U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i

38–163 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–52]

OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND

RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD

MARCH 29, 2007

(II)

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member

JOE HICKEN, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Thursday, March 29, 2007, Overview of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

(MWR) Programs .................................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX:

Thursday, March 29, 2007 ...................................................................................... 23

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR)

PROGRAMS

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking Member,

Military Personnel Subcommittee ...................................................................... 2

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ........................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Arsht, Leslye A., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community

& Family Policy .................................................................................................... 2

Downs, Michael P., Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps .. 6

Handley, Rear Adm. Mark A., Deputy Commander, Navy Installations Command, U.S. Navy .................................................................................................. 5

Myers, Arthur J., Director of Services, U.S. Air Force ......................................... 7

Pinckney, Brig. Gen. Belinda, Commander, Family and Morale, Welfare and

Recreation Command, U.S. Army ....................................................................... 4

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Arsht, Leslye A. ................................................................................................ 31

Downs, Michael P. ............................................................................................ 86

Handley, Rear Adm. Mark A. .......................................................................... 63

McHugh, Hon. John M. .................................................................................... 29

Myers, Arthur J. ............................................................................................... 108

Pinckney, Brig. Gen. Belinda .......................................................................... 49

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 27

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Mrs. Drake ........................................................................................................ 158

Mr. McHugh ...................................................................................................... 150

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 141

(1)

OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION

(MWR) PROGRAMS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE,

Washington, DC, Thursday, March 29, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m. in room

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL

SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. SNYDER. We apologize for the delay. I don’t think we are anticipating further delays. You may have also caught on that most

members over the next few minutes will start heading for airports

to go home for the spring break. I did not even come down to say

hello to you.

I am going to do a brief opening statement, and we will go to Mr.

McHugh, and we have your written statements and most members

will have looked at them, and if you can condense that down, then

we have got some questions to ask, and we will try not to keep you

here longer than is necessary but, again, we apologize for the

delay.

We are pleased you all are here today because these programs

you are responsible for and you have been involved in, we think,

are absolutely vital to our men and women in uniform and our

military families, and we will flesh that out as the hearing proceeds.

You are such an important part of not just feeling good but of

the morale and the readiness of our men and women in uniform

and their families. If they don’t feel good about what is going on

in other parts of their lives, including the family, it impacts their

work. And so that is why we think the work you do is so important.

Some of the concerns of the subcommittee include a decline in

appropriated fund support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

(MWR) facilities, the construction at new facilities with increased

populations, and the need to increase access to, call it child care,

and I know that some of you will be talking about that in your

opening statements, and we will ask you about that, and I would

like to let Mr. McHugh make any comments.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 27.]

2

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. MCHUGH. I did have a chance to speak to each one of the

witnesses personally, but I want to state for the record how pleased

we are, how privileged we feel to have you with us today. I ask my

statement be entered in its entirety in the record. Thank you, sir.

And I just echo the comments that you made. These are challenging times. I think the opening sentence to the staff memo that tells

us quote, ‘‘MWR programs are intended to provide military personnel the same quality of life as is afforded the society they have

pledged to defend,’’ end quote, kind of says it. That is the challenge.

As you know, you folks are an indispensable part of that. The

challenges from base realignment and closure (BRAC) to global rebasing to pressure on appropriated fund support and on and on and

on are going to have to cause all of us to rise to those significant

challenges.

So we look forward to your comments here today, and thank you.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the Appendix on page 29.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

I also want to apologize in advance. You may see members having to leave sooner than they otherwise would because of the lateness in the day.

Let me introduce our panel: Ms. Leslye Arsht, the Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy;

Brigadier General Belinda Pinckney, Commanding General, U.S.

Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command; Rear

Admiral Mark A. Handley, United States Navy, Vice Commander,

Navy Installations Command; Mr. Michael P. Downs, Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division Headquarters, Marine Corps;

and Mr. Arthur J. Myers, Director of Air Force Services.

And if you would do your opening statements in that order, I will

put the five-minute clock on you, but that is to be a reminder. If

you finish under that today, that is great, but if you see the light

go on and you got things we need to know about, you go ahead and

fire away. But that is to let you know that five minutes have

passed.

STATEMENT OF LESLYE A. ARSHT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY COMMUNITY & FAMILY

POLICY

Ms. ARSHT. Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member McHugh, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on Department of Defense (DOD) morale, welfare,

and recreation programs.

Dr. SNYDER. We need you to bend that thing down and get it a

little closer to your face. Even closer than that. This is old time

equipment here.

Try it again.

Ms. ARSHT. When I first appeared before the subcommittee a

year ago, I had been in my current position just 13 days. Since that

3

time, I visited over 30 military installations around the world and

toured MWR facilities at all of them. I have talked to service members and their leaders, and I have a great appreciation for just how

important MWR is to our troops and their families.

I must say that the resiliency of service members and their families is nothing less than remarkable. Our military families are the

heart and soul of troops on the battlefield and when service members call back home, what they want to hear is, we are doing fine,

we miss you, but we are doing fine.

Of paramount importance to those deployed is to know that their

families have good support and someone to reach out to while they

are away. We continue to maintain robust morale, welfare and

recreation programs, and the Department has made family support

a priority.

Military spouses indicate that being able to communicate with

their spouse members is the number one factor in being able to

cope with deployment. Back home, computers and Internet services

located in the family support centers, base libraries and use centers

help ensure families can send and receive e-mails from their deployed loved ones.

Communications support to deployed service members include

175 free MWR operated Internet cafes, 171 MWR operated fund

centers. This communication capacity is essential to morale and

our ability to sustain deployments.

Today’s military families want easy and rapid access to reliable

information and resources. Two important Web-based tools are

helping to improve the delivery of information and assistance to

our families: Military One Source and Military Home Front. In

partnership with the services, we have leveraged the technology to

provide service members and their families with information they

want as well as someone to talk to 24/7. Ready access to books,

magazines, newspapers are important both during and between deployments.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force each ships several thousand

newly printed books and magazines to various addresses to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)

theaters each month.

Counseling support is available both on and off military installations in the United States and overseas. Family assistance and

military member counseling has more than doubled over the last

year.

Among the most important supports to military families is high

quality child care and youth programs. DOD child care continues

to be a national model in both standards and oversight. While we

have greatly expanded child care capacity, about 7,000 spaces, we

still have unmet demand for 30,000 additional child care spaces.

Providing child care for Reserve and Guard presents additional

challenges. Many do not live close enough to military installations

to use on-base child care, and off-base care is not always affordable.

An initiative designed to address these challenges is Operation

Military Child—I am sorry—Military Child Care which, although it

does not fully subsidize the cost of child care, does reduce the financial burden. Services are provided through a national non-profit

4

organization to help parents locate child care at reduced rates in

their own communities.

Long-term plans are being made to modernize the fitness infrastructure beginning with the services request for four fitness center

construction projects in fiscal year 2008.

Entertainment helps build morale for deployed service members.

Nowhere is this support more important than in the austere locations where service members are performing in support of the global war on terror. In 2006, Armed Forces entertainment conducted

118 tours with 1,433 shows in 25 countries.

In addition to the stress associated with deployments, a sizable

number of military personnel and their families will be affected by

base realignment and global restationing. We are actively pursuing

partnerships with community leaders to facilitate development of

supportive infrastructure for relocating families.

Clearly the road ahead is challenging, but we are committed to

meeting the needs of service members and their families. We appreciate your support of DOD MWR programs and will seek your

continued support as we implement changes associated with BRAC

and restationing.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arsht can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

General Pinckney.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. BELINDA PINCKNEY, COMMANDER, FAMILY AND MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION COMMAND, U.S. ARMY

General PINCKNEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the direction of Army family and MWR programs. Let me begin by thanking

this committee for your consistent support to service members and

families and their quality of life. I have submitted my statement

for the record and have a few brief comments at this time.

I am privileged to address you today as the first commanding

general of the Family and MWR Command. The Family and MWR

Command is a subordinate command of the United States Army

and Installation Management Command, or MCOM. When the

Army established MCOM, the United States Army community and

family support center changed its name to more accurately reflect

its mission focusing on family and MWR programs. The family and

MWR command’s efforts support soldiers and family readiness.

This support helps to deliver a quality of life that matches the

quality of service soldiers proudly provide to our Nation.

We remain committed to providing quality support to deployed

soldiers around the globe and their awaiting families back home.

We have professional MWR staff in Southwest Asia and the Balkans supporting our deployed soldiers and maintaining MWR facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Hungary, and

Macedonia, to mention some. MWR promotes physical fitness and

provides recreation, social, and leisure pursuits.

Activities offered in these deployed locations include cardiovascular and strength training theaters, electronic game stations,

5

and paperback books and online libraries. Our armed forces recreation centers (AFRC) are also responding to the needs of both the

active and reserve component soldiers and their families.

Since our rest and recuperation program started in October 2003,

our AFRCs have privileged—have been privileged to host over

75,000 soldiers and their families.

Our soldiers and families remain resilient. However, given the

challenges of modularity, global defense, partial realignment, base

realignment and closure, and the global war on terror, stress on

the force remains a constant.

Given this transformation and restationing backdrop, the Army

is committed to providing continued quality family and MWR programs to all of the soldiers and their families. This includes active

and reserve component soldiers. In fact, today this is—this support

is crucial to maintaining our all-volunteer force.

Mr. Chairman, with the help and support of this committee, we

are moving the Army’s family and MWR programs forward as we

continue to service our soldiers and their families when and wherever duty calls.

I will be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of General Pinckney can be found in the

Appendix on page 49.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Admiral Handley.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. MARK A. HANDLEY, DEPUTY

COMMANDER, NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND, U.S. NAVY

Admiral HANDLEY. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss morale, welfare and recreation

programs for the Navy. I have submitted, like colleagues today, a

written statement for the record. I will summarize a few thoughts

for you today.

Dr. SNYDER. All written statements will be made a part of the

record.

Admiral HANDLEY. Navy MWR continues to improve quality, accessibility of our programs because we know how vitally important

it is to our sailors, our civilians, our families. We invested in a

number of initiatives in 2006 that will serve for the foundation of

healthy MWR and child youth programs in the future. Some examples of our major improvements in fiscal year 2006 include: the creation of a ‘‘fitness for life’’ initiative that reaches out to improve the

health and fitness habits of the entire Navy community, including

family members, DOD civilians, senior personnel and retirees; a

commitment to construct 26 new fitness facilities across the Future

Years Defense Plan (FYDP), starting with Guam in fiscal year

2008, this represents over a $500 million investment in enhanced

fitness opportunities for our sailors and their families; the creation

of 1,300 new child development center spaces in fleet concentration

areas that will come on line in the next 18 months, this will reduce

the current Navy child care waiting list and bring us closer to the

goal of meeting 80 percent of the need; implementation of outreach

contracts to provide child care and youth services outside the military infrastructure for geographically isolated active duty personnel

6

and activated reservists. So far, 4,900 additional spaces have been

made available for Navy children as a result of these contracts.

We have also significantly increased our investment in major and

minor Non-appropriated Funds (NAF) construction projects

leveraging central cash funds. As part of a multi-year plan, our

MWR board of directors approved increasing the level of investment of over $80 million in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.

An emphasis is investing in our employees so they have an opportunity to enhance their customer service skills while fulfilling personal employment objectives. Our focus to help them build longterm careers with MWR.

In summary, our commitment to ‘‘fitness for life’’ programs will

help us ensure a strong and healthy force for the Navy for the future. Our investment in equipment and facilities will assure that

sailors and their families enjoy a quality recreational experience for

many years to come. Investing in quality child care enhances the

morale of Navy families while greatly contributing to force readiness.

And, finally, ongoing training development initiatives for MWR

staff members help to ensure the level of service our program exceeds customer expectations.

Thank you for your time and continued support for MWR facilities and services. I look forward to working with you as we continue to improve this vital program, and I stand by to address any

questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Handley can be found in the

Appendix on page 63.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Mr. Downs.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. DOWNS, DIRECTOR, PERSONAL

AND FAMILY READINESS DIVISION, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Mr. DOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman McHugh,

Congresswoman Davis, for this opportunity to report on the Marine

Corps welfare and recreation program. As you well know, MWR

programs are imperative to the quality of life of Marines and their

families. Whether providing innovative fitness programs to improve

Marine Corps readiness, taking care of children and youth or offering wholesome recreational activities to Marines and families, our

MWR program is robust and expansive.

Although the environment is indeed challenging, I am proud to

report that the Marine Corps continues to maintain required levels

of appropriated funds necessary to our MWR programs. As an important part of the Marine Corps landscape, MWR has successfully

sustained rigorous budget prioritization sessions. Equally important, MWR revenue generation is up $7 million in sales and $1 million in net income from 2005 to 2006. Moreover, our exchange dividends are at the highest levels in the last six years.

For the third consecutive year, we have met or exceeded the 85/

65 minimum Appropriated Funds (APF) funding metric for categories A and B activities established by DOD. In view of the combat and operational tempo of the Marine Corps, sustainment of

7

MWR funding is remarkable and further indicative of value and

overall contribution.

Our installation commanders are actively monitoring program

delivery, and at the headquarters level, we are working to ensure

continued compliance with DOD standards.

Let me assure you that any necessary program adjustments will

include safeguards to protect the integrity and functionality of our

MWR program that continues to serve the Marine Corps so well.

