algorithm, the way we determine BAH is 

many factors. It goes into utilities. It goes into the surrounding 

area. So, again, I will look at BAH as being a big-time win and our 

Sailors being able to go down in Mayport a big win when it becomes a BAH and cost of living. 

Schools, you know, a lot of schools, many times it really boils 

down to how the parents are involved, as well. But I will tell you, 

when I do go to Mayport, there are huge amounts of positive comments about the schools in the Duval County area, the fact that 

they do have the ability to bring folks in, considering we had a carrier there not too long ago, so there are empty seats there for us. 

So I think, as far as BAH and school districts, it is a win for the 

Navy and the nation. And I did take the liberty, after getting all 

these questions in my visits down there, you know, schools in 

Mayport are ranked fairly well, actually above average. So I think 

that it would be a good thing for us. 

Your leadership in the local area has also helped us out with the 

military down there by allowing us head of the line when it comes 

to magnet schools. Again, sir, I really appreciate that. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1220 

If you look at other things, I think the biggest quality-of-life upcheck down there would be seashore flow. It will provide more 

choices for our Sailors in that particular area. And what I mean 

by that—for example, you bring a nuclear carrier down there, there 

are Kings Bay and Charleston that are all within a pretty close distance to be able to spread out shore duty or go from that carrier 

over and back and forth. 

So, sir, I look at that. I look at it is more affordable. You have 

no state tax down there for our junior Sailors. Your climate is pretty darn nice. And the commute, as well. 

So I think there are many things that take on when you talk 

about quality of life. I think it is a good move. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is good to hear, because, obviously, I was 

born and raised in Jacksonville and, you know, think it is a great 

place, and it is a very Navy-friendly town. We have got Naval Air 

Station (NAS) Jacksonville. We have got Blount Island, a Marine 

installation, and, of course, Mayport. 

So it is good to hear firsthand from somebody that is talking to 

folks and seeing firsthand, you know, how they—how they react. So 

it probably is the number one. Maybe we ought to ask somebody 

sometime. I always say that, but it is the number-one requested 

post in the Navy. It sounds like from what you said it is certainly 

well worth it. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, I think it is going to play 

out well, again, for our Navy and our nation. And those words are 

not only mine, it is from the Sailors, and I think that is important 

that we listen to our Sailors and their families when it comes to 

quality of life. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Master Chief West. And Mayport has 

the number-one spokesman on their behalf sitting just to my left. 

A great and effective spokesman for the— 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. They have a pretty good football team, but I am a Georgia Bulldog. That is where I went to 

school. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Berry. 

HOMOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. BERRY. Well, I would just reinforce what has already been 

said, that we do want to meet the needs. And if we don’t know 

about them, there is not much we can do. Sometimes even if we 

know about them, we don’t get it down. 

The issue of paperwork associated with the housing assistance 

program, from what you all said, it is improved. Who is responsible 

for improving that? And how does that—we don’t—we don’t write 

the regs for that, surely. Is it Department of Defense or—— 

VOICE. Yes, sir, it is. It is the Department of Defense. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Any thoughts about how we could reduce some of 

the red tape on that program? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. I think, sir, I think most of it is an 

execution process. It is a matter of getting out to the soldiers and 

families who are interested, having an ombudsman, you know, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1221 

someone there that is a subject matter expert to help them walk 

them through that process. And I know from an Army perspective, 

for what we have done, I think it is working very well. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Let me thank all of you for 

what you do in representing our Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors. You 

do such a great—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. The Marines. I don’t want you to get you in trouble. 

SUICIDE RATES

Mr. BISHOP. Pardon me? Oh, Marines—I got the worldwide logistics center. But let me just thank you all for what you do. I am 

very concerned about the persistent suicide rate, particularly with 

the Army and the Marine Corps. For the Army, I think this is the 

fifth consecutive year that the suicide rate has increased. And, of 

course, over the last 3 years, the Army has really increased its efforts with the support, of course, of this committee, to try to have 

enhanced resources and initiatives aimed at identifying and mitigating the causes of these suicidal behaviors. 

But apparently, it is not yet being successful for both the Army 

and the Marine Corps. Could I get you guys to speak to that and 

to talk about the effectiveness of the comprehensive soldier fitness 

program and how it will enhance the soldiers’ and family members’ 

resilience and total fitness in this era of constant deployment and 

conflict? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I will just—as I look at 2009—and 

I will start with 2009, just to put it in contrast, but I think my 

statement of the programs that are out there are making a difference. When you look at the number of suicides in January of 

2009, 21 suicides, February 2009, there was 19. So between those 

2 months, 40 suicides. 

Now, if we would have projected that out through 2009, potentially 240 suicides for the year. We actually ended 2009 with 160. 

Now, what happened is, after January, February 2009, we implemented—the immediate response was a stand-down day, a chain 

teach, and then went into a number of interactive videos, the 

shoulder-to-shoulder video that we put out there. That was an 

interactive video based on real-life scenarios to teach first-line supervisors, leaders at the lowest level, the indicators of suicide, and 

then, you know, how you deal with those challenges and how you 

seek help. 

COMPREHENSIVE SOLDIER FITNESS

We have also now continued that, as you mentioned, the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which we started in October 

of last year. The chief of staff of the Army, General Casey, started 

to program out. We have partnered with the health care professionals in the civilian—in the civilian field, a lot of that with the 

University of Pennsylvania. 

We are now—as you look at comprehensive soldier fitness, there 

are four pillars that make up that program. First, there is a global 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1222 

assessment tool, which is an online assessment tool to allow every 

individual soldier, and this will also become available this year for 

our family members, with school-age children and spouses, as well 

as our Army civilians. 

But it is an online assessment tool to allow every individual to 

go in there and measure their fitness in the four dimensions of 

strength. You know, there are five dimensions of strength—physical, emotional, social, spiritual and family. Okay, well, those four 

other dimensions—the emotional, social, spiritual, and family— 

what we want to do is be able to provide feedback to the soldiers, 

their families, and Army civilians of where their strengths and 

weaknesses are. 

You know, if you are going in to set up a physical training program for an individual, the first thing you do is you do an assessment, you know, allow them to know where the weaknesses are 

and where they can start building strength and resilience. So that 

is the first pillar. 

And, you know, the goal that the chief has set for the Army is, 

by the end of May, all soldiers will have taken the global assessment tool, and that is all 1.1 million across all three components. 

The second pillar that makes up the program is the online comprehensive resilient modules, and these are self-help modules. And 

like the GAT, it is designed to be confidential. It is only the individual soldier that sees the results from the survey. And it is also 

the individual soldier that goes on and takes the resilience modules 

that begin building strength in their weak areas. 

The third and fourth pillar really gets at education. It is tied in 

with the leadership within our organizations. The third pillar is a 

master resilience trainer, and this is where we have partnered with 

the University—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Say that again? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Master resilience trainer. And these 

are noncommissioned officers, officers and warrant officers, that we 

have sent up to the University of Pennsylvania. We now have approximately 800 master resilience trainers that have been trained. 

It is a 10-day course. 

We have just opened our own school now at Fort Jackson. In fact, 

we just finished running the first pilot course through that school 

down at Fort Jackson. So our intent now is to get one master resilience trainer per battalion across the Army. That is the immediate 

goal. And then, long term, you know, we will look at spreading 

those master resilience trainers out among all the companies, 

troops and batteries. 

But the master resilience trainer really becomes the subject matter expert for the commander on the ground, to help them put together strength and resilience programs within the unit, but it also 

helps the commander by having a subject matter expert to teach 

those resilience programs that they learned while they were in 

school. 

And then the fourth pillar is to take what is being taught in the 

master resilience course and now put that training into all of our 

professional military education courses. So for the enlisted officer 

and warrant officer courses out there, from day one when a soldier 

comes in the Army, all the way through the sergeant majors acadVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:41 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 056870 PO 00000 Frm 01222 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A870P2.XXX A870P2

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1223 

emy, the War College at Carlisle, all those professional development schools will have master resilience training. 

So this is a—this is a big commitment by the Army to make 

strength and resilience training, just as we have done for decades 

with physical training, to start building strength and resilience in 

those other four dimensions. 

Mr. BISHOP. What about the family support for that? Is it voluntary? Are they—do you have private agencies that the family can 

go to so that there is no stigma attached to it? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Actually, it is both. And it will be—for 

the comprehensive soldier fitness program, it is voluntary for family members and civilians as it comes online. But at the same time, 

we have also got those agencies on the installation that also provide that confidential care, as well, for all three, soldiers, civilians 

and families. 

Mr. BISHOP. We have been told that, from the top down, the 

issues that—the orders have been issued to really get on that right 

away and that each unit commander at every level, all the way 

down to the lowest level, would be responsible for reinforcing that. 

Is that, in fact, happening? 

Yes, sir? 

SUICIDE PREVENTION

Sergeant Major KENT. You just touched on, sir—and from the 

Commandant down, he is really pushing that leadership down. In 

2008, we had 42 suicides; 2009, we increased by 10, we had 52. 

And I can tell you right now, from the general all the way down 

to the private, we are engaged in this, sir. We want to get rid of 

this stigma, first of all, by allowing individuals to actually come 

forward and say, ‘‘I have a problem.’’ 

And it needs to start in basic training, and that is where we are 

concentrating at right now. The drill instructor sits the recruits 

down and say, ‘‘Look, if you ever have a problem, this is the process.’’ And it is working right now, sir, and we are pushing it 

down— 

Mr. BISHOP. So the troops are not afraid to come forward and 

say, ‘‘I have got a problem,’’ or that they recognize that they have 

a problem, particularly after deployments, because of PTSD, which 

is a real problem? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I would say that—and probably 

like the Marine Corps, when you have a commander that stands 

up in front of his or her troops and really says this is okay to ask 

for help, this gets at that stigma that a young Soldier, irregardless 

of what leadership position they are in, that knowing that it is 

okay, that it is not going to be held against them, and not going 

to be seen as weak we encourage Soldiers to come forward. 

And it is usually—once you get into that 80- to 120-day window 

post-deployment immediately when a Soldier gets back, you are excited about getting back, you want to get back to your family, you 

want to get back into your life. But then after the honeymoon is 

over, so to speak, that is when issues start to surface. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1224 

GUARD AND RESERVE SUICIDE PREVENTION

And that is when you really have to be engaged as leaders with 

all the members of the organization. 