The support of this subcommittee through annual hearings is

vital to the future of MWR and helps to ensure that the program

receives the credit it deserves.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and for your

longstanding support of military MWR programs.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downs can be found in the Appendix on page 86.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Downs.

Mr. Myers of the Air Force.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. MYERS, DIRECTOR OF SERVICES,

U.S. AIR FORCE

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the

Military Personnel Subcommittee.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to

talk about the status of Air Force MWR programs. Let me begin

by thanking you for the tremendous support you have provided for

the troops over the past year. Our Air Force is transforming. As we

modernize our aging weapon systems, we must keep the focus on

our most important weapon systems, our airmen and the families

who support them.

The Air Force services face major challenges as we seek innovative ways to transform our community support services and programs while avoiding unnecessary impacts to service delivery and

quality of life.

As we balance these competing requirements, we are concerned

about the impacts of joint basing, especially on our civilian workforce, the quality of life for people at that installation, and operational mission.

We are also concerned about the downward trend in exchange

dividends; five years ago, our exchange dividends averaged nearly

$90 million per year. Last year, we received only $73 million, and

the current exchange financial plan projects less than $57 million

for the Air Force. Almost a $33 million reduction from the level five

years ago. This has already had a negative impact on our programs

in the field and will have even larger-term consequences as we cut

back our non-appropriated fund facility program.

Based on the exchange’s current dividend projections, even a partial recovery will be a long time coming. And finally, we can and

should do better for our non-appropriated funded employees than

the current DOD-wide NAF health benefits permit. As we rise to

meet these challenges, we and our leaders are committed to ensure

the needs of our airmen and their families are met. Our Air Force

service team provides life sustaining support to our troops in the

field and the central community programs to our airmen and their

families back home. I am extremely proud of the hard work and

8

dedication they put forth to make our mission and therefore the Air

Force mission happen everyday all over the world.

Your help continues to make a direct impact on our airmen and

their families.

You have my written statement, and I welcome your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers can be found in the Appendix on page 108.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Myers, and thank you all for your

opening statements.

Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you

allowing me to kind of jump the order here a little bit.

My dad was a great skeptic when it came to averages and percentages. He used to say to me, you know, John, if you put one foot

in a bucket of ice water and one foot in a bucket of boiling water,

on average, you are comfortable.

I look at these charts, and on average, I am comfortable, but I

wonder how comfortable I am. And they are somewhat misleading.

Percentages of goals. You look at the Army expenditures was 87

percent of goals in 1997, and now in fiscal year 2006, they are

down to 83 percent. That is below the 85. You might be concerned

about that. But if you go to real expenditures, in fact, from 2003

through projected 2008, the Army difference is up by $92 million.

And Mr. Downs mentioned the Marine Corps is above the averages, and I am not accusing the Marine Corps of this, but it is in

fact possible to reach the averages, not by spending more but by

cutting programs. So I am not sure what these percentages tell us.

But I do know this, and Mr. Myers spoke about it, we have got a

massive rebasing coming about. We know that huge customers of

the resale system which drive dividends available to you in support

of your programs are already on their way down and are probably

going to continue to do so. At the same time, we are going to have

an increase in end strength which means you have got more people, more families to serve, more gyms, more libraries.

What kind of plan do we have for the future in meeting that kind

of two-edge dilemma, that of decreased support from the dividends

yet increased demand for programs through the rebasing here at

home and the expansion of the end strength? Anybody got any

thoughts on that and tell us what the future may look like?

Mr. MYERS. In the Air Force, we have gotten our MCOMs base

level people together to devise a strategic plan to set our way into

the future to do things smarter, more efficiently, and so forth.

In the Air Force, we have always focused on quality of life for

our programs and so—in taking care of our people. So, in the Air

Force, rather than have a cookie-cutter approach across our bases,

we are going to focus on the programs that meet the needs of our

troops and their families. It will be a difficult task, but one, I believe, will be successful in doing.

Mr. MCHUGH. As we go down, if any of you have additional

thoughts, I would appreciate that.

I would add to that as well into the mix the most important part

from our perspective, what can Congress do to be as supportive as

possible in helping you meet that challenge? If you have any

thoughts on that.

9

Madam Secretary.

Ms. ARSHT. I would like to echo what Mr. Myers has said here

in one important way. That is all of the services. They are different, and you will hear us say that a lot today. They are different

in how they make their decisions and different in how they allocate

their funds. And those differences are important, that flexibility to

be able to respond to the needs even within their services, different

installations have different requirements, and within DOD policy.

Their boards and other governing decision-making policy bodies do

make those decisions to ensure that they are responding to the

needs of the service members and families at the various installations.

I think if you turn to Mr. Downs’s comments, the exchanges and

the MWR funding allocations are different. And so they are not all

declining. And overall, we think the MWR programs are financially

solid and that the services are responding to the changing demands

and showing a tremendous innovation, some of which we will detail

in other parts of the areas of MWR and specific areas that we will

talk about later.

Mr. DOWNS. Just for the record, the Marine Corps’s MWR are not

declining. And the ability to meet and exceed the standards is directly related to the infusion of appropriated funds into the Marine

Corps MWR program beginning in fiscal year 2002 and continuing

through this year.

Mr. MCHUGH. If I may, just to underscore for the record, I tried

to state, I am not accusing the Marine Corps of doing that. I am

just showing the vagaries of mathematics that you really can’t tell

just from the numbers what the commitment is.

I apologize for interrupting.

Mr. DOWNS. Just from 2002 to—through 2006, the appropriated

funds for category A has increased from 87.5 to 125.6. And in category B programs, from 110.1 million to 151.7.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am glad to hear that, but you started it, so I am

going to finish it.

So if you adjust for inflation, every one of the services is spending less today, including the Marine Corps, than they did back in

2004. My point is, I am more interested in hearing your plans as

to how you are going to accommodate whether you are the Marine

Corps, Army, Air Force Navy. You have got the challenges of deployment less so in the Marine Corps. Coming back home from rebasing is not going to be a huge issue for you. But for the other

services, it is going to be. But end strength is going to be a significant issue. So I wanted to just try to be reassured you are on it,

as they say.

Admiral.

Admiral HANDLEY. Sir, from the Navy’s perspective, obviously, it

is mostly a seagoing and expeditionary service. Different challenges

for us. We do not have the same rebasing challenges. Most of our

changes under BRAC are addressed, but I will tell you that we are

laser focused on looking at the cost of our programs to make sure

we are as efficient as possible.

In 2004, I think you know we stood up the commander, Naval

Installations Command, similar to the Army, with the Installations

Management Agency (IMA), and we took eight claimants or eight

10

organizations that were responsible for running bases and running

MWR programs and consolidated it into one.

Just in 2005, we also consolidated our program management

function in Millington, Tennessee, to be part of that organization,

and we are finding a lot of efficiencies from the backroom consolidations that we have done for that.

Sir, to answer your question on what more can we do and what

more we can support, I will point that we do a lot of partnerships

with a lot of other outside organizations, Boys and Girls Clubs, certifying their affiliations with our youth centers and as Congresswoman Davis would know, the First for Five initiative in San

Diego to help with child development centers where we have a public-private or a public-public venture to help solve some of those

problems; those are programs that I think we can exploit more in

the future.

Mr. MCHUGH. I thank you.

I am sorry. General, please.

General PINCKNEY. Sir, thank you.

Like the Navy, I think with the stand up of the Installation Management Command, and two direct reporting units falling under

the MWR, MCOM, we are able to garner a lot of savings by reducing the redundancies within the different organizations. In addition

to that, we also track use of non-appropriated funds for those activities that should be funded with appropriated fund dollars, and

I say that to say that we have brought this to the attention of our

board of directors, MWR board of directors, and we, in fact, were

challenged to look at new initiatives that could generate additional

income given the fact that we know there is going to be a decline

in dividends coming from Army and Air Force Exchange Services

(AAFES) as well as support that we get from our Army recreational

program because they are overseas, and we know that people overseas tend to spend more dollars in AAFES as opposed to being

here.

So we are partnering with AAFES in some areas that we know

that we can actually garner more savings and actually use our dollars as a buying power. We partner with corporate America for

public and private ventures. We are also working with the Boys

and Girls Club and the 4–H camp to provide child care. In terms

of capacity, when we know that we can’t accommodate child care

needs on post, we have to provide that kind of support off our

posts. So we are doing that as well.

And we are combining contracts throughout the Installation

Management Command, not just within the family MWR command.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back. Let me underscore again how

much I know we all appreciate the great work that these leaders

do across the board, and the challenges that they face are not of

their making. But together I am hopeful we can continue to provide

to our brave men and women in uniform these invaluable programs

and as the good secretary started off at the beginning, they are

critical to their quality of life. So I thank you all for your service

and again for being here.

11

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate your courtesy, and I yield

back.

Dr. SNYDER. Mrs. Davis for five minutes.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

echo Mr. McHugh’s thoughts as well because we know the important work that you were doing. Without our families, without them

feeling supported, we really are nowhere. And so it is critically important work.

I wonder as we look at these numbers though, I think it is always tough to point out some of the shortcomings, but are there

some degradation of services that you have seen that perhaps don’t

show up easily in numbers that we ought to be alerted to in any

of the services that you see. You mentioned child care, the need to

try. I wanted to ask about that in a second. But are there some

areas in which we really—given another year or two, the slide

could create a problem?

General PINCKNEY. I think, Ma’am, from an Army perspective I

will tell you yes, there are some shortages. We aren’t going to be

able to actually fund the non-appropriated fund major construction

projects that we would normally do because of the possible decrease

in dividends coming from AAFES. So we know that probably on average, we will not be funding three projects that we normally

would have—would be funding.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And do those impact families directly?

General PINCKNEY. Depending on the type of project.

I will tell you that the projects that I see mainly impacting families we are normally able to provide support to and that would be

the Child Development Centers (CDCs), the Capacity for Children,

because that is a given concern, and given the fact that we partner

with Boys and Girls Clubs and the 4–H camp and actually other

child development centers within—that are located around our installations and some further away from installations for those remote sites, I don’t think that that is a major concern for the Army.

Mr. MYERS. I will add to that. One of the things we face in the

future is the decline in AAFES’ dividends. We sort of insulate the

installation that they are always going to get their dividends but

with the shortage of dividends, that impacts our construction program in the future. So we are going to be building a lot less. And

one of the family programs that will be impacted is youth centers

because they are built with non-appropriated funds. As we sit here

today, the Air Force is taking care of 120,000 children so their parents can focus on the mission. As long as they know their family

is being taken care of, they are a hundred percent on the mission.

So down the road, the decrease in AFEES dividends will have a big

increase on the Air Force.

Ms. ARSHT. I would like to address your question by talking

about the three-pronged approach that we are taking in child care.

It speaks to need, that is the first—the first prong is that we

have used the emergency intervention support that we have gotten.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Do you know how many families that

are helped as a result of that? If you have a certain number of families that you know aren’t being served locally but you are trying

12

to provide that additional support for them, does that answer the

need or answer the need for half of the families who are in need?

Ms. ARSHT. We have three different ways really of talking about

this. One is in the emergency supplemental dollars that we use. We

actually created 7,000 new spaces, and we also did renovations in

addition to existing spaces. So adding space is one of the big priorities that we had for this last year.

That authority is going to end. So, obviously, we would like to

continue that authority to have the small construction opportunities to continue to add spaces.

The second opportunity that we have used to expand our capacity

is a relationship with the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral agencies. They are doing at least two things for

us, two important things. One is helping families find quality child

care in their communities, and the second part of that is the new

child care program that provides discounts to families. And that

program is producing direct savings to families.

And then the third prong is to actually have three to four Military Construction (MILCON) projects each year. In 2007, we were

able to have eight funded projects. So we are really working, and

child care being a good example but not our only example, of trying

to create a mix of opportunities to expand capacity and use some

community resources where they are available and leverage them

to extend our abilities.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. And not here but perhaps

if you could just give us a sense of what the unmet need is as you

address it on those different levels, that would be helpful. And Admiral, I know that there is a uniform fee structure that has been

put in place with the Navy; is that correct?

Admiral HANDLEY. I am sorry?

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. A uniform fee schedule for child care,

has that had an impact?

Admiral HANDLEY. Yes. And again, to a positive effect. The other

things that we are also doing in child care, we have gone to a centralized waiting list across the Navy. We did find that people were

on multiple waiting lists across, so it had a harder time on fixing

on what the demand signal was. So that is helping us target where

we need child care and how much child care we do need.

As the secretary already mentioned, we do use all of the same

tools that she has outlined, military construction, the operations

and maintenance (O&M) funding goes from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and also through our own O&M funding.

Again, that authority runs out in the end of 2007. That has been

very responsive to putting it to where we need it to most.

And then, obviously, I mentioned earlier the First for Five in San

Diego. And I also think we should explore more public-private ventures similar as we have done in housing. It has been very successful. But we want to make sure we keep laser focus that we don’t

drop that standard.

We obviously enjoy a very good reputation with the standards of

care that we have been providing, and we want to make sure as

we do that, similar as we have in housing, we set the standard as

we go out in those kinds of deals.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much.

13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General PINCKNEY. I forgot one thing.

For fiscal year 2007, for MILCON, this is the first time that the

Army had committed this type of funding for child care, and I just

wanted to make a point of this; 29 child development centers in our

2007 MILCON, I don’t know if we have ever done that before and—

29 CDCs, three youth centers, two physical fitness centers, and a

pool for a total of $180 million. That is record-breaking for the

Army.

Mr. MYERS. Mrs. Davis, one other thing. I would like to reiterate

what Ms. Arsht said. OSD has done great in helping us with emergency intervention funding so we can build additional child care

spaces. Through their efforts, we have opened up 2,200 additional

spaces because we can use O&M funding and you can get them

done fast. However, the National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) language that constructs CDCs with O&M funding rather

than MILCON expires this year. So we would really like the committee’s help to extend this waiver so we can continue to build

these child care spaces in a timely manner.

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much.

And you, ma’am, you mentioned the authority that is needed in

one of the programs as well. Is that something that you can make

certain that we are very well aware of? Okay. Thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Before we go to Mrs. Drake, Madam Secretary, I

wasn’t sure of one of your answers to Mrs. Davis.

You were talking about, I think, minor MILCON projects, and

you said that the authority is going to end. What authority are you

talking about?

Ms. ARSHT. That is the emergency intervention from the supplemental funding we used. The construction of the child care centers

doesn’t come under the normal MILCON budget. It is a separate

emergency authority.

Mr. MYERS. They come under O&M funds, so you don’t have to

go through the whole MILCON process so you can build them a

heck of a lot faster; less than a year, sometimes months.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Mrs. Drake.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here.

First, I have asked this before in other hearings, but I am concerned about the base credentialing. And the adverse effects that

the lack of implementation could have on our MWR activities.

Madam Secretary, if you could tell us, how do you view the current status or progress for base credentialing and what progress

has been made, and is it on track for a timely implementation, and

is there something that could be done in the meantime until the

Department has electronic readers in place? Could you give us your

assessment of that?

Ms. ARSHT. I think there may be two parts to this answer. The

first part is a concern by our business partners and vendors who

have sought credentials that would allow them to come on the installations. And as Mr. Dominguez reported in the resale hearings

just a couple of weeks ago, there is a program now that we believe

is compliant with Homeland Security, that is being implemented in

14

Europe and in Korea and next to go to southwest Asia that we believe is going to meet the needs of the vendors. And that will come

next after Southwest Asia to the U.S. It will be accessible both to

commanders and will make it much easier for vendors to monitor

and manage the people who need to come on the installations.

I think you were speaking about employees also.

Mrs. DRAKE. And the employees of our vendors as well as employees.

Ms. ARSHT. They would be covered, I believe, under this system.

Mrs. DRAKE. If I could get each of the services to let me know

what their concerns are, if they feel this is coming, because it is

a big concern in people’s minds right now.

General PINCKNEY. From the Army, ma’am, this would be—this

would be a topic that I would take back to the Installation Command, the United States Army Command, because in the Army,

the garrison commander and the senior mission commander make

these kinds of decisions, and so I know that there is some concern

with the amount of dollars, resources, that would be required to

implement.

Mrs. DRAKE. And also to hear from say, Mr. Myers, next and

then go down the line to make sure that we are doing one and not

multiple ones for our vendors who work on multiple bases.

Mr. Myers, could you give us your take on that?

Mr. MYERS. Of all of the years I have been with the Air Force,

I have never heard really a concern from the vendors as far as access from the base, and today, of course, we are really concerned

about force protection and so forth. So in the Air Force, we have

a system that if the vendor is going to visit us, we will make the

person available to assist them in getting on the base and so forth.

So I think the big concerns that we have to look at is the force

protection part.

But I will tell you, in the Air Force, I have never had that concern brought to my attention.

Mrs. DRAKE. Really.

Admiral.

Admiral HANDLEY. I will tell you from my own experience down

in Norfolk, vendor access was an issue. I would say less in the

MWR arena than it was in the exchange arena because of the number of vendors, and you get longer-term relationships with them.

But I will tell you, on every base that we have, we work vendor

issues, I think you bring a valid point is if they go from base to

base or installation or especially service to service, do they have a

different process they would do?

Most of our processes do tend to be regional by local to an installation. Under regionalization, we will set one policy for the region.

So we don’t have that problem as much in going from an installation like on a Norfolk Naval base to Oceana, but we may have that

problem if you go over to an Army or Air Force installation. That

I don’t know.

But I would tell you that we do do that consistently across the

Navy. It is an issue that we will continue to monitor as base access

technology also changes. We also look at common access card (CAC)

readers and other things for access as well.

Mrs. DRAKE. General Downs.

15

Mr. DOWNS. The driving force for this is the Homeland Security

Presidential Directive that was issued in August of 2004. And it

places a great deal of responsibility on the individual installation

commanders and for us in the decentralized way to bring this security apparatus up to place and to make certain that adequate,

background investigations and credentialing is done.

We have had some installations on the West Coast that it implemented a stop-gap measure for credentialing that could be problematic.

Right now, it has not impacted anybody, to my knowledge, and

we are as much concerned about our non-appropriated fund employees as we are of vendors. And within the Marine Corps, it is

not as well coordinated as it ought to be. The policy is run by C–

4. They run the policy on the covered access card. The security

folks are the ones that have interest in the security piece to it.

There is a Marine installation board scheduled on the 25th and

26th of April, and I have a paper that addresses this issue and we

would hope to—we will discuss this from Marine Corps headquarters oversight of installations and those responsible for installations Marine Corps wide.

But your point is right on. We need to have a Marine Corps-wide,

really a DOD-wide solution, not one by base.

Mrs. DRAKE. And particularly in regions like southeast Virginia

where we have all of the bases, every branch of the military has

a base.

But Madam Secretary, do you have any update on that General

Accounting Office (GAO) study that is being done? We are being

told it could be as late as September of this year and DOD is waiting on them. So do you have any information on that, or could you

get back to us on that?

Ms. ARSHT. Which study is this?

Mrs. DRAKE. The GAO study. We are being told DOD is waiting

on that.

Ms. ARSHT. On base access?

Mrs. DRAKE. On base access and credentials.

Ms. ARSHT. I will take that for the record.

Mrs. DRAKE. If you would do that, I appreciate it. I have one

more, but I don’t know if you want to do another round.

If I could also ask about the merging, where we are doing joint

bases and we are merging the MWR programs. If, Madam Secretary, if we could hear from you and then from each of the service

representatives how—whether progress is or is not being made on

the merging of these MWR programs. I am hearing both; it is going

well, there is good progress, and then I am hearing that it is not.

So I wonder, from your perspective, if you could bring us up-to-date

on that.

Ms. ARSHT. I can say initially there is consensus that we all want

to ensure that the quality-of-life programs are sustained and even

in this opportunity perhaps improved in places as part of the joint

basing concept. Every one at this table or their designees have

been involved in working groups to address the issues around joint

basing and MWR, and performance levels is one of the areas of concern that is being worked. And I am certain that the services will

want to speak about this.

16

Perhaps we will start with Mr. Myers.

Mrs. DRAKE. Go right down. Thank you.

Mr. MYERS. I believe joint basing is going to have a huge adverse

effect on employees. For instance, for our NAF employees, each

service has a different retirement program, a different life insurance program, a different severance program. On our appropriated

fund employees, like in the Air Force, we have a career program

for them, and under joint basing, if you are at Bolling Air Force

Base, you become a Navy employee. So here I am an Air Force employee. I have been working for a career job in the Air Force and

all of a sudden, I become a Navy employee under Navy rules. And

if I am an appropriated fund employee, the other services for our

type of positions normally change them to non-appropriated fund

employees.

And remember, under a non-appropriated employee, if I am an

appropriated fund employee, I go the NAF, before I have Blue

Cross and Blue Shield as an appropriated fund employee. Now as

a NAF, I have a choice of one health care plan. So that is a big

change.

Plus, the majority of our employees can be represented by a

union, and I believe unions will have a problem with their personnel. We could have different standards at every single base.

So I think we are going to have a big impact on our employees.

As I go out in the field to talk to them, a lot of them that are on

a joint base want to go back to an Air Force base, and consequently, I have been to an Army base where they want to move

to an Army base because they want to stay in that system.

Plus, I believe it has an impact on us on our operational mission.

For instance, in services, we have military personnel postured to

deploy at joint bases. Many of them are going to convert these to

contractors and so forth, so therefore we lose our opportunity for

deployment.

And finally, all of the services have different standards. When

the Air Force fights, we fight from the base. So consequently, we

put a lot of effort into basing through the years. The other services,

the Navy, will fight from the ships, the Army and Marine Corps

from the field. We will see an adverse impact as far as standards

for our people at joint basing.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you.

General.

General PINCKNEY. Yes, ma’am.

From the Army’s perspective, Mr. Myers has been talking to the

portability issue with non-appropriated fund employees, and that is

an issue that is being worked. But the Army takes the lead at Fort

Lewis and McCord, and I have been out there, and I have visited

them. And what I liked about what I saw was the fact that on a

regular basis the Air Force garrison commander at McCord was

working closely with the Army garrison commander at Fort Lewis.

They were meeting on a regular basis. They were—they were looking at it from a different perspective. They were taking the quality

of one service over the other.

For instance, if there was an area that the Air Force had that

was better than the processes—the processes were better than

what the Army had, they were making the decision to see if they

17

would meet that process. The Army, Fort Lewis, for instance, has

a point-of-sales system that the Air Force didn’t have and felt that

they needed, and it was an easy way to give them that system.

So I like their approach. They were documenting the differences,

but their approach was, let us take the best of both worlds, and we

will work through the delta, and the delta wasn’t that big with the

exception of the portability issue.

Mrs. DRAKE. Admiral.

Admiral HANDLEY. Yes, ma’am. I will tell you, change is always

hard; isn’t it? And I will tell you that, as we work through the details of joint basing, and I sit on the Senior Joint Base Working

Group with Secretary Grone, and I have had many lengthy discussions with Major General Eulberg from the Air Force about the

challenges that await us there and how we are going to best meet

them, and Mr. Myers accurately I think portrayed some of the anxiety that is probably out there with some of that workforce.

A couple of things that we are doing in order to address that.

Secretary Grone has been putting out joint implementations, standards and guidelines still in draft form that we are trying to settle

on. But to help further that, both the Army—or the Air Force and

the Navy have joined together in holding some table top exercises

for joint basing. General Eulberg and I just yesterday kicked off

the initial planning conference for the first one at Bolling Air Force

Base and Naval Station Anacostia because we have to work

through all of these details to do that.

We are doing this in an effort to make sure that we look at the

standards that we are going to go to and make sure that we meet

those.

By and large, I think the experience that the Army has represented here is representative of what we are doing in joint basing. In fact, we are looking at what the best standard is out there.

We may not go to the most expensive solution, but we are looking

at the standard that we are going to be proud of. And for the most

part, I think most people are going to see an increase in standards

across the board as we go to joint basing.

From my own personal perspective, I think that this is also part

of the future for the Department of Defense as we look at the opportunities to leverage the assets we have jointly as opposed to

running them individually.

So as we go through this, we are going through it with eyes wide

open. We know there are plenty of challenges out there, and we are

going to address those as we go through the implementation guides

with DOD and as Madam Secretary mentioned. We have all at

some point been involved in the roll-out of that, and we will continue to work that again through the BRAC process but also

through the joint basing process.

Mrs. DRAKE. General Downs.

Mr. DOWNS. Yes, ma’am.

The only installation in the Marine Corps mentioned in joint basing in the BRAC was Henderson Hall where the joint base was between Henderson Hall and Fort Myer. The BRAC Commission recognized the responsibilities Henderson Hall has to Marine Corps

headquarters and to Marines in the National Capitol Region, and

the MWR non-appropriated fund and to include the exchanges. All

18

of Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) was excluded from

the elements of Henderson Hall to be consolidated with Fort Myer

by BRAC. That decision is confirmed in the draft joint base guidance. And so, at this time, there is no—there are no joint base implications for the Marine Corps.

Obviously, with the impending move of Marines from Camp Butler in Okinawa to Guam—Guam is a joint base. The differences

there will be, there is no Marine presence at Guam now. So it won’t

be—we will have to work that as the time comes, and that is some

years away yet.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

We have been joined by Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The reason I was delayed is I am going to be on a Congressional

Delegation (CODEL) with Congressman Ortiz visiting Guam this

coming week on our way, amazingly enough, on our way to Hanoi,

Vietnam. But as you—I want to always state how much we appreciate when we visit with our troops overseas, how inspiring it is to

see the new greatest generation. And this will be my third visit to

Guam, and each time, I am just so pleased with the young people

who are serving and protecting our country.

Thank you very much.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

I wanted to touch briefly again on the issue of child care, Madam

Secretary. In both of your written statements and in the discussion

today, we talk about the shortfall, which is something that everyone wants to correct. I want to ask the question, how do you monitor quality of child care?

Ms. ARSHT. Not only do we monitor it ourselves and the services

do as well; they all manage their waiting lists and have annual reports and do inspections and all of that, but just this month we received an accolade that we are very proud of. And that is the National Association of Child Care Research and Referral Agencies

did a study to rank all 50 States and the District of Columbia child

care programs for oversight and standards. Included in the oversight was an evaluation of efficiency to make sure that resources

were being used properly.

And out of those rankings, DOD child care centers came out on

top of both lists. And the agencies suggested that DOD’s child care

centers should be a model for the Nation. So we are very proud of

that. We want to be able to sustain that. We think our partnership

with this national organization will build additional capacity for us

outside the gate both for—with discounting their fees and as a finder service to find quality child care that is a model kind of relationship for us to have, also to build capacity and to make sure that

quality is maintained.