Mr. BISHOP. But the final aspect of that is the Guard and Reserve. How about the Guard and Reserves that are returning from 

deployment? They don’t have as much observation, particularly by 

their superiors, because, I mean, they are training then just once 

a month. How is the Guard and Reserve responding to those postdeployment issues? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. If I could, the one big program out 

there that has been a very big help is the yellow ribbon program. 

And the yellow ribbon program out there is designed to bring soldiers and families together, and it is they meet twice post—or predeployment. They bring their families together during deployment 

twice. And then there is three times post-deployment. And it is at 

the 30-, the 60-, the 90-day—— 

Mr. BISHOP. That is Guard and Reserve, too? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. That specifically is the Guard and Reserve. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

RETURNING WARRIOR WEEKENDS

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, just to add on real quick, 

the Navy does something called Returning Warrior Weekends. And 

it was—it started out as a Reserve-type program, but we have also 

included the active duty in that now, and we have expanded that. 

It is a weekend getaway for those returning Individual Augmenters 

(I.A.s) and their families who they designate. 

It is very successful. We had a lot of folks that have gone 

through it, and we are seeing some pretty good takeaways from 

that, certainly. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. And if I could just add, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY [continuing]. None of us are exempt 

from this. The United States Air Force has a similar problem. 

What we are seeing is that it is not necessarily related to the deployment piece, but more along the lines of relationships. So we are 

trying to look at it from that angle, as well. 

As the Sergeant Major had mentioned we just simply call it the 

resiliency program. We are really trying to focus on what it is that 

we can help that member with before they need it. And then the 

last element of that is how we communicate with families. We are 

really trying to work on that piece of working with families. 

PRIVATIZED HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and thank you. You have 

been a constant advocator for our servicemen and women and their 

quality of life. Thank you for that, that series of questions. 

Let me just ask about the privatized housing program. I am 

proud of this committee’s work on that. It took a long time to try 

things a new way, and a lot of folks at the Pentagon and elsewhere 

didn’t like that. You are trying something new now. I think over 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1225 

90 percent of our new family housing is built in that public-private 

partnership program. 

The initial feedback we get is very positive, but I want to continue having our subcommittee monitor that program. It is critical 

to know that these developers that are partners aren’t just building 

a nice house upfront and then, 5 years later, it falls apart. Any 

feedback any of you have? Any challenges, problems out there in 

that housing program we need to pay attention to? Or is your impression that it is going well? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. If I could, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. Please, keep going. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. In the very beginning we had some 

problems with some contractors. We have worked through that. 

What I am finding when I visit the wings is that our Airmen are 

absolutely satisfied with the quality of house, the size of the house, 

and then also the amenities that go along with the house. 

The community centers have pools and gyms and much inside 

them, as well. So from our perspective, the project owners have 

gone beyond what we expected them to, and I think the quality of 

life of our Airmen and their families have been immeasurably improved by privatized housing. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, I will echo that with the 

Navy. Never before—at least in my 29 years of service—have our 

Sailors lived in the quality of homes they have now. 

I echo what my Air Force brother here says, but I would also say, 

those programs that they do provide, those centers that they have 

on those housing units, they are also working together with our 

fleet and family support centers and partnering in a lot of those 

programs, which is helping us out, especially during these high deployment times. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. And we have tried to emphasize to them 

that you are not just building houses, you are building neighborhoods and communities. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I am glad to hear that— 

Sergeant Major KENT. It is some great housing, sir. You know, 

I can recall a time when I was a young Marine living in a concrete 

box. But, you know, today, those Marines are living in pretty nice 

houses. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, we are pushing 98 percent of the 

Army’s housing being privatized, and it is a huge success story. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, it is good to hear. And what I would ask, 

since you do have your ear to the ground and you are constantly 

talking to servicemen and women and you are representing their 

families, please stay in touch with us. If at any point any of the 

developers start cutting back on maintenance and what was a nice 

house in year 1 through 5 became kind of shoddy in year 6 or 10, 

please let us know. 

DEPLOYMENTS

My second question in this round deals with deployments. Obviously, this committee doesn’t make the decisions in terms of when 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1226 

our servicemen and women deploy and to where they deploy. But 

we deal with quality-of-life issues that result from that deployment. 

I think the general impression is that the time away from family 

is by far and away the number one quality-of-life concern for servicemen and women. My question to you—so we could better understand our servicemen and women’s attitude—would be this. 

Is there a general sense that deployment time away from home 

is going to reduce over the next several years and, therefore, that 

gives them some hope, they are willing to hang in there, tough it 

out, during these challenging times? We are asking more of our 

servicemen and women and their families than we have a right to 

ask. 

And also along that line, if they felt there would be no change 

for the next 5 to 10 years, the deployment rates were going to continue, as they are this year, what would be the impact on morale 

and recruitment and retention? 

Sergeant Major KENT. I can actually—by us growing from 

175,000 to 202,000, that really helped us out a lot as far as deployment to dwell. Also, we have drawn down over in Iraq. We have 

a little over about—about 130 Marines there, which is a great news 

story, because that means that things are going great over there 

right now. 

The Marines know in the future that they will see more dwell 

time back at their home station. Right now, we do have units that 

are getting a lot more dwell time, but we are increasing in other 

places right now. 

Over in Afghanistan, we are looking at putting about 19,400 Marines there. But that is still a drop from what we had over in Iraq, 

with about 26,000 at the peak. 

I will be honest with you, sir. Every word that we go and talk 

to Marines, the first thing that comes out of their mouth, ‘‘When 

will I deploy?’’, especially those that have not been deployed. And 

we have those Marines constantly ask the Commandant and I, as 

we travel around, ‘‘When is this unit going to combat?’’ Because 

that is why they joined the Marine Corps. 

You know, they did not walk into that recruiting office wanting 

to sit back at their home station. They walked in because they 

knew that they were going to deploy and fight for this country one 

day. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Sergeant Major KENT. So, sir, I don’t foresee that being a problem as far as retention, because I will tell you right now, we will 

hit our F-CAP and S-CAP by May or June. And we had until 1 October to hit it, sir, so we will hit it then. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What is your, on average right now, deploy time 

versus time at home? 

Sergeant Major KENT. Right now, sir, we are deployed—at the 

battalion squadron level, we are deployed for 7 months. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Seven months out and then how many months 

back at home? 

Sergeant Major KENT. About right now, the average unit, sir, 

should be about 10 or 11 months back at their home station, but 

it will get better as we start building up the units. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1227 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. So right now, a little more than 1 to 1, in 

terms of time at home versus time deployed. 

Sergeant Major Preston, what is that number in the Army? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. We are right now, sir, averaging about 

15 to 18 months, depending on the type of unit, between deployments. So 1 year deployed, 15 to 18 months back. And, you know, 

both the chief, General Casey and I, see a marked difference when 

you have 12 months of dwell time versus 18 months of dwell time. 

And it is a marked difference. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Master Chief West. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, that is a real hard question 

for us. It is just due to the nature of operations. We have been deploying since the beginning of the Navy, so we are deploying force, 

and we are out there doing it. 

You know, we bring on things like humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, such as Haiti recently, which pulled about 8,000 or so 

of our forces down there. You add that on with the I.A. piece that 

we have going on over in the Middle East. And we do have folks 

in Iraq and Afghanistan now, along with the piracy and the Africa 

partnership station, all those operations, that does increase the optempo. 

Some of our carriers now are out there doing 8–month deployments and then coming back, but that is due to the nature of some 

of the maintenance processes that we are trying to get our carriers 

through. We take a very good, hard look at that. We want, you 

know, the 2-to-1-type ratio, but often that doesn’t work when you 

are talking EOD unit, a Navy SEAL group. 

So it is really dependent on the nature of the ops and who is 

doing them, as far as our dwell time. But we have our eye on it, 

sir, and I can tell you right now, you give our sailors a challenge, 

and they will get up there and do it for you, too. They are charged 

up and ready to go. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Master Chief. 

Chief Roy. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Mr. Chairman, as the Navy said, 

that is kind of hard for us to pinpoint, as well. I will tell you, 

though, that we have about 40,000 Airmen deployed in any given 

day. Obviously most of them are deployed to USCENTCOM theater 

of operation. 

Many of those Air Force Specialty Codes are (AFSCs), what we 

call chronic critical AFSCs, such as contracting and EOD. So we 

have some specific low-density, high-demand kind of AFSCs that 

we pay specifically attention to. We certainly appreciate your help 

on that, as well. 

There is another area, another category of Airmen that I would 

like to highlight, and that is the nearly 160,000 Airmen that we 

have out there that are employed by a combatant command every 

single day. These are Airmen within the nuclear enterprise. These 

are also those Airmen that are operating within the United States, 

the continental United States, but operate in the USCENTCOM 

theater of operations. 

For instance, those Airmen that are operating out at Creech Air 

Force Base, Indian Springs, NV operating out of the Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconaissance (ISR) platforms, that every one of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1228 

us know so much about and we rely upon, those are Airmen that 

have unique challenges, when you talk about deployment. 

It is not necessarily a deployment, but it is something when you 

go, drive an hour-and-a-half from Las Vegas out to Creech Air 

Force Base, you are in a USCENTCOM theater of operation, and 

then you see something really bad happen, and then you have got 

to go home an hour-and-a-half, and then you are with your family 

again. There are some unique challenges to that. It may not be as 

hard as a deployment, but some of us would argue it is just as 

hard, or maybe harder than a deployment, because of the unique 

challenges of that. So we have a lot of Airmen within that category, 

as well. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay, thank you for that. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me just follow up on that, Mr. Chairman. 

Sergeant Major, you mentioned in your testimony that was kind 

of the number-one concern, the dwell time. And what is your assessment—you know, when General Casey was here, we talked 

about this, as well. And I know they are kind of working towards 

increasing the dwell time. 

And so the question becomes, how are we doing? I mean, what 

is your general assessment? Because a lot of times—particularly in 

government—we hear people say, ‘‘Well, this is not sustainable. 

This is not acceptable. This is not good.’’ The question becomes, 

how are we doing in dealing with issues? 