Dr. SNYDER. I want to ask a second question. I will ask it to you

and if anybody else wants to join in, feel free to on that question

or this one.

If I have a special needs kid—and we are expecting a report out,

I think in April, from DOD on autism and how the military is going

19

to handle autism. That is a common diagnosis amongst toddlers

these days. It has major ramifications on families. And yet you all

are in a business where one of the parents in a household who has

trouble enough keeping up with one or two children that don’t have

special needs may be jerked out and transplanted away for 15 or

18 months and leaving one parent behind in a household with one

child that has—or maybe more that has—very dramatic increase in

need in child care and therapy.

How do you all feel—where do these programs fit into those families, our military families, with special needs children such as autism?

Ms. ARSHT. The special needs children receive preference in

placement in DOD child care centers. But perhaps one of you all

would like to speak to it in practice.

General PINCKNEY. Well, in addition to that, because those parents need a break, we have respite care where we provide hours

so those parents can get a break as well.

Mr. MYERS. I agree with both those statements. They do get priority, and we are very attuned to their needs, and I believe we

have been successful across the board in meeting the needs of those

families.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Myers, how has the impact of the reductions in

numbers in the Air Force, how has that impacted on services to our

men and women in uniform in the Air Force and their families? We

have heard complaints over the last year or so that some of the

first things to go are perhaps some of the things you all have been

working on. How has the reduction in numbers impacted on the

programs that you are working on?

Mr. MYERS. The impact has so far been minimal.

Dr. SNYDER. Minimal, but present?

Mr. MYERS. But present. And the reason is we were only manned

at about 85 percent. So when we gave up positions the first year,

we gave up authorizations and not faces. So what we have done

with our predominantly military personnel—and in my organization, all of our military personnel deploy—we have sort of postured

them at our bases with a warfighting mission to deploy. And our

people who deploy work in food service, work in lodging, work in

fitness, work in mortuary. So we are starting to migrate them to

all of the bases and we are backfilling the military with our NAF,

MOA and other positions.

So, so far in the Air Force, we haven’t seen an impact. We will

see some impact in the future but we are already planning with

our strategic plan and so forth to meet the needs of our community.

For instance, in some bases we have had the same programs at

every base, but there is not a need for that program. So we can

shift those resources to our programs where they are needed.

So I think we have a good plan. I mean, it is not going to be

easy, but you know the Air Force’s priority has always been taking

care of its people and we will continue to do that.

Dr. SNYDER. For example, if I were to go out there and look,

would I be able to find Air Force bases in which there had been

a reduction of hours at a fitness center?

Mr. MYERS. If you go out there, you could find a fitness center

with some reduction in hours. You know, in the past we have had

20

some fitness centers open 24 hours a day, where in the middle of

the night there was little or no people using it. So we have reduced

it that way.

And some of our dining facilities, we have had midnight meals

with only a handful of people showing up, so we have reduced that.

But we have other alternatives where we do our box lunches and

so forth to provide meals.

So I think we have taken efficient—looking at prudent measures

to reduce operations where they impact our personnel the least.

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to go back to this issue that Mr. McHugh

touched on with regard to the dollars. And if we could just go down

the line. Mr. Myers, let’s start with you.

When I look at this chart that compares appropriated funding in

2003 with funding in 2007, but putting an inflationary increase in

there so it will compare real dollars to real dollars, and when I see

that there is a reduction, the number hasn’t kept pace with inflation, I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know,

how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are

about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between the services.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. MYERS. Well, in the Air Force, as I say, we always put the

priority on our number one weapon, our airmen and taking care of

their families. We have seen some reduction in our appropriated

fund support because we are going to modernize, recapitalize our

aircraft and so forth in the Air Force. And over the years, we have

just been more efficient. We have done a lot of lean events where

we can do things more efficient and more better across the board.

As I said, some programs that weren’t being used, we are eliminating them and so forth. I travel the Air Force a lot. I got my

quality-of-life programs where we have seen some reductions, I

think. And over the long term, our programs will survive.

The only programs that I have serious concerns about is our construction program, and that is as a result of the significant reduction in AAFES uniforms, in AAFES dividends.

We protect our bases. Our bases always get their dividends up

front so they know exactly what they are going to get every year.

Whatever is left over, we use in construction. So with the reduction

in AAFES dividends, we are going to do a lot less construction than

we have in the past. So of all my major concerns, I think AAFES

dividends is the major one right now.

Dr. SNYDER. General Pinckney

General PINCKNEY. Sir, in the Army I can look at categories A,

B and C, but I also look at military construction, and I look at the

Army Family Program appropriated fund dollars coming in as well.

So when we compare 2003 execution to budget 2007, I look at ’07,

and what I see is a projection of more dollars, and primarily because of the military construction that I talked to earlier. The Army is committed, and they have added $180 million in the

MILCON specifically for MWR programs. And that is 29 CDC, 3

youth centers, 2 fitness, and a pool.

The other issue you mentioned earlier is the percentage, the 83

percent for the Army. That really on record seems to be a decrease

21

in percentages, but that actually was a difference of methodology.

The Army looked at it from a more logical perspective, whereas we

considered all categories, A, B, and C, and we looked at appropriated and non-appropriated fund dollars. So the total sum—and

as we compare that to, say, a category A, if I actually would have

used the same formula that everybody else used for category A, we

would not show an 83 percent, we would show an 87 percent.

So I see the Army committing to actually putting more dollars

in Family and MWR programs.

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral Hadley.

Admiral HADLEY. Thank you, sir.

To summarize on my earlier comments, one of the things that we

in the Navy went through, you take 2003 as a bit of a high watermark for us, but really the major changes for us in 2004 was the

standup of the commander—of Navy Installations Command. Obviously, significant efficiencies when you go from eight organizations

managing installations, managing different MWR programs, you

bring that into one. Our efficiencies that we have gained through

regionalization have also made a significant contribution for us.

And then, finally, is the last, the pull in management program

from that one.

The other one I will add, you have to look at this in total from

a requirements base as opposed to a straight either a percentage

of appropriated funds or a dollars of appropriated funds. And we

go through a very rigorous process to define our requirements and

then we fund to those requirements, and those do require us to

look at the levels of service that we provide based on location,

based on demographics.

You know, clearly, overseas locations we provide a different level

of service. There are different important programs that you might

have. For example, a library overseas is going to be far more important than it would be in a place where we have that service

right outside the gate.

But, again, we look at it from a requirements base as we go forward. But we have seen significant efficiencies in the last three to

five years as we have gone through the consolidation of those programs.

Dr. SNYDER. And I think, Mr. Downs, I heard your comment before and your number is—my numbers don’t look as down as the

other.

Mr. DOWNS. Yes. I would like to reinforce what General Pinckney

said regarding comparing program dollars in 2007 to actuals. And

we are comparing in this figure 145.7 as an inflated 2003, to 138.

In truth, in fiscal year 2006 we spent 162.6 in execution. I would

expect the 138.4 to be substantially higher at the end of 2007 than

it is shown right now. And so it is a little misleading.

Dr. SNYDER. I gotcha.

Mrs. Drake, do you have anything further? We had originally, I

think, probably told you all to estimate about from two o’clock to

four o’clock, and I think we will try to stick with it.

I want to apologize for having to get up and leave a short time

ago. But to make the point, I carry my BlackBerry. I have a wife

and ten-month-old baby in Little Rock. And I looked at it and it

said, your wife needs you to call now. So I went out there and

22

called. She said, you didn’t need to call now, it wasn’t an emergency.

But I don’t ever forget how many of our men and women overseas have kids that are literally 12,000 miles away and are blessed

or cursed with good communication.

And on the Little Rock Air Force Base, I met with some families

not so long ago. We have got a public school that is operated by

and owned by the local school district that really needs to be replaced, and it has needed to be replaced for years. And one of the

families told me, it was a real pain overseas for a person, either

mother or father in the Air Force, to get an e-mail from the their

kid that the roof leaked again on my desk and all my paperwork

and my books were ruined.

Well, that is just a little thing, but that is the kind of thing you

don’t want your mothers and fathers that are based overseas to

have to hear from their kid, almost in realtime nowadays, about

what is going on in their school.

So what you do is really important to us. It is really important

to the families. You all know that. And we really do want to help

you in any way we can, because it is such a huge part of the morale of all our military families, but particularly those who are divided up for periods of time because of deployment.

And we appreciate you all being here. I will give you this open

invitation. If there is anything you think you need to clear up on

any of these numbers, I will just submit it as a statement for the

record, and we will add that on, and the staff will get it to us. We

will put it as part of the record.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 141.]

Dr. SNYDER. Anything further, Mrs. Drake?

The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 29, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 29, 2007

(27)

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

MARCH 29, 2007

(141)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Dr. SNYDER. I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know, how

you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.

Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are

pretty dramatic differences between the services.

Ms. ARSHT. The Department of Defense does not wish to add additional comments.

Dr. SNYDER. I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know, how

you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.

Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are

pretty dramatic differences between the services.

General PINCKNEY. The Army has nothing else to add.

Dr. SNYDER. I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know, how

you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.

Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are

pretty dramatic differences between the services.

Admiral HANDLEY. Navy has no additional information to add or correct.

Dr. SNYDER. I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know, how

you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.

Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are

pretty dramatic differences between the services.

Mr. MYERS. We appreciate the committee’s continued support for Air Force MWR

and quality of life programs. As we transform our forces to meet the warfighting

needs of the future, competition intensifies for scarce resources. The efforts of the

Military Personnel Subcommittee has been and will continue to be instrumental in

helping us provide for our Airmen and their families’ needs.

Dr. SNYDER. I need each one of you from the services to explain, you know, how

you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.

Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number better. And there are

pretty dramatic differences between the services.

Mr. DOWNS. The Marine Corps is not projecting to spend less on MWR programs.

The following display depicts a Marine Corps MWR budget increase of 34 percent

between FY03 and FY07 (the period of interest to the Subcommittee). This stable

budget profile sustains existing operations and programs. The FY03 and FY06 actual data totals include additional funds allocated during the year of execution (e.g.,

supplemental). It is important to note that budgeted numbers differ from actual

spending. Comparisons (between budgeted figures and actual figures/two different

data points) yield inaccurate spending projections.

FY03 Budget FY03 Actual FY06 Budget FY06 Actual FY07

Total MWR Direct 120,275 131,699 130,920 162,551 138,359

MWR Indirect 38,152 57,273 73,442 79,176 74,629

Total MWR 158,427 188,972 204,362 241,727 212,988

MWR programs are of significant value to the Marine Corps and these programs

have successfully sustained rigorous budget prioritization sessions. For the third

consecutive year, the Marine Corps has met or exceeded the 85/65 minimum APF

funding metric for Categories A and B activities established by DoD. Our Installation Commanders actively monitor program delivery, and at the Headquarters level,

we work to ensure continued compliance with DoD standards.

The Marine Corps is not anticipating a reduction in the level of MWR operations

and programs. Specific MWR priorities are established by the respective Installation

Commanders responsible for the provision of installation support services, to include

MWR. This decentralized execution of support services optimizes Commander flexiVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:16 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 038163 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-52\088020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
142

bilities to quickly adapt operations to meet current and future needs within available resources.

Future MWR trends for the Marine Corps Exchange dividends are positive. The

Marine Corps dividend is up 34 percent from 2005 to 2006. Irrespective of a slight

decline in 2007, our dividend remains 28.5 percent higher than in 2005.

Dr. SNYDER. While it is important to measure the services’ commitment in terms

of the percentage of appropriated fund support for a program, I would think you

must also review the total amount of spending on MWR. For example, if you looked

at the percentage of appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you

could maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR

programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when evaluating service MWR

programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral Handley, why has the Navy’s funding of MWR

programs fallen so consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in Army

appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what is the affect

of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?

Ms. ARSHT. This is a good point. The continued vitality of military MWR programs

depends on consistent APF support. We also review whether or not the overall MWR

funding goes up or down significantly and for what purposes. Funding must be reviewed from several angles. The current APT support metric serves a good purpose

to monitor the degree of appropriated funding of MWR programs by category, and

to measure compliance with established funding standards. The metric is not very

useful when viewed in isolation, and it must be considered in context with total APF

support to be meaningful. However, the metric fails to highlight significant disparities between the Military Services’ APF support. The metric could be improved by

excluding APF indirect support, which is already included in the public works budget, and standardizing the formula for apportionment of APF direct overhead and

non-appropriated fund common support between Categories A, B, and C. I have

been working with the Services to determine recommendations for improving the

metric and would like to brief the Committee staff on the proposed changes before

they are implemented.

Dr. SNYDER. While it is important to measure the services’ commitment in terms

of the percentage of appropriated fund support for a program, I would think you

must also review the total amount of spending on MWR. For example, if you looked

at the percentage of appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you

could maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR

programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when evaluating service MWR

programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral Handley, why has the Navy’s funding of MWR

programs fallen so consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in Army

appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what is the affect

of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?

General PINCKNEY. MWR program access and quality have not been diminished

or reduced due to lack of appropriated funds. Soldiers and Families consistently

rank MWR programs very high in both importance and use. Garrison commanders

typically use non-appropriated funds when appropriated funds are insufficient.

The increased Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006

is a result of the increased worldwide commitments and the high priority Army commanders place on MWR programs for Soldiers and Families. Large swings in appropriated funding may result in inconsistent and unpredictable delivery of services.

For example, upward swings may reduce the shortfall of child care spaces, and

downward swings may result in the permanent loss of MWR programs at some installations.

Dr. SNYDER. While it is important to measure the services’ commitment in terms

of the percentage of appropriated fund support for a program, I would think you

must also review the total amount of spending on MWR. For example, if you looked

at the percentage of appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you

could maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR

programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when evaluating service MWR

programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to some degree to cutting back on MWR proVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:16 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 038163 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-52\088020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
143

gram access and quality? Admiral Handley, why has the Navy’s funding of MWR

programs fallen so consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in Army

appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what is the affect

of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?

Admiral HANDLEY. The Navy’s overall budget for base operating support has been

and remains tight and that has placed increasing pressure on our ability to fund

MWR at pre-2004 levels. Thus, we have focused our efforts on continuing to find

overhead and operational efficiencies and carefully prioritizing programs so that we

ensure adequate funding for essential mission support MWR programs that are

strongly supported by Sailors and their families. This has resulted in curtailment

or elimination of some programs that could not reasonably be sustained with increased user fees or were not widely supported by users but undoubtedly had a positive impact on our ability to meet the appropriated fund percentage guidelines.

Total Navy MWR, which includes MWR and Child and Youth Programs appropriated funding is budgeted to decline through FY07 as compared to FY03, but

trends upward at the same rate as expected inflation across the Future Years Defense Program.

With Congressional support, we will continue to fund our core MWR programs to

the fullest extent possible. Core MWR programs include: fitness; afloat recreation

and movies; Single Sailor (Liberty) programs; child and youth programs; Information, Tickets, and Tours (ITT); and libraries.

Dr. SNYDER. While it is important to measure the services’ commitment in terms

of the percentage of appropriated fund support for a program, I would think you

must also review the total amount of spending on MWR. For example, if you looked

at the percentage of appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you

could maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR

programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when evaluating service MWR

programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral Handley, why has the Navy’s funding of MWR

programs fallen so consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in Army

appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what is the affect

of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?

Mr. MYERS. Cutting back on appropriated fund (APF) MWR program funding can

skew the figures representing the percentage of APF support provided. However, the

Air Force places a high value on Quality of Life programs and tracks APF support

carefully at each installation. Each Wing Commander is attuned to supporting the

MWR needs of the Airmen and their families and ensures programs are well funded,

but more importantly are meeting the needs of the base population. The Air Force

is continually looking for ways to provide the same high quality service more efficiently thereby reducing overall APF requirements. For example, the Air Force has

significantly reduced APF expenditures by using non-appropriated fund (NAF) memorandums of agreement (MOAs) to provide services in activities such as libraries

and outdoor recreation. The Air Force then pays the NAF account for the costs of

providing these services. The NAF programs are able to provide the same high quality service while reducing the APF bill by 10 to 15 percent, without impacting quality of life. Since 2003, our use of MOAs has grown from $14 million to nearly $37

million. While these are still APF expenditures, cost savings are realized in the form

of reduced civilian pay and other associated costs.

Dr. SNYDER. While it is important to measure the services’ commitment in terms

of the percentage of appropriated fund support for a program, I would think you

must also review the total amount of spending on MWR. For example, if you looked

at the percentage of appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you

could maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR

programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when evaluating service MWR

programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral Handley, why has the Navy’s funding of MWR

programs fallen so consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in Army

appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what is the affect

of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?

144

Mr. DOWNS. The Marine Corps MWR appropriated fund budget increased 34 percent between FY03 and FY07. This stable budget profile sustains existing operations

and programs to include access and quality.

Dr. SNYDER.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

Service FY 2003

Actual

FY 2007

Programmed

FY 2003

Inflated to 2007 Difference

Army 460.5 471.5 509.3 (¥37.8)—7%

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (¥108.2)—27%

Air Force 539.4 545.6 596.6 (¥51.0)—9%

Marine Corps 131.7 138.4 145.7 (¥7.3)—5%

Total DOD 1,501.3 1,456.1 1,660.4 (¥204.3)—12%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal year 2003 when inflation is

considered, what should be the Subcommittee’s view of the future of MWR programs

in the military community?

Ms. ARSHT. MWR programs have a profound impact on the quality of life of our

Service members and their families. The continued vitality of military MWR programs depends on consistent APF support to non-revenue generating programs. The

chart below is MWR direct support only (no indirect support) and as noted does not

include global war on terror (GWOT) supplemental funds for FY 2004–2006.

There is concern about the funding trend for the MWR program, because the FY

2007 budget indicates the Army is budgeted to lose $93.7 million and the Marine

Corps is budgeted to lose $16.3 million from actual FY 2006 expenditures. Looking

historically, the Navy MWR program is budgeted to receive $69.2 million less than

in FY 2003. Typically, the Services offset any decline in APF funding with a combination of cost reduction, program cutbacks (usually in Category B programs), or

increasing non-appropriated fund support. Some Services are able to get additional

funding due to reprogramming actions during the year of execution, but often the

additional money comes late in the year. When funding is inconsistent, programs

and facilities are usually degraded and the quality of life for Service members and

their families is negatively impacted.

Based on growth by inflation, in FY 2008 Army funding is on track while Navy,

Air Force and Marine Corps funding continue to lag behind minimal inflation rates

since FY 2003 (Difference between FY08 inflated funding and FY08 budget—Navy:

¥$102.8, Air Force: ¥$53, and Marine Corps: ¥$12).

Fiscal Years 2003 to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

MWR Direct Support Only without GWOT for FY 2004–2006 *

Service 2003

Actual

2004 *

Actual

2005 *

Actual

2006 *

Actual

2007 *

Budget

Difference

between

FY03 &

FY07

2008

Budget

Army Total 460.5 426.5 445.5 565.3 471.5 11.0 553.8

Difference from prior year ¥34.0 19.0 119.7 ¥93.7 82.3

Navy Total 369.7 325.5 303.0 291.9 300.6 ¥69.2 316.3

Difference from prior year ¥44.2 ¥22.6 ¥11.1 8.7 15.7

Air Force Total 539.4 543.6 537.6 511.7 545.6 6.2 558.5

Difference from prior year 4.2 ¥6.0 ¥25.8 33.8 12.9

USMC Total 131.7 133.5 149.1 154.7 138.4 6.7 137.3

Difference from prior year 1.8 15.6 5.6 ¥16.3 ¥1.1

Total 1,501.3 1,429.1 1,435.2 1,523.6 1,456.0 ¥45.2 1,565.9

¥72.1 6.1 88.4 ¥67.6 109.9

Source: OP–34; President’s Budget—Direct Support

* Does not include GWOT Supplemental expenditures

Dr. SNYDER.

145

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

Service FY 2003

Actual

FY 2007

Programmed

FY 2003

Inflated to 2007 Difference

Army 460.5 471.5 509.3 (¥37.8)—7%

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (¥108.2)—27%

Air Force 539.4 545.6 596.6 (¥51.0)—9%

Marine Corps 131.7 138.4 145.7 (¥7.3)—5%

Total DOD 1,501.3 1,456.1 1,660.4 (¥204.3)—12%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal year 2003 when inflation is

considered, what should be the Subcommittee’s view of the future of MWR programs

in the military community? Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned

about the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for the

Congress to step in to protect these programs?

General PINCKNEY. Soldier Family Programs continue to remain a priority at all

leadership levels. Army continues to offer robust MWR programs within available

resources to best meet the needs of Soldiers and Families. The Army executed

$565M on MWR and Child and Youth Services (CYS) activities for FY06. This expenditure represents a 23% increase from FY03 actual, which exceeds the 10% inflation experienced over the same period of time. First priority for appropriated funding goes to MWR programs and services that support deployed Soldiers and their

Family members. These programs include sports, fitness, recreation center, library,

outdoor recreation, and auto skills programs, and child and youth services programs. It is important to note that not all of the Army’s MWR funding is in the

base budget. MWR programs that directly support the global war on terror are funded in the Supplemental. In FY07, the Army again plans to increase Family program

funding above the level in the FY07 budget providing additional MWR funding during the rest of the year of execution as we have in previous years as shown in the

table below. The Army appreciates Congressional support of Army MWR programs.

FY03 FY06 FY07

($M) (Budget) (Actual) (Budget) (Actual) (Budget)

MWR Direct 217.1 237.2 220.0 306.5 214.6

CYS Direct 194.0 221.4 237.7 258.5 239.3

Total MWR Direct 411.1 458.6 457.7 565.0 453.9

Dr. SNYDER.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

Service FY 2003

Actual

FY 2007

Programmed

FY 2003

Inflated to 2007 Difference

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (¥108.2)—27%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 than they did in fiscal year 2003 when inflation is

considered, what should be the Subcommittee’s view of the future of MWR programs

in the military community? Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned

about the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for the

Congress to step in to protect these programs?

Admiral HANDLEY. 1. In PB08 budget submission, Navy programmed to execute

MWR at Common Output Level 2 (COL 2) on Naval installations outside the continental US (OCONUS) and COL 3 for installations within the continental US

(CONUS). This is an increase in service level provided at COL 3 and addresses both

MWR programs and equipment. In PB08 budget submission, Navy programmed to

execute CD at COL 3 for both CONUS and OCONUS installations.

2. An extensive review of alternative program delivery models determined that

more efficient delivery systems such as greater partnering with outside organizations would streamline operations and maintain program delivery levels despite reduced funding. Some examples of successful partnering efforts are the ‘‘Boys and

Girls Club’’ certified affiliation for all Navy youth centers, mutually supporting

146

Memorandums of Agreement with the Navy Exchange Food Service and Vending

programs and the ‘‘First Five Commission’’ in San Diego area child development

centers.

3. The effect of global war on terror—GWOT places additional demands on MWR

program quality and capacity for programs outside the core program group. These

requirements are addressed in GWOT appropriations and Congress has supported

these requests in the past. 4. Included in FY03 reporting figures is $5.2M MPN working within MWR at various activities. MPN dollars are not reported in FY 2007 figures.

5. Congressional support, other than fully supporting all Base Operating functions

is not required to protect the Navy MWR program.

Dr. SNYDER.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

Service FY 2003

Actual

FY 2007

Programmed

FY 2003

Inflated to 2007 Difference

Army 460.5 471.5 509.3 (¥37.8)—7%

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (¥108.2)—27%

Air Force 539.4 545.6 596.6 (¥51.0)—9%

Marine Corps 131.7 138.4 145.7 (¥7.3)—5%

Total DOD 1,501.3 1,456.1 1,660.4 (¥204.3)—12%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal year 2003 when inflation is

considered, what should be the Subcommittee’s view of the future of MWR programs

in the military community?

Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for the Congress to step in to

protect these programs?

Mr. MYERS. The table above takes actual spending from FY 2003, projects it forward with inflation, and compares that to the amount shown in the FY 2007 budget.

A budget-to-budget comparison would show Air Force with $543.9M in the FY 2003

budget, which would be inflated to $601.6M and reflect an apparent reduction of

$56M. Regardless of whether the number is $51M or $55M, there is always concern

when funding appears to decrease. Congress should be concerned about any degradation, or potential for degradation, in support for the service member. However,

this is not inevitable. As part of our efforts to transform and deal with reduced resources, Air Force Services has and will continue to develop new tools and procedures to evaluate the needs and preferences of our Airmen and their families to ensure our programs remain relevant. Congress has always expressed its will regarding MWR programs, and our commanders have struggled to provide the needed resources. We do foresee potential problems with base realignment and closure

(BRAC). Appropriated funds are supposed to pay for BRAC impacts, to include expanding MWR and exchange facilities and programs at gaining bases. We have

identified over $136 million in lodging and MWR requirements at these locations

and will continue to pursue funding.

Dr. SNYDER.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal Year 2007

[Dollars in Millions]

Service FY 2003

Actual

FY 2007

Programmed

FY 2003

Inflated to 2007 Difference

Army 460.5 471.5 509.3 (¥37.8)—7%

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (¥108.2)—27%

Air Force 539.4 545.6 596.6 (¥51.0)—9%

Marine Corps 131.7 138.4 145.7 (¥7.3)—5%

Total DOD 1,501.3 1,456.1 1,660.4 (¥204.3)—12%

Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for the Congress to step in to

protect these programs?

Mr. DOWNS. The Marine Corps is not projecting to spend less on MWR programs.

The following display depicts a Marine Corps MWR budget increase of 34 percent

between FY03 and FY07. This stable budget profile sustains existing operations and

147

programs. The FY03 and FY06 actual data totals include additional funds allocated

during the year of execution, (e.g., supplemental). It is important to note that budgeted numbers differ from actual spending. Comparisons (between budgeted figures

and actual figures/two different data points) yield inaccurate spending projections.

FY03

(Budget)

FY03

(Actual)

FY06

(Budget)

FY06

(Actual)

FY07

(Budget)

MW Direct 98,665 114,778 107,344 127,287 111,855

CD Direct 21,610 16,921 23,576 35,264 26,504

Total MWR Direct 120,275 131,699 130,920 162,551 138,359

MWR Indirect 38,152 57,273 73,442 79,176 74,629

Total MWR 158,427 188,972 204,362 241,727 212,988

Dr. SNYDER. One recent estimate suggests that the services remain approximately

27,000 child care spaces short of the total requirement. Ms. Arsht, what is the current shortage in available child care spaces as calculated by DOD and how is that

number calculated?