And I appreciate you bringing it up as a concern, and you are 

in kind of—you talk about what the timing is. But just give us, you 

know, from what you hear, is that something that we are working 

on, that your people feel like we are kind of increasing that dwell 

time, we are aware of it? What is your overall assessment? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Sir, I would say that, you know, both 

the chief and I—probably the key message that we take out to soldiers and families is the talk about Army transformation. And part 

of that transformation process is putting the Army back into balance. 

And with the growth that we had over the last several years, you 

know, to grow the number of soldiers in the Army, to grow the additional units and organizations, to provide more predictability and 

stability, more dwell time between deployments, and now with 

what is—what we started in 2007, with where we are now, we are 

beginning to see the benefits of that growth, as well as the structure going into place. 

And even now with more soldiers deployed than we had at the 

height of the surge in 2007—because we still have a lot of stuff in 

Iraq that was there, mainly through the elections that, you know, 

eventually will come out—but even with that process in place, you 

know, the dwell time has increased. And we expect the dwell time 

to continue to increase. 

And the goal is that, by the end of 2011, for the active component 

to be at a 1-to-2 ratio, which is where we want to be at a minimum 

standard, where if you are deployed for a year, you have got 2 

years back at home station, you know, with that organization, and 

for the reserve component, a 1-to-4 ratio as a minimum requirement. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1229 

Right now, we have got some Guard and Reserve units out there 

that are a little bit less than 1 to 4. But that is the goal, by the 

end of 2011. We will get to about 70 percent of the active component will be at that 1-to-2 ratio. There will be some low-density, 

high-demand kind of units out there that will be somewhat less 

than 24 months, 20 months, 22 months, somewhere in that area. 

And then for the reserve component, same thing. We will be at 

about 85 percent of them will be at that 1-to-4 ratio. 

Eventually—and I am being the optimist—as we look at what is 

going on in theater, we like to see those dwell ratios increase for 

the active component to a 1–to–3 ratio and for the reserve component a 1-to-5 ratio. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Still, once you get there, there will be—probably 

will be less of a concern, people—I mean, you are moving in the 

right direction. People are aware of that and probably you will 

come back next year or the following year and say it is not as big 

a concern, even though we are dealing with it. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTEE

Just to Master Chief about the Navy, I touched on this with the 

first panel, and you touched on it in your testimony, with the individual augmentees. And when the Marines and the Army go off, 

they train together, they deploy together, their families stay home 

together, and the IA—I think you pointed out that you have got 

more boots on the ground than maybe you do have serving on 

ships, so it really is a joint effort, but it is a unique problem for 

the Navy when they go off as an individual. They don’t go off with 

their buddies and their teammates. 

And so I guess the question becomes, is that something you are 

aware of? But in terms of family services, the quality-of-life issues, 

is that something Navy recognizes and tries to deal with? And 

maybe those individuals, do they have access to some of the services that might be available to the Marines and the Army? How 

does all that fit in, in terms of that—you know, their deployment 

kind of being isolated? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Yes, sir. And, yes, sir, you are 

right. We have more boots on ground in that particular theater 

than we do afloat, which is a pretty amazing statistic when you 

step back. 

But, yes, sir, we do have our fleet and family support centers in 

all of our services geared toward not only our I.A.s, but also our 

individual—our augmentees and our shipboard personnel. 

We do work across services. Particularly when you start talking 

our reservists who may have their nearest home base, as you would 

call it, maybe an Army base. So we have worked across services. 

We are working internal. We continue to get better at the I.A. process as we go back and look at some of the lessons learned. 

I am happy that our Sailors are doing the job that they are 

doing, but I am also happy with our fleet and family support centers and all those support services that have stepped up and have 

done a heck of a job for our Sailors and their families. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1230 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you. And I think that is one—because I think most people—I didn’t really understand this, and I 

don’t think most people do, that that is peculiar to the Navy. And 

the fact that it is a joint effort ought to be acknowledged from time 

to time. And I commend you for that. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any more questions, but let me just 

say that you guys are an inspiration to me every year you come 

here. So thank you. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add a 

point, it is Navy unique, and it is also Air Force unique. Last 

Thursday and Friday, I was at Fort Polk, Louisiana, visiting with 

120 Airmen getting ready to go out on a combat advisory role. That 

is obviously an Army mission. We are joint fighters. That is the 

way we do things. 

Many of those 30,000 or 40,000 Airmen that I talk about are in 

those roles. So it is Navy unique, but it is also Air Force unique, 

as well. And our Airmen family readiness centers help with that, 

as the questions that you asked. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I would like to acknowledge that, as well. 

I just don’t have any Air Force bases in my district. I got three 

Navy in, so I know all about that. I learn something new every 

day. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thanks, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. We do 

thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Farr. 

ARMY CONTRACTORS IN THEATER

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much. I am sorry I am late. I, 

like all of us, we sit on several appropriations committees. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. FARR. I just have a couple of questions. First of all, we welcome you to this committee. This is the only committee in Congress 

that deals with people from enlistment to the grave, literally, the 

grave. We have all the cemeteries that the Veterans Administration has, and we are very interested in all of the quality-of-life, morale issues, and certainly people’s ability to do their job well. 

Sergeant Major Preston, I was just interested in learning the 

Army has 33,000 civilian contractors who are now forward deployment. And the Obama administration has indicated that they intend to build up the government capacity and reduce the number 

of government contractors. 

And I guess the question is, how would such policy impact the 

Army’s civilian contractors? Could these jobs be done and filled effectively by military personnel? 

Mr. EDWARDS. May I interrupt just for a moment? I am going to 

ask for your help, if I could, Sam. 

There is a resolution on the floor honoring Dr. Hector Garcia, 

who passed away recently, and who founded the American G.I. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1231 

Forum to stand up for rights for Hispanic veterans, particularly in 

the case of a young private who came back after being killed in 

World War II in Europe and was refused funeral services at his 

hometown because he was an Hispanic-American down in South 

Texas. 

I grew up as a neighbor of his, four houses away from him, so 

I wanted to go to the floor to pay respects to that great World War 

II veteran. 

So, Mr. Farr, if I could ask you to finish the hearing as chair. 

And as I leave, I want to echo the other comments you have heard. 

Thank you for your tremendous leadership, for your excellent testimony today, and for inspiring all of us. Thank you for the men and 

women that you represent so well every day and their families. You 

truly have made a difference in your testimony and the subcommittee over the years, and your testimony today will make a 

difference. And we very much look forward to working with you. 

And this being the last of our scheduled hearings, I know we 

may well have oversight hearings in the months ahead, but I also 

want to thank the staff, both majority and minority, for doing an 

excellent job in scheduling these 16 hearings this year on the fiscal 

year 2011 budget. They have been well organized, and I thank each 

of you for your work on that. 

With that, please excuse me for having interrupted. Please proceed, and I will slip out for my comments for Dr. Garcia. Thank 

you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR [presiding]. Sergeant Major. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. Yes, sir. Sir, you asked about the contractors. And, you know, the bottom line, yes, could some of those 

contractor positions over there be done by soldiers? Yes. But the 

purpose of the contractors, as I travel into theater over there, is 

really it takes a lot of stress and relieves a lot of stress off of the 

units and the organizations. It reduces the number of units and organizations that would have to be deployed. 

We had an earlier discussion about dwell time right now between 

deployments, and we are averaging right now about 15 to 18 

months depending on the type of unit, between 1-year deployments. 

So units deployed for a year, they are getting about 15 to 18 

months of dwell. 

If you had the additional combat support, combat service support 

type of units on the ground that would do those functions that 

maybe the contractors are doing, they would increase, you know, 

the turbulence and the turns that those units would have to deploy 

into theater. 

As I—as I travel around, I know that we are taking a very hard 

look at the contracting process and where we can to eliminate and 

reduce those contracts. Many of those contractors that you mentioned are, you know, individuals that are hired there in country. 

They work in the local areas, in those towns and villages. They do 

a lot of the laundry services. They provide a lot of the food processing for Brown and Root or those kind of companies that are 

doing the dining facilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1232 

But, so it is—that impact, also, was with the money that is going 

back into the local economy, so—— 

Mr. FARR. Yes, I think it is all of those functions that the military used to provide for itself, correct? And we have now contracted 

them out. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. I guess it is the cost of having a bigger 

force to be able to do those ourselves versus contracting it out. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, well, I think it is a gray area that we obviously 

are going to spend a lot more time dealing with. And certainly, the 

capacity of host countries, maybe some of the things they could do, 

trying to develop their economic development, get them on their 

feet. 

I also was very interested in your comment about the Military 

Accessions Vital to the National Interests initiative that helped the 

Army recruit legal non-citizens who have critical foreign language 

skills. I am interested in cultural capacity programs, and I wondered how beneficial you think this new program is. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. I think it is very important right now, 

because it allows us—it is what we call the 09 Lima program, 

where we have recruited soldiers that come from those ethnic regions of the world, where we need them to partner, be placed inside 

our units and organizations. They become trainers and mentors for 

our soldiers on the ground to help us understand the people, the 

culture of that particular region. So it has been a very successful 

program. It is small in numbers. 

Mr. FARR. So you recruit a host country national with those language and cultural needs? Or they are Americans of that particular—are they Afghan-Americans or are they Afghan? 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. It is both. You know, we have recruited them. There is a large population of Iraqi-Americans and 

Afghan-Americans in California that we have tapped into. They 

play a very vital role not only as soldiers in the Army, but we also 

contract many of their services as role-players at our combat training centers, at Fort Irwin, California, and Fort Polk. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Crenshaw, do you have—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No, don’t have any further questions. 

Mr. FARR. I have one other question, if you will bear with me. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. I apologize for being late. Sergeant Major Burch and 

Sergeant Major Schultz, when wounded Guard and Reserve soldiers return to their communities, are they receiving adequate 

medical follow-up care for PTSD? What we hear is that the secretary of veterans affairs wants the program to be seamless, essentially, when you enter the military in any capacity, you are entering the Veterans Administration, you are entering both, and the 

idea is that whatever care, whether it is provided by men and 

women in uniform or provided after they leave the uniform, that 

will be quality and seamless and same professional capacity. 

Is that also extended to the Guard and Reserve? 

Sergeant Major BURCH. I think what we are seeing is—— 

GUARD AND RESERVE MEDICAL CARE/PTSD

Mr. FARR. You may have to use—the microphone. Just come to 

that end chair there. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1233 

Sergeant Major BURCH. Sir, I think what we are seeing is, in the 

entire process, as a soldier is wounded and returning from the theater, they go through an evaluation process at our medical treatment facilities. Part of their job is to ensure that if we put a soldier 

into a community-based warrior transition program, that there is 

sufficient medical care to take care of whatever ailments the soldier may have. 