Ms. ARSHT. We calculate the shortage of care at approximately 30,000 spaces. The

number of spaces DoD provides fluctuates as a result of several factors, including

the loss of in-home care spaces offered by military spouses with a deployed member;

families who relocate during deployment to be closer to their extended family;

changing facility capacity due to shifts in age groups; population shifts due to rebasing; and personal decisions to change child care requirements as a result of stresses

tied with spouse’s deployment.

The Department developed a formula to project the macro child care need. This

formula utilizes Defense Manpower and Data Center demographic data, the total

number of children ages 0–12 years assigned to an installation, and an analysis of

potential demand (number of single parents, number of military couples, and number of children of military members whose spouses work outside the home, etc.). The

Service components adjust the formula to meet the particular nuances of their personnel and mission for a Service-wide perspective and then work with local installations to determine how much care is needed at specific installations. This check and

balance allows for unique adjustments based on local on and off installation capability, employment opportunities, mission requirements, and Service member demographics from additional sources such as stationing data.

Dr. SNYDER. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are important

to retention of families and that 20 percent of military families are not satisfied

with their current child care. The study also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you

aware of this Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options

that military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-military and single parent

families?

Ms. ARSHT. Yes, I am aware of the Rand study and am pleased that the survey

reinforced the Department’s position that child care is a retention issue for our families. It is important to note that 80 percent of the families were satisfied with their

current child care arrangement. The Department monitors parent satisfaction

through additional data sources such as the Services customer service surveys and

the DoD 2006 Survey of Active Duty spouses.

DoD supports the child care needs of families through a multifaceted approach

based on the principles of quality, accessibility, and affordability. While an existing

DoD child care arrangement may not be the parent’s first choice, DoD considers care

provided within the Child Development Program (CDP) system to be equivalent in

quality, and encourages the military Services to intervene until the family’s child

care needs are met. Subsidies available to home-based care providers equalize the

cost between center and home-based care. In order to better meet the needs of families who live off-installation, the Services have broadened child care options within

the community through their partnership with the National Association of Child

Care Resource and Referral Agencies. The 2006 DoD CDP annual Survey of Operations demonstrates that more than 20,000 subsidized outreach child care spaces

were utilized.

Military child care continues to be one of our most important programs for supporting families, especially during deployment. The Department acknowledges that

it is challenging to meet the child care needs of all military families. Many initiaVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:16 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 038163 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-52\088020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
148

tives have been implemented that will help families find quality and affordable child

care. For example; through the emergency intervention plan, we have accelerated

program availability through construction of both temporary child development centers and permanent renovations which are resulting in 7,000 spaces. Thank you for

your strong support of these programs.

Dr. SNYDER. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are important

to retention of families and that 20 percent of military families are not satisfied

with their current child care. The study also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you

aware of this Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options

that military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-military and single parent

families?

General PINCKNEY. Single and dual Army personnel receive priority for child care

in Child Development Centers, School-Age Programs, and Family Child Care

Homes. The Army requires that installations charge the lowest authorized fee for

single parent Families who fall under lower income categories.

Single and dual military Families are primary beneficiaries of the Army’s extended duty day subsidy, which includes evening, weekend, and long-term care in

Child and Youth Services Programs. Additional care hours needed (beyond the normal duty day in direct support of the mission) are provided at no additional cost

to these Families.

Dr. SNYDER. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are important

to retention of families and that 20 percent of military families are not satisfied

with their current child care. The study also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you

aware of this Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options

that military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-military and single parent

families?

Admiral HANDLEY. Navy continues to give single and dual military families highest priority for placement into our child care programs. Navy is adding 1,000 additional child care spaces over the next year that will support our single and dual

military families. Additionally, we offer extended hours programs in our military

home care program to support their unique situations.

Dr. SNYDER. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are important

to retention of families and that 20 percent of military families are not satisfied

with their current child care. The study also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you

aware of this Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options

that military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-military and single parent

families?

Mr. MEYERS. The Air Force remains steadfast in our commitment to provide Quality of Life initiatives including affordable and available child care through our Expanded Child Care programs. We also use the adjustment to the Department of Defense (DOD) formula for unmet need to ensure we more closely support the needs

of single and dual military families. Through partnerships with the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA), the Air Force offers additional child care placement opportunities through its Quality Family Child

Care program as well as other DOD-wide initiatives such as Military Child Care in

Your Neighborhood.

In addition, the Air Force offers a subsidy for those families unable to access care

in on-base facilities and those whose needs are better suited to Family Child Care

homes. The Air Force Subsidy program reduces out-of-pocket expenses by allowing

parents to pay the same fee they would if they were in a center-based facility. It

also provides increased child care options for children under two years of age, children with special needs and parents who must work non-standard shifts such as

swings, evenings and weekends. Unique outreach programs such as our Missile

Care program provide additional support to single and dual-military members assigned to missile sites by providing child care during consecutive 24-hour shifts

when center-based care is unavailable. Another support mechanism for single and

dual-military parents is provided via the Air Force Give Parents a Break program,

funded by the Air Force Aid Society, to help support those parents needing relief

from the demands of parenting.

Dr. SNYDER. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are important

to retention of families and that 20 percent of military families are not satisfied

with their current child care. The study also concluded that improved child care opVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:16 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 038163 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-52\088020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
149

tions for dual-military and single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you

aware of this Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options

that military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-military and single parent

families?

Mr. DOWNS. Our dual military and single parent families receive first priority on

Marine Corps child care waiting lists. Additionally, we provide Enhanced Extended

Child Care to families in emergency situations, when regular child care is unavailable. This care is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as needed in Family Child

Care homes at no cost to the parents. We also provide respite care and child care

during deployment briefs.

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral Handley, your written statement addressed the three-year

implementation plan for a Navy-wide uniform child care fee structure that will ultimately allow Navy service members to pay the same child care fees at Navy Child

Development Centers and other child care programs. Admiral, would such a plan

call for higher fees at some locations where local child care rates are lower than the

military rate? If that is true, would this plan result in service members seeking

child care in off-base commercial facilities that are perhaps of lower quality? Does

this policy result in the fees from low cost areas subsidizing the fees in high cost

areas?

Admiral HANDLEY. Navy child care rates on average are about 60% of fees

charged at equivalent off-base centers. Standardizing fees has resulted in minimal

fee increases in some areas and decreases in others. The standardization has resulted in Service members paying the same fees for the same quality of care from

installation to installation and because fees are still based on total family income

variables. Spouse employment wages are also taken into consideration. After two

years of the changeover process to standardized rates, we have no evidence that this

has caused any loss in patronage. In fact, our problem remains that we have more

demand for our spaces than we have capacity. Thus, it is unlikely that this effort

will result in migration to off-base care. All fees remain within the region where

they are generated so there will be no subsidization between low and high cost

areas. Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Arsht, how has Operation Military Child Care been progressing

and what is the annual cost to DOD? How many families benefit from the program

and how many of the total are reserve component families?

Ms. ARSHT. OMCC addresses the temporary need for child care availability and

affordability for the Total Force during times of increased OPSTEMPO. OMCC is

a DoD-funded child care subsidy program designed to assist all activated members

with child care costs in their local communities, in state-licensed, off-installation

Family Child Care Homes and Child Development Centers. Military members such

as recruiters, those who are geographically dispersed, on special duty assignments

and all military members in active duty status not assigned near a support installation are eligible for subsidized child care.

Over 5,600 children of deployed Service members have received fee assistance

through OMCC. Reserve Component families comprise 44% of the total population

served. Fees are generally discounted 15–25% from the local rate. This program is

funded through Emergency Supplemental as money becomes available.

Dr. SNYDER. The ongoing global repositioning of forces would seem to demand

that some appropriated funding be provided to support construction of expanded

MWR facilities. Ms. Arsht, will appropriated funds be available to reduce the pressure on non-appropriated accounts?

Ms. ARSHT. MWR is committed to providing adequate facilities to support quality

of life for Service members and their families. Under Department policy, appropriations may fund requirements for those installations receiving over a 25 percent increase in personnel within a two-year period. The Military Services prioritize all

Service military construction (MILCON) projects, to include MWR facilities where

Service members are being repositioned. Projects are funded in priority order until

MILCON appropriated funding is no longer available. Those requirements that do

not receive appropriated funding during a budget cycle are strongly advocated for

in future budget submissions.

Dr. SNYDER. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of overseas base

closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the facilities being returned

to use by the foreign government?

General PINCKNEY. No. Public Law 101–510, as amended, only allows for the reimbursement of the undepreciated value of non-appropriated fund (NAF) investments in facilities constructed or improved with NAT at Base Realignment and Closure locations in the United States. Status of Forces Agreements govern the transfer

and disposal of facilities constructed or improved with NAF overseas.

150

Dr. SNYDER. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of overseas base

closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the facilities being returned

to use by the foreign government?

Admiral HANDLEY. To date, Navy has not received, nor do we expect to receive,

any reimbursement for facilities being returned for use by foreign governments.

Dr. SNYDER. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of overseas base

closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the facilities being returned

to use by the foreign government?

Mr. MYERS. The Air Force is not heavily impacted by the current overseas base

closures as most of our base closures occurred in the 1990’s. However, in 2005, we

turned Rhein Main Air Base over to the German government. Our investment of

$10 million in non-appropriated fund facilities was not reimbursed.

Dr. SNYDER. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of overseas base

closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the facilities being returned

to use by the foreign government?

Mr. DOWNS. As the Marine Corps has not yet experienced an overseas base closure, the question is not applicable to our organization.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH

Mr. MCHUGH. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange dividends and

in the reduced level of appropriated fund support, when that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I believe that your statements submitted for

the hearing reflect a sense of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I

do not necessarily share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of

the reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of programs that

we all heard about last year from our constituents as the military services struggled

to find the cash to fund operations and maintenance of deployed forces. Given what

you know about future trends in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support

levels, what MWR programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or outright elimination?

Ms. ARSHT. The Department of Defense does not support reducing or eliminating

MWR programs. MWR programs have a profound impact on the quality of life of

our Service members and their families. However, if appropriated funding were limited, the MWR programs and services at most risk for reduction or closure are Category B programs, with the exception of child care. If exchange dividends should fall

short, the most significant impact is reduced funding for non-appropriated major

construction projects.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange dividends and

in the reduced level of appropriated fund support—when that appropriated fund

support is measured in constant dollars. I believe that your statements submitted

for the hearing reflect a sense of optimism about the future of MWR programs that

I do not necessarily share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of

the reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of programs that

we all heard about last year from our constituents as the military services struggled

to find the cash to fund operations and maintenance of deployed forces. Given what

you know about future trends in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support

levels, what MWR programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or outright elimination?

General PINCKNEY. Given the trend in exchange dividends, the Army’s most significant funding category at risk is non-appropriated fund major construction

(NAFMC). The Army splits exchange dividends between garrisons and the Army

MWR Fund, with the majority going to garrisons. The Army MWR Fund uses available dividend receipts to finance NAFMC projects. As exchange dividends diminish,

the Army forecasts losing the ability to fund approximately three NAFMC projects

a year. Currently, there is no alternative source of funds to offset this forecasted

loss. The ability to keep pace with the backlog of NAFMC requirements, much less

reduce the backlog, is severely at risk. The majority of the dividend going to garrisons is allocated based on the revenue generated by Army and Air Force Exchange

Service programs at the exchanges on garrisons. The garrisons’ share of the exchange dividend will decline only if sales in exchanges decline.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange dividends and

in the reduced level of appropriated fund support—when that appropriated fund

support is measured in constant dollars. I believe that your statements submitted

for the hearing reflect a sense of optimism about the future of MWR programs that

I do not necessarily share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of

the reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of programs that

151

we all heard about last year from our constituents as the military services struggled

to find the cash to fund operations and maintenance of deployed forces. Given what

you know about future trends in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support

levels, what MWR programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or outright elimination?

Admiral HANDLEY. MWR programs most likely at risk of closure or curtailment

are primarily programs that cannot reasonably be sustained with increased user

fees, or have been underused by patrons. The majority of these activities fall into

the Category B and C program areas because APF funding is being re-directed from

these programs to core programs. Examples of programs at risk are Category B

bowling, auto skills, outdoor recreation, and arts and crafts programs.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange dividends and

in the reduced level of appropriated fund support when that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I believe that your statements submitted for

the hearing reflect a sense of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I

do not necessarily share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of

the reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of programs that

we all heard about last year from our constituents as the military services struggled

to find the cash to fund operations and maintenance of deployed forces. Given what

you know about future trends in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support

levels, what MWR programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or outright elimination?

Mr. MYERS. The decrease in appropriated funds has disrupted some programs at

base-level. However, so far, we have been successful in insulating our bases from

the direct effect of reduced exchange dividends. The Air Force distributes Army and

Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) dividends to its installations based on a percent of AAFES sales, rather than earnings. This has helped shield the bases from

the downturn in exchange profits; as long as AAFES sales remain at their current

level, bases will continue to receive the same level of support. However, with

AAFES earnings down, the pot from which we make these payments is shrinking.

We feel the greatest impact in the centrally-funded Air Force non-appropriated fund

(NAF) construction program. Since the majority of the over $32 million in annual

NAF facility expenditures are centrally funded, many facility projects will be deferred and we will not be able to consider any new requirements for several years.