Within the Army, we have medical treatment facilities that specialize in burns, specialize in traumatic brain injury, that specialize 

in amputees, and that is the starting point for the soldiers. And the 

Army does a great job for the reserve component soldiers to make 

sure that, when they send them home, their continued care in the 

neighborhood there is the quality of care that they would receive 

at one of our military treatment facilities. 

And if that quality of care is not available in their community, 

then arrangements are made to make sure that the soldier does get 

the quality of care in a community nearby. 

Mr. FARR. For PTSD, as well? 

Sergeant Major BURCH. As well. Yes, for PTSD, as well. 

Mr. FARR. Soldiers, in uniform go to bases, are assigned to bases. 

And there you have the whole entire support infrastructure for the 

military there. 

Sergeant Major BURCH. Right. 

Mr. FARR. Guardsmen and Reserves don’t necessarily go back to 

a base. They go back to a community. And therein, they are like 

a veteran. 

Sergeant Major BURCH. We have the joint family support assistance program that is part of the reserve components, and it takes 

care of our active-duty brethren that are geographically separated 

from their posts, as well—— 

Mr. FARR. So would they get access to veterans care, medicine 

for, say, PTSD, or would it be through regular Army and regular 

services? 

Sergeant Major BURCH. It depends on the geographical location. 

If it is available, they will make it to a V.A. center, an active component post. Whether it be Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, we 

have folks go to all those types of facilities. 

If they are geographically separated, then those facilities ensure 

that our soldiers are receiving care at a quality facility in the local 

community. 

Mr. FARR. Either in general private—— 

Sergeant Major BURCH. Yes. 

Mr. FARR [continuing]. Or could they also get access to care in 

the Veterans Department? 

Sergeant Major BURCH. Yes, they can. 

Mr. FARR. So veterans’ clinics would be available to reservists, 

guardsmen and—— 

Sergeant Major BURCH. Yes, they can. 

Sergeant Major PRESTON. And, sir, I would add to—I mean, and 

also online. You know, Army OneSource has been a great venue for 

geographically dispersed—you know, the Guard’s Yellow Ribbon 

program has been very instrumental, typically for the 30-, 60-, 90- 

day sessions that are held post-deployment, because that is one of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1234 

the processes there, is to do PTS screening during the Yellow Ribbon program. 

Sergeant Major BURCH. As part of the joint family support assistance program, the military family life consultants for the soldiers, 

their spouses, military family life consultants for the youth and 

children, as well as the American Red Cross, is part of that program, and the Military OneSource and their vast array of resources, all those things being funded by OSD to support soldiers 

of any branch of the service, whether it is active or reserve, because we know the soldiers and their families are sometimes geographically dislocated because of the deployments, too. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I want to thank all you gentlemen for your service and all the people behind you for serving, as well. We are very 

proud of the military community. We are also very proud of our 

Veterans Department. 

I represent the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. I invite 

you out. Your soldiers are in that school. In fact, the Marine Corps 

is always the first to come—— 

Sergeant Major KENT. We just visited last week, the Commandant and I was up there. 

Mr. FARR. You did? Well, thank you. I wish I had known—I was 

home. What is very interesting is this whole concept of oneness, 

families are in the civilian community, and how do we make sure 

that the civilian community appreciates them and vice versa and 

they know what resources are there. 

And I think it is a whole new paradigm that we are developing. 

We are not being just stovepiped anymore. I think that is very 

smart, a smart use of our money and smart leadership, and I want 

thank you for being so concerned with the care of the soldiers and 

their families. That is what this committee stands for. 

So thank you very much. And with that—do you have any other 

questions for this panel? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No. 

Mr. FARR. And with that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the Record submitted to the National Military 

Family Association by Congressman Wamp] 

Question 1. Financial issues have often plagued military families. What support 

services are available to families who need help? 

Answer. Service members and their families are individually responsible for their 

financial wellbeing, but have support along the way. Each branch of Service has established a Personal Financial Management Program (PFMP) to provide educational 

classes, financial counseling, workshops, and seminars on various financial topics. 

PFMP educational programs focus on sound financial practices, recognizing and 

avoiding financial traps, and the rights and obligations of consumers. PFMP educators are not only financial gurus, but they also understand the environment of the 

military and the programs that are specific to military service members. 

The National Military Family Association has partnered with FINRA Foundation 

and the Association for Financial Counseling Planning Education (AFCPE) to provide the education necessary for up to 200 military spouses annually to enter the 

financial counseling career field. The recipients of the FINRA Foundation Military 

Spouse Fellowship agree to volunteer on military installations for two years providing financial education to service members and their families. Over the past four 

years, over 800 spouses have entered the program. 

Military Relief Societies continue to be the first referral for service members and 

their families seeking financial assistance. Many states have also created financial 

assistance funds for National Guardsmen and their families. 

Air Force Aid Society (AFAS)—www.afas.org 

Army Emergency Relief (AER)—www.aerhq.org 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1235 

Coast Guard Mutual Assistance (CGMA)—www.cgmahq.org 

Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (NMCRS)—www.nmcrs.org 

Reserve Aid—www.reserveaid.org 

Question 2. Child care has been a consistently important issue to the services over 

the years. What in this area is in the most in need of improvement? 

Answer. At every military family conference we attended last year, child care was 

in the top five issues affecting families—drop-in care being the most requested need. 

Some installations are responding to these needs in innovative ways. For instance, 

in a recent visit to Kodiak, Alaska, we noted the gym facility provided watch care 

for its patrons. Mom worked out on the treadmill or elliptical while her child played 

in a safe carpeted and fenced-in area right across from her. Another area of the 

gym, previously an aerobics room, had been transformed into a large play area for 

‘‘Mom and me’’ groups to play in the frequently inclement weather. 

Innovative strategies are also needed to address the non-availability of after-hours 

child care (before 6 a.m. and after 6 p.m.) and respite care. Families often find it 

difficult to obtain affordable, quality care especially during hard-to-fill hours and on 

weekends. Both the Navy and the Air Force have programs that provide 24/7 care. 

These innovative programs must be expanded to provide care to more families at 

the same high standard as the Services’ traditional child development programs. 

The Army, as part of the funding attached to its Army Family Covenant, has rolled 

out more space for respite care for families of deployed soldiers. Respite care is 

needed across the board for the families of the deployed and the wounded, ill, and 

injured. The Services have rolled out more respite care for special needs families, 

but the programs are too new to assess the impact it will have on families. 

At our Operation Purple Healing Adventures camp for families of the wounded, 

ill and injured, families told us there is a tremendous need for access to adequate 

child care on or near military treatment facilities. Families need the availability of 

child care in order to attend medical appointments, especially mental health appointments. Our Association encourages the creation of drop-in child care for medical appointments on the DoD or VA premises or partnerships with other organizations to provide this valuable service. 

[Questions for the Record submitted by Congressman Carter for 

Dr. Keller, Military Child Education Coalition] 

Question 1.Based on input from the MCEC’s field experience and direct work with 

students, parents, and professionals, what is your opinion of how our military-connected kids are doing? What types of programs seem to have the best results? 

Answer. It is clear that there is not a single answer as to how all military children are doing. There are nearly two million military connected children and 1.1 

million of these children are school-aged, equal to the size of the New York City 

Schools—the largest school system in America. No one would expect all of these children to be the same—this is true for the military child as well. Military children, 

like all other children, are kids first and military-connected second. Their ages 

range from birth to 23 and the developmental and situational considerations in a 

group as large and diverse as the military child population are challenging. Additionally, kids across this great age-range experience stress differently. Resilience is 

situational; experience and seasoning with separation, change and transition is situational; and of course, each child is different! One thing we do know, however, is 

that evidence is emerging that military-connected kids, experiencing multiple separations from a parent due to multiple deployments, are experiencing additional challenges. What we are learning is important but not enough. 

To overcome the challenges of a generation of children raised in an era of persistent conflict, we need better, more precise information about their development, 

to provide informed decisions in order to support the kids, their parents, the professionals that work with them everyday and enable targeted, helpful community supports. 

The Military Child Education Coalition, with over 12 years of research and field 

experience, has found that the most effective programs are those that provide an 

informed, trained, and caring convoy of support for military children. By working 

collaboratively with professionals, parents, and children in their local school and 

community environments, MCEC has been able to develop programs that are appropriate, effective, and sustainable. MCEC has implemented a two pronged approach 

that provides professional development in the schools and communities and peer 

support programs for parents and students. The Transition Counselor Institute and 

a variety of other courses have provided over 15,000 professionals with the knowledge and skills to meet the challenges that military children often face. In the peer 

to peer category, over 73,000 parents have been trained over the past two years 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1236 

through the MCEC’s Parent to Parent program, the Student to Student program has 

been established in over 220 high schools, and the Junior Student to Student program has grown to over 130 middle schools. 

Over the past five years, MCEC has added the critically important dimension of 

broad-based community engagement in supporting military families through 

itsLiving in the New Normal(LINN) program. This initiative, chaired by MCEC 

Board Member Patty Shinseki, is being successfully delivered in all 50 states. LINN 

is tailored to each state and community, assembling key decision makers to raise 

awareness and match resources with needs. In North Carolina, the governor acted 

on the LINN process by implementing funding to establish family readiness centers 

throughout the state. In Vermont, the active engagement by state leaders has 

helped leverage the state’s already extraordinary outreach programs designed to 

support their Guard and Reserve families. MCEC has always touted the goodness 

of what happens at the local level, and LINN has applied that philosophy in a very 

real way. 

Question 2. It is my understanding that MCEC has also been working with the 

Department of Education to establish standardized state education data systems so 

it is possible to track military kids who are moving around with their families. How 

has this partnership progressed? How important is collecting this data? 

Answer. There is no reliable, consistent, and sustainable data system that collects 

information about military-connected children as a cohort.Consequently, we do not 

know whether and how repeated deployments affect the performance of children in 

school. We cannot quantify the school completer/graduation rates for military children. We do not know if the children who graduate from high school are college and 

work-place ready. We cannot identify gaps in current school programs, resources 

and curricula. Conversely, the caring community of professionals and parents do not 

know what programs are effective and worthy of replication. 

The MCEC has been working with Department of Education on a number of initiatives and has been greatly encouraged by their strong support for improving the 

quality of data collected. We believe that we have jointly framed a viable method 

for collecting the missing data on the military child sub-group. We must know 

where the children are if we are to be able to identify where resources and programs 

need to be applied and if we are to better understand where programs are being 

effective. In a period of competing resources, this level of fidelity becomes even more 

critical as we seek to ensure that we are helping our military children in their very 

necessary quest to be college and work place ready. 

Question 3: What are the most effective models for applying or implementing programs that respond to and reach the majority of our military kids? 

Answer. Community based, peer support and professional development models are 

the most effective models for applying programs that both reach and help the majority of our military children. These children need informed, trained adults surrounding them that understand the challenges they are facing due to multiple deployments, separations and family transitions. The adults around them need to be 

sensitive to these issues but it doesn’t happen by accident. Research informed, evidence based professional training must be provided to key adults in the community 

such as teachers, counselors, nurses, coaches, and of course the remaining parent 

and other family members. 

When informed adults pay attention to the needs and challenges of our military 

kids, such as deployment related stress or the new normal of an absent parent or 

a parent that returns home profoundly changed, the child feels this attentiveness 

and responds positively. We can best help when we surround the child with concerned adults and peers that help, which is why we are engaged in preventative, 

peer based solutions. 

It is also important to make the distinction between military-installation centric 

models versus school and community based models for maximum outreach and impact. On average only some 20–25% of military families and children live on military installations. If we want to reach the majority of these families directly, we 

need the programs to be delivered where they live and school on a daily basis—in 

their schools, communities and close to their family. This is why MCEC engages in 

school based and community based support programs, such as Parent to Parent, 

Student to Student, and Tell Me a Story and other literacy programs 

Question 4. What does your experience with the MCEC’s ‘‘Living in the New Normal’’ tell you about state and community support systems? 

Answer. The most encouraging thing we have discovered is the fact that America 

is eager to help their military families.Living in the New Normal(LINN) has served 

as the catalyst for states and communities to operationalize that desire to help. The 

most important element is to understand the need. Particularly in the case of Guard 

and Reserve families, that don’t have the benefit and resources of an installation, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1237 

it is often difficult to discern the scale of need and even find the families. The second important element is helping states and communities identify their own resources, which are often quite prolific. We find that the participating organizations 

and agencies are frequently unaware of the programs and resources available, underscoring just how difficult it can be for individual families to find them. The result 

of a successful LINN provides the charter that states and communities can use to 

meet those needs, with the right resources, and advocate for the services and resources families need most. It works because the program is grass roots; it works 

because the sustainable efforts are the local efforts. 

For example, following the Public Engagement held in North Carolina, the governor realized the gap present in his state to get help to remotely located families 

of the Guard and Reserve. The governor and his collective communities established 

regional family support centers throughout the state to reach these remote families. 

He also authorized statewide, free pre-kindergarten programs through the public 

schools for military children. 

Lastly, if school performance data could be collected on the subgroup of military 

children, indicators could be developed in both densely military populated areas and 

remote areas that improve the confidence in the array of systems, supports and 

tools that require funding. Without consistent, child based information as an important dimension it may be unclear as to which efforts should be retained when resources shift or diminish. 

QUESTIONS FOR FIRST PANEL

Congressman Carter asks for the record the following questions of Dr. Mary Keller, President and CEO of the Military Child Education Coalition: 

Question. What are the opportunities for expanding the ‘‘network of support’’ for 

our Military Children? 

Answer. The opportunities for expansion are based on the need for more school 

and community based programs for military children. We need more preventative, 

peer based programs in the locations that most military children and families are 

immersed in—their schools and local communities. We need more professionally 

trained teachers, counselors, school and pediatric nurses trained in the issues affecting military children. These trained parents, professionals and peers can surround 

the military children with support that encourages them to grow in competence, 

confidence and coping skills. We also have opportunities, as mentioned above, to extend networks of support, through professionally trained adults and peers in the 

schools and communities, to help the children of remotely located families of the 

Guard and Reserve. These families need to know what is available in their communities in terms of support and this awareness education needs to reach the parents, 

the local schools and the community at large. 

Question. What were the opportunities for the Military Child Education Coalition 

to provide support at Fort Hood following last year’s tragic shooting? 

Answer. Immediately following the tragic shootings at Fort Hood last year, MCEC 

coordinated an initiative where professionally trained doctors, counselors and teachers spoke with each and every counselor, teacher and school administrator in the 

Fort Hood area about how to approach school children immersed in the closeness 

of this tragedy. In conjunction with the Uniformed Services University, MCEC coordinated specialists and message content to get the foremost experts in the fields 

of tragedy response and children delivering skills and help to adults in the schools 

to help children cope and heal. 

Question. In addition to treatment interventions provided in clinical settings, 

what is the role for community-based, peer-to-peer outreach? 

Answer. When a child reaches a clinical setting, the situation can be critical. The 

child is usually in that setting as a result of a serious problem or deficit. MCEC’s 

focuses our practice on strategies that help children thrive. Though we absolutely 

address and recognize how to mitigate risk. We focus on a model of prevention 

based strategy and programs. Appropriate training assures knowledgeable professionals who can help the military child grow in competence, confidence, and coping 

skills. Support from just one adult who touches a child on a daily basis, can and 

does lead to resilience in children. 

Question. How does community-based, peer-to-peer outreach complement and/or 

enhance work in the clinics? 

Answer. The most important role that these programs serve is prevention. Because the vast majority of children do not need clinical intervention, the role of the 

community-based programs (such as scouting, sports, the arts, and youth programs) 

cannot be overstated. These models are sustainable and use resources efficiently. 

Therefore, it is essential to connect children to programs and resources geared to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1238 

the needs and interests of children regardless of the parents’ military or veteran status. Remember—the military child is a child first—and that child deserves to grow, 

learn, and be nurtured as they become productive adults. 

[Questions for the Record for Dr. Keller submitted by Ranking 

Member Wamp] 

Question 1. Based on input from the MCEC’s field experience and direct work 

with students, parents, and professionals, what is your opinion of how our militaryconnected kids are doing? What types of programs seem to have the best results? 

Answer. It is clear that there is not a single answer as to how all military children are doing. There are nearly two million military connected children and 1.1 

million of these children are school-aged, equal to the size of the New York City 

Schools—the largest school system in America. No one would expect all of these children to be the same—this is true for the military child as well. Military children, 

like all other children, are kids first and military-connected second. Their ages 

range from birth to 23 and the developmental and situational considerations in a 

group as large and diverse as the military child population are challenging. Additionally, kids across this great age-range experience stress differently. Resilience is 

situational; experience and seasoning with separation, change and transition is situational; and of course, each child is different! One thing we do know, however, is 

that evidence is emerging that military-connected kids, experiencing multiple separations from a parent due to multiple deployments, are experiencing additional challenges. What we are learning is important but not enough. 

To overcome the challenges of a generation of children raised in an era of persistent conflict, we need better, more precise information about their development, 

to provide informed decisions in order to support the kids, their parents, the professionals that work with them every day and enable targeted, helpful community supports. 

The Military Child Education Coalition, with over 12 years of research and field 

experience, has found that the most effective programs are those that provide an 

informed, trained, and caring convoy of support for military children. By working 

collaboratively with professionals, parents, and children in their local school and 

community environments, MCEC has been able to develop programs that are appropriate, effective, and sustainable. MCEC has implemented a two pronged approach 

that provides professional development in the schools and communities and peer 

support programs for parents and students. The Transition Counselor Institute and 

a variety of other courses have provided over 15,000 professionals with the knowledge and skills to meet the challenges that military children often face. In the peer 

to peer category, over 73,000 parents have been trained over the past two years 

through the MCEC’s Parent to Parent program, the Student to Student program has 

been established in over 220 high schools, and the Junior Student to Student program has grown to over 130 middle schools. 

Over the past five years, MCEC has added the critically important dimension of 

broad-based community engagement in supporting military families through 

itsLiving in the New Normal (LINN) program. This initiative, chaired by MCEC 

Board Member Patty Shinseki, is being successfully delivered in all 50 states. LINN 

is tailored to each state and community, assembling key decision makers to raise 

awareness and match resources with needs. In North Carolina, the governor acted 

on the LINN process by implementing funding to establish family readiness centers 

throughout the state. In Vermont, the active engagement by state leaders has 

helped leverage the state’s already extraordinary outreach programs designed to 

support their Guard and Reserve families. MCEC has always touted the goodness 

of what happens at the local level, and LINN has applied that philosophy in a very 

real way. 

Question 2. It is my understanding that MCEC has also been working with the 

Department of Education to establish standardized state education data systems so 

it is possible to track military kids who are moving around with their families. How 

has this partnership progressed? How important is collecting this data? 

Answer. There is no reliable, consistent, and sustainable data system that collects 

information about military-connected children as a cohort. Consequently, we do not 

know whether and how repeated deployments affect the performance of children in 

school. We cannot quantify the school completer/graduation rates for military children. We do not know if the children who graduate from high school are college and 

work place ready. We cannot identify gaps in current school programs, resources 

and curricula. Conversely, the caring community of professionals and parents do not 

know what programs are effective and worthy of replication. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1239 

The MCEC has been working with Department of Education on a number of initiatives and has been greatly encouraged by their strong support for improving the 

quality of data collected. We believe that we have jointly framed a viable method 

for collecting the missing data on the military child sub-group. We must know 

where the children are if we are to be able to identify where resources and programs 

need to be applied and if we are to better understand where programs are being 

effective. In a period of competing resources, this level of fidelity becomes even more 

critical as we seek to ensure that we are helping our military children in their very 

necessary quest to be college and work place ready. 

Question 3. What are the most effective models for applying or implementing programs that respond to and reach the majority of our military kids? 

Answer. Community based, peer support and professional development models are 

the most effective models for applying programs that both reach and help the majority of our military children. These children need informed, trained adults surrounding them that understand the challenges they are facing due to multiple deployments, separations and family transitions. The adults around them need to be 

sensitive to these issues but it doesn’t happen by accident. Research informed, evidence based professional training must be provided to key adults in the community 

such as teachers, counselors, nurses, coaches, and of course the remaining parent 

and other family members. 