As exchange dividends drop further, the shortfall is likely to spread to other centrally-funded programs that can only be supported with NAFs. We hope to avoid disrupting the payments that support day-to-day base programs, as this would have

the most immediate impact on quality of life.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange dividends and

in the reduced level of appropriated fund support when that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I believe that your statements submitted for

the hearing reflect a sense of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I

do not necessarily share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of

the reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of programs that

we all heard about last year from our constituents as the military services struggled

to find the cash to fund operations and maintenance of deployed forces. Given what

you know about future trends in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support

levels, what MWR programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or outright elimination?

Mr. DOWNS. Future MWR trends for the Marine Corps Exchange dividends are

positive. The Marine Corps dividend is up 34 percent from 2005 to 2006. Irrespective of a slight decline in 2007, our dividend remains 28.5 percent higher than in

2005. Although the funding environment is constrained, MWR programs are of significant value to the Marine Corps and these programs have successfully sustained

rigorous budget prioritization sessions. For the third consecutive year, the Marine

Corps has met or exceeded the 85/65 minimum APF funding metric for Categories

A and B activities established by DoD. Our Installation Commanders actively monitor program delivery and at the Headquarters level, we work to ensure continued

compliance with DoD standards.

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not likely be offered in

two years and in five years due to funding challenges? Where will the MWR funding

priorities for programs and services be in two years? In five years?

Ms. ARSHT. The Department of Defense does not support reducing or eliminating

MWR programs. If appropriated funding were curtailed, the MWR programs and

services at most risk for reduction or closure are Category B programs, with the exception of child care. Funding priority would most likely be given to MWR programs

such as sports and fitness, child and youth programs, and libraries.

152

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not likely be offered in

two years and in five years due to funding challenges? Where will the MWR funding

priorities for programs and services be in two years? In five years?

General PINCKNEY. The Army has no plans to eliminate MWR programs and services in the next five years. The priority for funding in the next two years and five

years will continue to be the programs that support deployed Soldiers and their

Families, as well as those programs identified as ‘‘most important’’ by our customers. These programs include sports, fitness, recreation center, library, outdoor

recreation, and auto skills programs, and child and youth services programs. The

Army has implemented a resource prioritization and allocation process—Common

Levels of Support (CLS). Garrisons participate in the development of the future

years’ CLS and request adjustments to priorities, capability levels, and performance

measures. Annually IMCOM convenes a senior executive leadership (SEL) meeting

to review garrison recommendations and balance priorities within available funding.

The Commanding General, Family and MWR Command, is a member of the SEL.

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not likely be offered in

two years and in five years due to funding challenges? Where will the MWR funding

priorities for programs and services be in two years? In five years?

Admiral HANDLEY. Over the next two to five years, MWR programs most likely

at risk of closure or curtailment are non-core programs. The majority of these activities fall into the Category B and C program areas. Examples of programs at risk

are Cat B bowling, auto skills, outdoor recreation, and arts and crafts programs. Realistically, only those non-core Category B programs with sufficient revenue generating capability will likely be retained in the long run.

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not likely be offered in

two years and in five years due to funding challenges? Where will the MWR funding

priorities for programs and services be in two years? In five years?

Mr. MYERS. In the next two to five years, the Air Force intends to preserve our

current functions; however, the delivery methods may change to make the best use

of the available resources in meeting the need. We do not intend to react precipitously. Our approach will be determined through a deliberate strategic planning

process. Using industry best practices, this approach will help us develop efficiencies

in providing needed programs and services.

Our priorities in the next two to five years will be defined by this strategic planning process, but we are committed to the following:

- Supporting the warfighting commanders, their troops and families

- Core programs such as fitness, libraries, and child development

- Community services that, in your words, Congressman McHugh, ‘‘provide military personnel the same quality of life as is afforded the society they have

pledged to defend.’’

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not likely be offered in

two years and in five years due to funding challenges? Where will the MWR funding

priorities for programs and services be in two years? In five years?

Mr. DOWNS. The Marine Corps is not anticipating a reduction in the level of MWR

operations and programs. Specific MWR priorities are established by the respective

Installations Commanders responsible for the provision of installation support services, to include MWR. This decentralized execution of support services optimizes

Commander flexibilities to quickly adapt operations to meet current and future

needs within available resources.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of your services

influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction, and/or outright closure of MWR

programs at the installation level when appropriated funding levels are reduced or

reallocated?

Ms. ARSHT. The Military Services decide appropriated funding levels for MWR

and the level of service offered when appropriated funding is reduced.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of your services

influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction, and/or outright closure of MWR

programs at the installation level when appropriated funding levels are reduced or

reallocated?

General PINCKNEY. The Army provides corporate governance for Morale, Welfare

and Recreation programs through a Board of Directors. The Board’s mission is to

develop program, resource, and finance strategies; develop short- and long term

goals and objectives; establish implementing plans and performance measures; and

153

maintain corporate MWR oversight including fiduciary responsibility. The Board is

comprised of Army 4-star commanders. The Morale, Welfare and Recreation Board

of Directors has an Executive Committee comprised of Army 3-stars. The Commanding General, Family and MWR Command presents and addresses operational and

funding matters that include curtailment, reduction, and closure of MWR programs.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of your services

influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction, and/or outright closure of MWR

programs at the installation level when appropriated funding levels are reduced or

reallocated?

Admiral HANDLEY. Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) makes the

final decisions on resource allocations within the shore command community based

on available funding. These funding allocations are based on well defined standards

and program requirements. Guidelines from CNIC have been provided to regions

and installations as to the priority of maintaining core programs. Specific decisions

to curtail or close operations are made at the regional or installation level after consultation with CNIC program leadership.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of your services

influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction, and/or outright closure of MWR

programs at the installation level when appropriated funding levels are reduced or

reallocated?

Mr. MYERS. Air Force Installation Commanders are responsible for setting facility

hours and determining the right mix of programs to meet the needs of the base population. Changes in demographics and Airmen’s needs will often drive redirecting

of resources from underutilized programs to programs with increased demands.

When making decisions that will reduce service, Installation Commanders make

careful business-based decisions to ensure any negative impacts are minimized and

that resources are maximized. In the unusual instance where a program is no longer

viable, the installation commander can recommend closure. However, to ensure closure is the appropriate course of action, approval from the Air Force Director of

Services is required before closing any Air Force Services activity other than at a

location involved in Base Realignment and Closure.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of your services

influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction, and/or outright closure of MWR

programs at the installation level when appropriated funding levels are reduced or

reallocated?

Mr. DOWNS. As Installation Commanders are responsible for the provision of installation support services, they have full decision-making authority. From an oversight perspective, the Commandant of the Marine Corps chartered the Marine Corps

Community Services (MCCS) Board of Directors (BOD), which acts on issues that

cross installation boundaries. The BOD reviews quarterly appropriated fund execution reports and takes action when necessary to ensure execution is appropriate and

consistent with requirements. Additionally, when deemed appropriate by the Installation, Region, or Marine Forces Commander, issues are elevated to the MCCS BOD

for enterprise-wide support and solution. This construct maintains Marine Corps

leadership awareness of Corps-wide issues and helps sustain, to the degree possible,

support services to Marines and their families, regardless of duty assignment.

Mr. MCHUGH. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07 Emergency

Supplemental is not quickly enacted?

Ms. ARSHT. Sustaining morale and readiness during deployed operations is the essence of MWR programs. Supplemental appropriated funds are required to continue

providing Service members with a full spectrum of MWR activities, specifically implemented for forces deployed to fight the global war on terror. Recreation and social

activities include cardiovascular and weight equipment, sports, recreation, motion

pictures, reading materials and continuing education support, games, large screen

televisions, DVD/CD players, up-to-date video games and game CDs, first-run movies, free Internet access, e-mail, and voice over Internet phone capability, and celebrity and professional entertainment provided by Armed Forces Entertainment.

Continued supplemental funding is also required to maintain the expanded capability of MWR programs on military installations to meet the recreational and support needs of family members left behind. Supplemental funding has been critical

to provide activities and services for family members, while spouses deploy.

Mr. MCHUGH. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07 Emergency

Supplemental is not quickly enacted?

General PINCKNEY. The Army plans to minimize the effects of a lack of Supplemental funding by using financial management techniques rather than cancelling,

delaying, or deferring projects and programs. Examples include recording obligations and making payments as late as possible without breaking government accounting rules, and obligating contracts in 30-day increments. Should this strategy

154

prove inadequate, the most significant consequence to Family and MWR programs

will be reduced support resulting from hiring restrictions. Additionally, late receipt

of the BRAC funds in the Supplemental will defer construction of child development

centers at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Riley, Kansas, and youth centers at Fort Bliss

and Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

Mr. MCHUGH. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07 Emergency

Supplemental is not quickly enacted?

Admiral HANDLEY. Because MWR mission requirements have grown due to the

demands of the global war on terror, Navy MWR needs supplemental appropriations

in order to continue providing needed MWR programs. Navy has greatly expanded

fleet support to provide fitness, recreation equipment, and movies to forward deployed forces in recent years. Currently, Navy supports over 110 forward deployed,

ground units in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. Without supplemental funding,

these programs will be jeopardized.

Additionally, continued supplemental support is needed to maintain programs for

families left behind while spouses deploy. Supplemental funding has provided expanded capability for deployed Sailors to connect with loved ones at home and increased programming to meet the recreational and support needs of family members

at home. Supplemental funding has been a critical element in Navy’s efforts to provide the correct level of support for family members.

Mr. MCHUGH. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07 Emergency

Supplemental is not quickly enacted?

Mr. MYERS. This will impact the MWR program at every level as the Services try

to cover these costs within existing resources. First and foremost, it impacts our capability to support our troops in the field: inability to pay contract costs, transportation of rations and equipment replacement and repair. Next, it impacts our programs at base level: reduces levels of manning and hours of operation, stops service

and maintenance contracts and facility restorations, reduces scheduled equipment

replacement purchases, and cancels technical subscription renewals. Last, it impacts

many Air Force centrally-sponsored and funded programs and initiatives: availability and cost to the patron for child development and related activities; on-site visits

for training, oversight and control; and projected savings from initiatives like the

Non-appropriated Fund Transformation project. Even more drastic reductions will

be likely if Air Force funding is pulled to cover shortfalls in other areas.

Mr. MCHUGH. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07 Emergency

Supplemental is not quickly enacted?

Mr. DOWNS. Delays in the FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental may require an initial re-balancing of MWR baseline execution plans, as deemed appropriate by the

respective Installation Commander. Due to uncertainties of future Emergency

Supplementals and the sustained impacts associated with the Long War, the Marine

Corps is assessing baseline requirements to not only ensure sufficiency and relevance, but to also ensure programs are transitioning to an appropriate wartime

footing. These actions will help establish an appropriate balance in Marine and family support, whether forward deployed or in a garrison environment.

Mr. MCHUGH. In your written statement (p. 9), you indicate that the Department

continues to work with the United States Paralympics Committee to provide severely injured service members have opportunities to participate in adaptive sports

programs. You also state that the USOC Paralympics organization is also coordinating with key Military Treatment Facilities to see how severely injured sports and

recreational opportunities can be expanded and incorporated into all aspects of the

recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration process. You also indicate that the Department is coordinating with organizations such as the Armed Forces Recreation Society to provide similar opportunities for severely injured veterans—that is persons

who are no longer in the military—on the municipal and local levels. How extensive

is the Department’s support to the USOC Paralympics Military Program and to

what extent is additional legislation required to expand the opportunities for severely injured military personnel to participate in the USOC Paralympics Military

Program?

Ms. ARSHT. The Department of Defense (DoD) continues to support the United

States Paralympics Committee. Currently there are 37 Service members scheduled

to attend the May 2007, Military Sports Camp in Colorado. This number is up

slightly from previous camps. The USOC is hopeful to double participation for the

remaining three camps this year. The DoD remains a strong proponent of this effort.

The USOC proposal to conduct a 20-month pilot program at Walter Reed Army

Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, and San Diego Naval Medical Center

has been vetted at each of the Military Treatment Facilities.

155

Our effort to engage organizations such as the AFRS continues to evolve. A clearer mission has been realized to the extent that a DoD/AFRS partnership initiative

will be discussed at the AFRS June board of director’s meeting.

Additional legislation is not needed at this time; however as our cooperative efforts continue, we will continue to review this possibility.

Mr. MCHUGH. Explain the extent to which the Defense Health Program, through

the MTFs, provides severely injured military personnel with sports and recreational

opportunities to aid in their recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration process.

Ms. ARSHT. There are a multitude of different sports and recreation offerings at

the MTFs. From the new Intrepid Center at Brook Army Medical Center to the host

of outdoor trips and sporting events at Walter Reed, Bethesda, and other MTFs, the

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) works closely with the Wounded Warrior

Disabled Sports Project to recruit participants directly from the MTF’s. OSD has ongoing coordination with the National Basketball Association and the National Football League and is coordinating with numerous non-profit organizations to identify

severely injured for activities ranging from skiing and biking to kayaking and hunting.

Mr. MCHUGH. To what degree and under what conditions should DOD support

and assistance be provided to sports and recreational programs at the national, regional, local and municipal levels which assist severely injured veterans who are no

longer in military service? To what degree are the Veterans Administration and the

Department of Defense coordinating in such support?