When informed adults pay attention to the needs and challenges of our military 

kids, such as deployment related stress or the new normal of an absent parent or 

a parent that returns home profoundly changed, the child feels this attentiveness 

and responds positively. We can best help when we surround the child with concerned adults and peers that help, which is why we are engaged in preventative, 

peer based solutions. 

It is also important to make the distinction between military-installation centric 

models versus school and community based models for maximum outreach and impact. On average only some 20–25% of military families and children live on military installations. If we want to reach the majority of these families directly, we 

need the programs to be delivered where they live and school on a daily basis—in 

their schools, communities and close to their family. This is why MCEC engages in 

school based and community based support programs, such as Parent to Parent, 

Student to Student and Tell Me a Story and other literacy programs. 

Question 4. What does your experience with the MCEC’s ‘‘Living in the New Normal’’ tell you about state and community support systems? 

Answer. The most encouraging thing we have discovered is the fact that America 

is eager to help their military families.Living in the New Normal (LINN) has served 

as the catalyst for states and communities to operationalize that desire to help. The 

most important element is to understand the need. Particularly in the case of Guard 

and Reserve families, that don’t have the benefit and resources of an installation, 

it is often difficult to discern the scale of need and even find the families. The second important element is helping states and communities identify their own resources, which are often quite prolific. We find that the participating organizations 

and agencies are frequently unaware of the programs and resources available, underscoring just how difficult it can be for individual families to find them. The result 

of a successful LINN provides the charter that states and communities can use to 

meet those needs, with the right resources, and advocate for the services and resources families need most. It works because the program is grass roots; it works 

because the sustainable efforts are the local efforts. 

For example, following the Public Engagement held in North Carolina, the governor realized the gap present in his state to get help to remotely located families 

of the Guard and Reserve. The governor and his collective communities established 

regional family support centers throughout the state to reach these remote families. 

He also authorized statewide, free pre-kindergarten programs through the public 

schools for military children. 

Lastly, if school performance data could be collected on the subgroup of military 

children, indicators could be developed in both densely military populated areas and 

remote areas that improve the confidence in the array of systems, supports and 

tools that require funding. Without consistent, child based information as an important dimension it may be unclear as to which efforts should be retained when resources shift or diminish. 

[Questions for the Record for Dr. Keller submitted by Congressman Carter] 

Question. What are the opportunities for expanding the ‘‘network of support’’ for 

our Military Children? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1240 

Answer. The opportunities for expansion are based on the need for more school 

and community based programs for military children. We need more preventative, 

peer based programs in the locations that most military children and families are 

immersed in—their schools and local communities. We need more professionally 

trained teachers, counselors, school and pediatric nurses trained in the issues affecting military children. These trained parents, professionals and peers can surround 

the military children with support that encourages them to grow in competence, 

confidence and coping skills. We also have opportunities, as mentioned above, to extend networks of support, through professionally trained adults and peers in the 

schools and communities, to help the children of remotely located families of the 

Guard and Reserve. These families need to know what is available in their communities in terms of support and this awareness education needs to reach the parents, 

the local schools and the community at large. 

Question. What were the opportunities for the Military Child Education Coalition 

to provide support at Fort Hood following last year’s tragic shooting? 

Answer. Immediately following the tragic shootings at Fort Hood last year, MCEC 

coordinated an initiative where professionally trained doctors, counselors and teachers spoke with each and every counselor, teacher and school administrator in the 

Fort Hood area about how to approach school children immersed in the closeness 

of this tragedy. In conjunction with the Uniformed Services University, MCEC coordinated specialists and message content to get the foremost experts in the fields 

of tragedy response and children delivering skills and help to adults in the schools 

to help children cope and heal. 

Question. In addition to treatment interventions provided in clinical settings, 

what is the role for community-based, peer-to-peer outreach? 

Answer. When a child reaches a clinical setting, the situation can be critical. The 

child is usually in that setting as a result of a serious problem or deficit. MCEC’s 

focuses our practice on strategies that help children thrive. Though we absolutely 

address and recognize how to mitigate risk. We focus on a model of prevention 

based strategy and programs. Appropriate training assures knowledgeable professionals who can help the military child grow in competence, confidence, and coping 

skills. Support from just one adult who touches a child on a daily basis, can and 

does lead to resilience in children. 

Question. How does community-based, peer-to-peer outreach complement and/or 

enhance work in the clinics? 

Answer. The most important role that these programs serve is prevention. Because the vast majority of children do not need clinical intervention, the role of the 

community-based programs (such as scouting, sports, the arts, and youth programs) 

cannot be overstated. These models are sustainable and use resources efficiently. 

Therefore, it is essential to connect children to programs and resources geared to 

the needs and interests of children regardless of the parents’ military or veteran status. Remember—the military child is a child first—and that child deserves to grow, 

learn, and be nurtured as they become productive adults. 

[Questions for the Record for the Senior Enlisted submitted by 

Congressman Carter] 

Question. In Central Texas, the Workforce Centers have been relying on BRAC 

National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding for displaced Fort Hood spouses to receive training and education support—but BRAC funding ends this year. Therefore, 

as the Senior Enlisted Service member of your Service, do you have any ideas about 

how big of an issue spouse career/workforce training and education is for the 

spouses married to the members of your Services, and if DoD has done all they can 

with the My CAA program, do we as the Congress need to encourage the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor to develop a spouse training/education program—not just a pilot project at a few installations? 

Answer. Today, more and more spouses seek the personal fulfillment of a full professional career. When this is coupled with the fact that many families need two 

incomes to maintain their quality of life, spouse employment and career development opportunities become crucial to recruitment and retention. In response to this 

need, the Air Force has historically provided a strong spouse career and employment 

service through installation Airman & Family Readiness (family support) Centers. 

Baseline services at all Airman & Family Readiness Centers (A&FRCs) include 

classes and individual consultation on career planning and personal development, 

resume writing, interviewing skills and all other phases of the job search process. 

Discovery Centers, located in the family centers, offer guided access to computers, 

printers, internet information on careers, jobs, and the development of job search 

skills, as well as local and long distance job listings in both the public and private 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1241 

sectors. Individual career counseling and planning as well as career assessments 

and interpretation are available by appointment. Resources to support training and 

education have also been available to Air Force spouses for some time. The Air 

Force Aid Society funds a Spouse Tuition Assistance Program for those stationed 

overseas and the Hap Arnold Grants for stateside spouses. The Air Force Aid Society also supports a Spouse Employment Program which can provide entry-level job 

training with a goal of finding immediate viable employment. 

The initial My CAA program has certainly been a welcome addition to the resources Air Force, along with Air Force Aid Society, has already developed to assist 

spouses in training for and locating suitable employment. The program has great 

potential and Air Force supports the study and development of a sustainable, long 

term My CAA that will be part of an integrated process to not only train/educate 

spouses for portable careers but help them find employment and continue that employment as they relocate and transition. 

Question. In Central Texas, the Workforce Centers have been relying on BRAC 

National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding for displaced Fort Hood spouses to receive training and education support—but BRAC funding ends this year. Therefore, 

as the Senior Enlisted Service member of your Service, do you have any ideas about 

how big of an issue spouse career/workforce training and education is for the 

spouses married to the members of your Services, and if DoD has done all they can 

with the My CAA program, do we as the Congress need to encourage the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor to develop a spouse training/education program—not just a pilot project at a few installations? 

Answer. While I cannot speak for the Department of Defense’ My Career Advancement Account program, I can assure you that Families are important to the Army, 

a priority to Soldiers, and a vital factor in the Army’s overall readiness, quality of 

life, recruiting, and retention. A prepared Family is better able to manage deployment, long-term separations, and the Army lifestyle in general. The Army has a 

myriad of robust training and education support programs geared towards our 

spouses, both Active and Reserve Component. Programs such as the Army Spouse 

Employment Partnership, which is an expanding partnership between the Army and 

corporate America. Or the Stateside Spouse Education and Assistance Program, 

which is a need-based education assistance program designed to provide spouses financial assistance in pursuing educational goals. The Army also has the Employment Readiness Program that provides assistance to Family members in acquiring 

skills and tapping into resources that will help them develop a career plan. The 

FY10 and FY11 Army programs that support spouses are currently funded to meet 

our Families’ needs. 

Question. In Central Texas, the Workforce Centers have been relying on BRAC 

National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding for displaced Fort Hood spouses to receive training and education support—but BRAC funding ends this year. Therefore, 

as the Senior Enlisted Service member of your Service, do you have any ideas about 

how big of an issue spouse career/workforce training and education is for the 

spouses married to the members of your Services, and if DoD has done all they can 

with the MyCAA program, do we as the Congress need to encourage the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor to develop a spouse training/education program—not just a pilot project at a few installations? 

Answer. Given the challenges of the military mobile lifestyle, it is important that 

our spouses have the opportunity to develop and sustain satisfying careers. It is our 

understanding that DoD is developing proposals for the long-term posture of the 

Military Spouse Career Advancement Account (MyCAA). At this point, we are unaware of the specifics of the proposal; therefore, we defer to DoD on MyCAA issues. 

We also support the collaborations between agencies to enhance support to our families. 

Question. In Central Texas, the Workforce Centers have been relying on BRAC 

National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding for displaced Fort Hood spouses to receive training and education support—but BRAC funding ends this year. Therefore, 

as the Senior Enlisted Service member of your Service, do you have any ideas about 

how big of an issue spouse career/workforce training and education is for the 

spouses married to the members of your Services, and if DoD has done all they can 

with the MyCAA program, do we as the Congress need to encourage the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor to develop a spouse training/education program—not just a pilot project at a few installations? 

Answer. Military spouse career/workforce training and education is a significant 

issue for spouses as it can impact mission readiness and overall family resiliency. 

According to the 2009 Personal and Family Readiness Survey: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
1242 

• When military spouses are employed, they are more likely to work part-time, 

work fewer hours in a week and fewer weeks in a year; 10% of spouses stated this 

is directly attributed to a lack of education/training/certification. 

• More than 30% of spouse’s stated that job opportunities and career issues affect 

their spouse’s decision to stay in the military. 

• Despite social and institutional support to buffer the effect of these moves on 

military families, each move could disrupt the progression of a military spouse’s career if the job is not easily transferable or suitable training is not available for the 

spouse; 50% of the spouses stated that they were unable to continue career progression after their last PCS move. 

• An obstacle for many younger military families is finding employment, particularly when they lack necessary skills; 15% of the enlisted spouses state that the lack 

of necessary training or experience was a top 10 factor related to their unemployment. 

DoD is currently reevaluating the MyCAA program. The outcome of that reevaluation is intended to better support career and job opportunities for spouses as well 

as provide career/workforce training to a greater number of spouses. Providing additional education/training programs in portable career fields would be a great benefit 

to the spouses of all our Military Service members. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Blake, Carl ............................................................................................................... 823 

Bowers, Todd ............................................................................................................ 677 

Breckler, Steven J ................................................................................................... 763 

Cantor-McKinney, Suzy .......................................................................................... 382 

Casey, General George W. Jr .................................................................................. 986 

Cleland, the Honorable Max ................................................................................... 5 

Connor, Charles D ................................................................................................... 735 

Conway, General James T ...................................................................................... 163 

Cox, Timothy ............................................................................................................ 61 

Darcy, the Honorable Jo-Ellen ............................................................................... 43 

Davis, John ............................................................................................................... 745 

Ferguson, Kathleen I ............................................................................................... 326 

Hale, the Honorable Robert F ................................................................................. 531 

Hansen, L. Jerry ...................................................................................................... 302 

Hilleman, Eric A ...................................................................................................... 857 

Hruska, Kelly ........................................................................................................... 1071 

Insel, Thomas ........................................................................................................... 661 

Jones, Rick ............................................................................................................... 778 

Kasold, the Honorable Bruce E .............................................................................. 26 

Katz, Ira ................................................................................................................... 648 

Keller, Dr. Mary ....................................................................................................... 1098 

Kelley, Raymond C .................................................................................................. 875 

Kent, Sergeant Major Carlton W ........................................................................... 1155 

McCauslin, John R. ‘‘Doc’’ ....................................................................................... 723 

Mittal, Anu ............................................................................................................... 365 

Natsuhara, Roger M ................................................................................................ 314 

Petraeus, General David H ..................................................................................... 410 

Preston, Sergeant Major Kenneth O ...................................................................... 1118 

Riley, Philip D .......................................................................................................... 804 

Robyn, Dorothy..................................................................................................... 289, 539 

Roughead, Admiral Gary ........................................................................................ 152 

Roy, Chief Master Sergeant James A .................................................................... 1199 

Sanders, Lawrence ................................................................................................... 794 

Schwartz, General Norton A ................................................................................... 497 

Searle, Barry ............................................................................................................ 819 

Sharp, General Walter L ......................................................................................... 938 

Shinseki, the Honorable Eric K .............................................................................. 83 

Stavridis, Admiral James G .................................................................................... 199 

Upson, Dona ............................................................................................................. 757 

Walker, James R ...................................................................................................... 768 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

ii 

West, Chief Petty Officer Rick ................................................................................ 1181 

Willard, Admiral Robert F ...................................................................................... 926 

Wilson, John ............................................................................................................. 835 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION 

Page 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1 

Cleland, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Max ............................................ 10 

Cleland, Statement of the Honorable Max ............................................................ 5 

Department of the Interior, Partnering with ........................................................ 20 

Interpretive Centers ................................................................................................ 19 

Manila, Philippines .................................................................................................. 21 

Pacific Heritage, Honoring of .................................................................................. 23 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 3 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Caseload Increase .................................................................................................... 37 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 25 

Court House Costs ................................................................................................... 36 

Kasold, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bruce E ....................................... 28 

Kasold, Statement of the Honorable Bruce E ....................................................... 26 

Legal Assistance for Vets ........................................................................................ 40 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

Amphitheater ........................................................................................................... 54 

Burial and Cremation, Trends in ........................................................................... 52 

Chairman, Statement of the ................................................................................... 43 

Darcy, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jo-Ellen ........................................ 46 

Darcy, Statement of the Honorable Jo-Ellen ......................................................... 43 

Historical Significance ............................................................................................. 53 

Long-Term Projections for Arlington National Cemetery .................................... 52 

Millennium Project .................................................................................................. 57 

Robert L. Howard and Medal of Honor Recipients ............................................... 58 

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Cracks ................................................................... 54 

Total Cemetery Management System .................................................................... 56 

West Coast as Expansion Option ........................................................................... 55 

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 

Admission, Criteria for ............................................................................................ 73, 75 

Chairman, Statement of the Chairman ................................................................. 61 

Cox, Prepared Statement of Timothy ..................................................................... 65 

Cox, Statement of Timothy ..................................................................................... 61 

Green House Retirement Living ............................................................................. 75 

Gulfport Barrier Islands ......................................................................................... 74 

Gulfport Facility ...................................................................................................... 73 

Lessons Learned at Gulfport .................................................................................. 75 

Waiting List ............................................................................................................. 73 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

California State Cemeteries .................................................................................... 120 

Call Center Hours, Extending ................................................................................ 119 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 79 

Chattanooga, Tennessee .......................................................................................... 119 

Children’s Health ..................................................................................................... 119 

Claims Backlog............................................................................................... 99, 105, 110 

Future Veteran Population ..................................................................................... 117 

G.I. Bill ..................................................................................................................... 116 

Homeless Veterans .................................................................................................. 109 

Homelessness ........................................................................................................... 111 

Hospitals ................................................................................................................... 121 

Mental Health .......................................................................................................... 115 

National Cemeteries—Change in Policy ................................................................ 105 

New Cemeteries ....................................................................................................... 103 

Pharmaceuticals ....................................................................................................... 104 

Program Funding ..................................................................................................... 123 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 80 

Shinseki, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Eric K ...................................... 86 

Shinseki, Statement of the Honorable Eric K ....................................................... 83 

Southeast Asia ......................................................................................................... 110 

VERA Distributions ................................................................................................. 123 

Veterans History Project ......................................................................................... 102 

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

AFRICOM (Djibouti) Projects ................................................................................. 195 

Blount Island ........................................................................................................... 186 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 151 

Congressman Crenshaw, Statement of .................................................................. 151 

Conway, Prepared Statement of General James T ............................................... 165 

Conway, Statement of General James T ............................................................... 163 

Deployment, Impact on Families ............................................................................ 178 

Futenma Replacement Facility ............................................................................... 194 

Growing the Marine Corps and Temporary Facilities .......................................... 194 

Homeport Ashore ..................................................................................................... 195 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 181 

Littoral Combat Ships ............................................................................................. 185 

Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry ........................................................... 175 

Mayport Naval Station ............................................................................................ 176 

Navy Barracks...................................................................................................... 182, 193 

Nuclear Weapons Security ...................................................................................... 196 

Okinawa to Guam Move .......................................................................................... 175 

Public-Private Partnership Program ...................................................................... 187 

Roughead, Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary ................................................. 154 

Roughead, Statement of Admiral Gary .................................................................. 152 

Shore Infrastructure, Risk in .................................................................................. 194 

Stabilization and Reconstruction ............................................................................ 189 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

EUROPEAN COMMAND 

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 270 

Arctic ......................................................................................................................... 281 

Area of Focus ........................................................................................................... 264 

Balkans ..................................................................................................................... 265 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 197 

Child Care Centers .................................................................................................. 283 

Comprehensive Approach ........................................................................................ 269 

Cost Sharing and Efficiencies ................................................................................. 267 

DoD Schools ............................................................................................................. 276 

France ....................................................................................................................... 263 

Georgia ..................................................................................................................... 264 

Health Care .............................................................................................................. 284 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 274 

Interagency Cooperation ......................................................................................... 266 

Interagency Cooperation ......................................................................................... 268 

Landstuhl Regional Medical Center ....................................................................... 279 

Landstuhl ................................................................................................................. 285 

Littoral Combat Ships ............................................................................................. 278 

MilCon Costs Associated with Move of Brigade Combat Teams ......................... 273 

Missile Defense ........................................................................................................ 271 

NATO Allies ............................................................................................................. 272 

Norway ..................................................................................................................... 279

Private Housing ....................................................................................................... 282 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 197 

Romania and Bulgaria ............................................................................................ 285 

Stavridis, Prepared Statement of Admiral James G ............................................ 201 

Stavridis, Statement of Admiral James G ............................................................. 199 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

BRAC Sites not Cleaned up, Number of ................................................................ 395 

Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................. 362 

Cantor-McKinney, Prepared Statement of Suzy ................................................... 385 

Cantor-McKinney, Statement of Suzy .................................................................... 382 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 287 

Cleanup Estimates .................................................................................................. 393 

Cleanup................................................................................................................. 347, 360 

Continuing Resolution Implications ....................................................................... 355 

Contractors ............................................................................................................... 394 

Economic Development Conveyance Implementation .......................................... 359 

Economic Development Conveyance ...................................................................... 349 

Environmental Cleanup .......................................................................................... 401 

Ferguson, Prepared Statement of Kathleen I ....................................................... 328 

Ferguson, Statement of Kathleen I ........................................................................ 326 

Fort Bliss, Texas ...................................................................................................... 358 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina .................................................................................... 345 

Hansen, Prepared Statement of L. Jerry ............................................................... 304 

Hansen, Statement of L. Jerry ............................................................................... 302 

Infrastructure Reduction ......................................................................................... 401 

Initial Cost Analysis and Actual Cost .................................................................... 350 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 353 

Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 352 

Mittal, Prepared Statement of Anu ........................................................................ 367 

Mittal, Statement of Anu ........................................................................................ 365 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Natsuhara, Prepared Statement of Roger M ......................................................... 318 

Natsuhara, Statement of Roger M ......................................................................... 314 

New Start ................................................................................................................. 401 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 287 

Relocatable Facilities, Use of .................................................................................. 343 

Robyn, Prepared Statement of Dorothy ................................................................. 292 

Robyn, Statement of Dorothy ................................................................................. 289 

San Antonio, Texas .................................................................................................. 345 

Savings ..................................................................................................................... 401 

Statutory Deadlines, Impact of ............................................................................... 342 

Temporary Costs, Newly Identified ........................................................................ 356 

Temporary Expenses ............................................................................................... 346 

Undersea Remediation ............................................................................................ 363 

UXO Cleanup ........................................................................................................... 392 

Walter Reed Army Medical Center ........................................................................ 344 

CENTRAL COMMAND 

Afghan Governance ................................................................................................. 481 