Ms. ARSHT. The DoD as a whole and through each Service continues to support

severely injured veterans even after they have left the service. Ensuring that these

veterans have opportunities to participate in sports and recreation as part of their

everyday lives is of the utmost importance to ensure their physical and psychological health. Supporting local, regional, and national organization and competition

targeted at severely injured veterans will create the structure and motivation for

their ongoing participation in sports. Such support of competition should be coupled

with local and municipal organization, education, and encouragement to yield high

participation in sport activities and these recreational/regional competitions.

Furthermore, the Army is actively pursing Paralympic-eligible soldiers to participate in the World Class Athlete Program and the Navy already has an active-duty,

Paralympic gold medal winning sailor. DoD support of these athletes, and of severely injured veterans competing for the United States in international Paralympic

competition, is of high value to raise awareness and motivation among other veterans who have sustained similar injuries.

The DoD and VA cooperation should ensure that injured service members of both

active duty and veteran status can immediately take advantage of such opportunities as part of their recovery and re-integration process.

Mr. MCHUGH. In November 2006, I wrote the Department supporting the creation

of a DOD-wide standard for base access credentials for employees of companies that

deliver goods and services for the military resale system. Last month, Dr. Chu, the

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, responded to Chairman

Snyder and me, saying that the Department would defer action on establishing such

a common access process until the General Accounting Office completed an audit of

base access issues, possibly as late as September 2007, and DOD organizations involved could update policy to address the GAO recommendations. Why must DOD

wait to establish of a common access card for exchange and commissary retail vendors until the GAO finishes its work? Isn’t such a common access card already coming into use in many areas of the Department?

Ms. ARSHT. The Department of Defense is awaiting completion of the Government

Accountability Office audit to implement common access policy for retail vendors to

allow the Department to benefit from the information expected in the final report.

The Department anticipates that the comprehensive study on the standards, protocols, and rules for interoperability will contain recommendations on the establishment of common base access policy. Awaiting these recommendations and aligning

Department-wide policy will help ensure that the installations commanders, who are

ultimately responsible for security, can make appropriate physical access system investments in accordance with a common implementation strategy.

The Department is currently using the Common Access Card (CAC) to comply

with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD–12), which requires Federal agencies to issue interoperable credentials to employees and contractors. However, the CAC is not intended to serve as a common credential for retail vendors.

The CAC supports both physical and logical access and is subject to HSPD–12 requirements in areas such as identity proofing, background checks, and personal data

retention, making it an inappropriate choice as a common card for retail vendors.

156

Mr. MCHUGH. No one wants to jeopardize installation security, but surely there

is a way to expeditiously standardize some aspects of the clearance process and

eliminate unnecessary duplication of administrative processing and cost?

Ms. ARSHT. The Department has started to implement systems and procedures

that support standardized clearance processes and can help eliminate duplicative

costs related to installation access. The Defense Biometric Identity System (DBIDS)

is a standardized, vetted, proven, system that has been implemented at approximately 300 gates on over 160 bases across the Department of Defense (DoD). DBIDS

supports installation access for companies that deliver goods and services to the

military resale system and has the capability to reduce a portion of the redundant

administrative processes that currently exist in today’s environment. DoD policy

states that DBIDS will serve as the enterprise system for physical access, however,

the system is currently not mandated for implementation throughout the Department. Installation commanders continue to have the authority over base access and

the technology migration of base physical access control systems.

Mr. MCHUGH. In your statement (p. 7), you state that the Army is working with

both the Department of Defense and the Department of Education to address issues

of dependent schools related to the return to the U.S. from overseas of significant

numbers of military personnel and their dependents. Please explain what specific

measures are being developed to address the increased demands on DOD and civilian dependent schools.

General PINCKNEY. The Army is developing relationships and informing local education agencies and Department of Defense schools on the number of school-age students that are expected to be gained between 2004 and 2011. Representatives from

25 Army locations with gains of 250 or more school-age students attended the 2005

Army Education Summit. Community teams consisting of school liaison officers, garrison commanders, and school superintendents developed local action plans, coordinated systems for information sharing, and utilized the Army School Transition

Plan to establish processes for successful transition of school-age children into local

schools.

The Army School Transition Plan develops and implements strategies that prepare Army Families and supporting school districts for successful transition from

one school to another. This plan deploys a variety of transition support mechanisms

such as: School Liaison Officers, School Transition Specialists, Transition Counselor

Institutes, Special Education Leadership Institutes, Student2Student Transition

Programs, and Parent to Parent Cadre teams. The plan facilitates over 270 reciprocal agreements among military-affiliated school districts.

Mr. MCHUGH. Please describe the major initiatives that the Army is supporting

and the extent to which DOD and the Department of Education are moving ahead

in cooperation with the Army.

General PINCKNEY. Strong collaborative relationships are established between the

Army, Department of Defense, Department of Education, and local communities and

garrisons. The Army participated in the DOD Conference on Education for MilitaryConnected Communities held in November 2006 that provided BRAC and rebasing

communities and installations alternative approaches to consider when communities

are looking to build or expand current facilities.

The Army provides information about the Office of Economic Adjustment to garrisons as a major Department of Defense resource for assisting communities that are

significantly impacted by stationing changes, such as base closures and realignments. The Army also submitted input for the DoD Report to Congress, November

2006, which addressed the number of students that have been gained or expected

to be gained at BRAC/transforming installations; a plan for how DoD and Army will

work with federal, state, and local education agencies; and a list of possible funding

resources, including federal grants available to local education agencies to assist in

financing construction, expansion, and addition of teachers to accommodate significant students increases.

In addition, the Army supplies data regarding the requirement to provide information to the Department of Defense to be able to utilize the Department of Education NDAA 2006 and 2007 retroactive Impact Aid payments ($7 million and $8

million) to school districts affected in school years beginning 2003/2004 and 2004/

2005 where local education agencies were impacted by growth of 250 or more military-affiliated students.

Mr. MCHUGH. For more than a decade, as part of each National Defense Authorization Act, Congress steps up and authorizes additional funding for what I call

‘‘DOD Supplementary Impact Aid.’’ This funding is in addition to whatever Impact

Aid is provided by the Department of Education. Last year the HASC authorized

a total of $65 million for DOD Supplementary Impact Aid. DOD has never formally

embraced this idea of DOD Supplementary Impact Aid by incorporating such fundVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:16 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 038163 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-52\088020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
157

ing in its budget request. How important is this ‘‘DOD Supplementary Impact Aid’’

to the Department’s ability to ensure adequate support to military dependents by

local educational agencies?

Ms. ARSHT. Funding and financing for local education agencies (LEA) is the responsibility of the local or state governments. The Department does not develop,

oversee, or have authority over an LEA’s budget or financial requirements and cannot comment on the DoD Supplementary Impact Aid.

However, the Department has been given authority to assist LEAs to help ensure

quality educational opportunities for military children. Therefore, the Department

has offered assistance by sharing expert information about financing, funding, building, and ensuring quality education with LEAs and impacted communities.

Funding for this new support is now included in the Department of Defense Edu- cation Activity budget in 2008 ($2.4M).

Mr. MCHUGH. Given the significant challenges facing many local educational

agencies due to the return to the US of military members and their families, should

the Congress consider authorizing more than the $65 million?

Ms. ARSHT. Funding and financing for local education agencies (LEA) is the responsibility of the local or state governments. The Department does not develop,

oversee, or have authority over an LEA’s budget or financial requirements and cannot comment on the amount of Department of Defense (DoD) Supplementary Impact

Aid or the assistance that it may or may not provide. The new budgeted support

to partner with LEAs is a more appropriate DoD mission.

Mr. MCHUGH. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail are in

great demand by our military personnel around the world, particularly those serving

in combat zones. The activities provide relaxation and allow Service members to

stay in touch with family and friends. How are you currently meeting the demand

for these services within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively

through MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities revenue

generating entities for the MWR program?

Ms. ARSHT. Military spouses indicate that communication with their Service member is the number one factor in being able to cope with deployments. At home, computer and Internet service is located in libraries and recreation, community, and

youth centers.

MWR programs operate 145 free Internet cafes in Iraq with 4,435 computers and

1,829 phones. Iraq/Kuwait totals are expected to increase by 615 computers and 323

telephones by May. There are 30 MWR-operated Internet cafes in Afghanistan with

246 computers and 142 phones. Afghanistan totals will increase by 9 locations, 488

computers, and 212 phones by May. Voice over Internet protocol phone service at

Internet cafes is less than $.04 per minute.

Because of communication resources, families are connected to their Service members in near real-time, which has a dramatic effect on morale both at home and

overseas. This communication is essential to morale and our ability to sustain deployments.

Mr. MCHUGH. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail are in

great demand by our military personnel around the world, particularly those serving

in combat zones. The activities provide relaxation and allow Service members to

stay in touch with family and friends. How are you currently meeting the demand

for these services within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively

through MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities revenue

generating entities for the MWR program?

General PINCKNEY. MWR provides no-charge, recreational Internet access through

community programs in libraries and Youth Technology Labs. Army communications infrastructure is the primary provider of no-charge services. No-charge services allow families to maintain contact with deployed Soldiers but afford patrons

limited gaming and recreational use. Fee-based Internet services are being consolidated through the Family and MWR Command (FMWRC) and utilize commercial

and MWR-owned assets to provide services. FMWRC offers garrisons fee-based, high

speed services to barracks and MWR facilities. Garrisons also contract locally to provide Internet access to housing areas via multiple commercial venues. These services are the same as those generally available to off-post residents and are paid for

by the individual subscribers. Patrons can employ these services for on-line gaming

and other personal uses. MWR generates revenue from direct customer payments

when patrons use FMWRC offerings, from ancillary purchases made by patrons in

the MWR facilities offering Internet service, and from access franchise fees charged

to commercial providers.

Mr. MCHUGH. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail are in

great demand by our military personnel around the world, particularly those serving

in combat zones. The activities provide relaxation and allow Service members to

158

stay in touch with family and friends. How are you currently meeting the demand

for these services within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively

through MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities revenue

generating entities for the MWR program?

Admiral HANDLEY. Navy currently provides internet and e-mail capability at nocost to Sailors at all MWR libraries and Single Sailor Liberty Centers. Additionally,

this service is also provided at no-cost to some forward deployed, ground units. This

service provides a vital link between Sailors and loved ones at home.

Navy is also greatly expanding Wireless Fidelity (WI–FI) internet capabilities at

libraries and Liberty Centers. Currently over 50% of Navy MWR libraries and Liberty Centers have WI–FI capability. Full implementation is expected during FY07.

This service is provided at no-cost to Sailors. Additionally, Navy MWR is partnering

with the Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) to provide no-cost WI–FI at

all NEX food courts. This effort is on-going with completion later this year.

Expanded on-line gaming capability is also provided either free, or in some cases

on a fee-for-service basis, at Liberty Centers.

Since most of these services are provided at no cost, there is minimal revenue

generated from these activities.

Mr. MCHUGH. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail are in

great demand by our military personnel around the world, particularly those serving

in combat zones. The activities provide relaxation and allow Service members to

stay in touch with family and friends. How are you currently meeting the demand

for these services within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively

through MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities revenue

generating entities for the MWR program?

Mr. MYERS. We do not consider Internet access programs as revenue generating

activities. We currently provide internet access in our Services activities through a

variety of activities such as Libraries, Youth Centers and Community Centers free

of charge. Many of our Lodging operations also provide a business center that connects the user to the Internet for free. Internet gaming such as ‘‘X-Box,’’ Internet

Trivial Pursuit and sports trivia packages are also offered free of charge through

many Air Force Clubs and Community Centers.

Mr. MCHUGH. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail are in

great demand by our military personnel around the world, particularly those serving

in combat zones. The activities provide relaxation and allow Service members to

stay in touch with family and friends. How are you currently meeting the demand

for these services within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively

through MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities revenue

generating entities for the MWR program?

Mr. DOWNS. In today’s technologically-advanced society, customer demand for continued improved levels of Internet access requires innovative access strategies to

satisfy changing demand. Some Internet access requirements are a feature or activity of MWR Category A or B recreational or leisure programs. In those cases, access

is free or for a nominal fee. We additionally offer Category C, revenue-generating

fee-for-service or a pay-as-you-go basis for more extensive electronic services via Marine Corps Exchange concessionaire contracts.

Mr. MCHUGH. The Department of Defense regulations provide guidance for Exchanges and Service MWR operations. Do these regulations clearly address the responsibility and guidance for providing Internet and on-line gaming functions, including both those that are provided at no cost and those that generate revenue?

Ms. ARSHT. MWR provides no cost Internet access, recreational on-line gaming,

and e-mail in libraries and recreation, community, and youth centers, as well as to

forward deployed, ground units. There is a nominal fee for voice over Internet protocol phone service. The Exchanges have primacy in the operation of ‘‘fee for service’’

personal telecommunications, including personal Internet access (e-mail accounts,

high-speed internet service provider accounts, etc.).

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Do you have any update on that General Accounting Office (GAO)

study that is being done?

Ms. ARSHT. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently conducting

a comprehensive study of standards, protocols and rules for interoperability in physical access in the Department of Defense. The Department expects the GAO report

159

will contain useful information that can be used to establish efficient and effective

procedures for credentialing retail vendors. We have been testing technology that

will enable the Department to provide uniform validation and authentication procedures which in turn will enable vendors to obtain the access their employees need.

It is not being delayed by the GAO review.