Afghanistan, Longer Term Force Posture ............................................................. 494 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 409 

Civilian Response Corps .......................................................................................... 474 

Construction Needs in Afghanistan ....................................................................... 493 

Draw Down ............................................................................................................... 477 

Drug War in Afghanistan ....................................................................................... 479 

Flexibility in Theater MilCon ................................................................................. 494 

Gays in the Military ................................................................................................ 489 

Goals Accomplished ................................................................................................. 486 

Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 473, 479 

Institutions ............................................................................................................... 476

Iraq, Lessons Learned in ......................................................................................... 471 

Marjah ...................................................................................................................... 480 

MilCon Programs, Flexibility with ......................................................................... 471 

NATO Training Mission .......................................................................................... 482 

Pakistan .................................................................................................................... 491 

Petraeus, Prepared Statement of General David H .............................................. 416 

Petraeus, Statement of General David H .............................................................. 410 

Piracy Threat ........................................................................................................... 484 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 409 

Security in the Region ............................................................................................. 487 

Unified Command Plan ........................................................................................... 482 

AIR FORCE 

Afghanistan, Military Construction in ................................................................... 526 

Budget, Balancing .................................................................................................... 522 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 497 

COCOM Requirements ............................................................................................ 530 

Dormitory Master Plan, Management of ............................................................... 527 

Engineers .................................................................................................................. 521

Environmental Impact Study ................................................................................. 515 

F–35 Beddown .......................................................................................................... 525 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Timetable ..................................................................... 519 

Guam ........................................................................................................................ 523 

Inadequate Housing ................................................................................................ 518 

Joint Cargo Aircraft ................................................................................................. 517 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

MilCon Priorities ..................................................................................................... 513 

Overseas Readiness ................................................................................................. 514 

Panama Canal .......................................................................................................... 521 

Quadrennial Defense Review and ‘‘Resiliency’’ of Facilities ................................ 526 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 497 

Remotely Piloted Aircraft ........................................................................................ 514 

Schwartz, Prepared Statement of General Norton A ........................................... 500 

Schwartz, Statement of General Norton A ............................................................ 497 

Strategic Basing Process ......................................................................................... 525 

Surge Capabilities ................................................................................................... 514 

U.S. Cyber Command .............................................................................................. 530 

U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Nebraska ................................................. 529 

Unfunded Requirements, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve ............... 527 

DoD OVERVIEW 

Afghanistan, MilCon for ‘‘Enduring’’ Bases in ...................................................... 585 

Afghanistan, MilCon in ........................................................................................... 581 

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Account Unobligated Balances ................. 646 

Bid Savings .............................................................................................................. 565 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 531 

Construction Materials/Labor, Competition for .................................................... 587 

Cyber Command ...................................................................................................... 585 

Department of State, National Security Involving ............................................... 571 

DoD Schools, Improving Quality of ........................................................................ 578 

Energy Consumption ............................................................................................... 568 

Family Housing ........................................................................................................ 584 

Family Housing, Privatized .................................................................................... 572 

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance ...... 646 

Green Construction, Military Training for ............................................................ 570 

Guam..................................................................................................................... 559, 583 

Guam, Environmental Impact Statement for ........................................................ 563 

Guam, Whole-of-Government Approach for ........................................................... 563 

Guard/Reserve Op Tempo/Budget Request ............................................................ 587 

Hale, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert F ......................................... 534 

Hale, Statement of the Honorable Robert F .......................................................... 531 

Homeowners Assistance Program .......................................................................... 588 

Housing, Unaccompanied Personnel ...................................................................... 584 

International Military Education Training ........................................................... 580 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 588 

Korea, Tour Normalization in ............................................................................. 577, 585 

Mayport Naval Station ............................................................................................ 558 

Pay Raise .................................................................................................................. 579 

Quadrennial Defense Review and ‘‘Resiliency’’ ..................................................... 583 

Quadrennial Defense Review and BRAC Completion .......................................... 557 

Quadrennial Defense Review .................................................................................. 585 

Robyn, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dorothy ........................................ 541 

Robyn, Statement of the Honorable Dorothy ........................................................ 539 

Stabilization and Reconstruction ............................................................................ 581 

TRICARE .................................................................................................................. 566 

Tuition Assistance for Family Members ............................................................ 564, 565 

Unaccompanied Housing, Privatized ..................................................................... 575 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

VA MENTAL HEALTH 

Access to Mental Health Care ................................................................................ 690 

Bowers, Prepared Statement of Todd .................................................................... 681 

Bowers, Statement of Todd ..................................................................................... 677 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 647 

Homeless Veterans .................................................................................................. 706 

Insel, Prepared Statement of Thomas ................................................................... 664 

Insel, Statement of Thomas .................................................................................... 661 

Joblessness ............................................................................................................... 698 

Katz, Prepared Statement of Ira ............................................................................ 650 

Katz, Statement of Ira ............................................................................................. 648 

Outreach ................................................................................................................... 688

Research Budget ...................................................................................................... 672 

Temporal Sequence .................................................................................................. 673 

Transition Program ................................................................................................. 687 

Veterans’ Needs, Meeting ....................................................................................... 703 

OUTSIDE WITNESSES 

Blake, Statement of Carl ......................................................................................... 823 

Breckler, Statement of Steven J ............................................................................. 763 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 723 

Connor, Statement of Charles D ............................................................................ 735 

Davis, Statement of John ........................................................................................ 745 

Hilleman, Statement of Eric A ............................................................................... 837 

Jones, Statement of Rick ......................................................................................... 778 

Kelley, Statement of Raymond C ........................................................................... 875 

McCauslin, Statement of John R. ‘‘Doc’’ ................................................................ 723 

Riley, Statement of Philip D ................................................................................... 804 

Sanders, Statement of Lawrence ............................................................................ 794 

Searle, Statement of Barry ..................................................................................... 818 

Upson, Statement of Dona ...................................................................................... 757 

Walker, Statement of James R ............................................................................... 768 

Wilson, Statement of John ...................................................................................... 835 

PACIFIC COMMAND 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 925 

Challenges ................................................................................................................ 972 

Crenshaw, Statement of Congressman .................................................................. 925 

Guam..................................................................................................................... 965, 980 

International Military Education Program ........................................................... 966 

International Traffic ................................................................................................ 979 

Japan, Realignment of U.S. Forces in .................................................................... 964 

Korea ......................................................................................................................... 967 

Korea, Accompanied Tours in ................................................................................. 969 

Naval Facilities Command ...................................................................................... 982 

Republic of Korea ..................................................................................................... 974 

Schools ...................................................................................................................... 971 

Sharp, Prepared Statement of General Walter L ................................................. 940 

Sharp, Statement of General Walter L .................................................................. 938 

SOFA ........................................................................................................................ 976 

Wartime Control ...................................................................................................... 974 

Willard, Prepared Statement of Admiral Robert F ............................................... 928 

Willard, Statement of Admiral Robert F ............................................................... 926 

Yongsan .................................................................................................................... 977


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

ix 

ARMY 

Adequate Barracks and Motor Pool Space upon Return ...................................... 1067 

Army BRAC 2005 .................................................................................................... 1066 

Army Modular Force ............................................................................................... 1067 

Army National Guard .............................................................................................. 1056 

Army Soldiers, Percentage Killed in Iraq and Afghanistan ................................. 1062 

Barracks Construction ............................................................................................. 1059 

Casey, Prepared Statement of General George W. Jr .......................................... 990 

Casey, Statement of General George W. Jr ........................................................... 986 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 985 

Defense Language Institute .................................................................................... 1056 

Deployments ............................................................................................................. 1056 

Fiscal Year 2011 Military Construction Budget Request ..................................... 1066 

Force Structure ........................................................................................................ 1060 

Inadequate Overseas Housing ................................................................................ 1065 

Incrementally Funded Projects ............................................................................... 1066 

Mental Health Services ........................................................................................... 1060 

Mental Health .......................................................................................................... 1061 

National Institutes and Health Study on Suicide Prevention ............................. 1065 

Ranking Minority Member, Statement of .............................................................. 985 

Restoring Balance .................................................................................................... 1063 

Stabilization and Reconstruction ............................................................................ 1059 

Sustainment ............................................................................................................. 1056 

Training Needs ........................................................................................................ 1055 

Volunteer Force ........................................................................................................ 1056 

Warrior in Transition Complexes ........................................................................... 1065 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

Chairman, Statement of .......................................................................................... 1069 

Childcare .................................................................................................................. 1110 

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness .............................................................................. 1221 

Congressional Military Family Caucus .................................................................. 1113 

Contractors in Theater, Army ................................................................................ 1230 

Crenshaw, Statement of Congressman .................................................................. 1069 

Department of Education and Military Families .................................................. 1110 

Deployments ............................................................................................................. 1225 

Guard and Reserve Families .................................................................................. 1115 

Homeowners Assistance Program................................................................... 1217, 1220 

Hruska, Prepared Statement of Kelly .................................................................... 1074 

Hruska, Statement of Kelly .................................................................................... 1071 

Impact Aid ................................................................................................................ 1114

Individual Augmentees ........................................................................................... 1229 

Keller, Prepared Statement of Dr. Mary ............................................................... 1101 

Keller, Statement of Dr. Mary ................................................................................ 1098 

Kent, Prepared Statement of Major Carlton W .................................................... 1156 

Kent, Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W ..................................................... 1155 

Mayport Naval Station ............................................................................................ 1218 

Medical Care/PTSD, Guard and Reserve ............................................................... 1232 

Older Children Adjusting to Deployments ............................................................ 1110 

Preston, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O ............................... 1120 

Preston, Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O ............................................... 1118 

Privatized Housing Program ................................................................................... 1224 

Returning Warrior Weekends ................................................................................. 1224 

Roy, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant James A ............................. 1201 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
Page

x 

Roy, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant James A ............................................. 1199 

School Construction Needs due to BRAC .............................................................. 1114 

Special Needs Children ........................................................................................... 1111 

Suicide Prevention ................................................................................................... 1223 

Suicide Prevention, Guard and Reserve ................................................................ 1224 

Suicide Rates ............................................................................................................ 1221 

West, Prepared Statement of Chief Petty Officer Rick ........................................ 1182 

West, Statement of Chief Petty Officer Rick ......................................................... 1181 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING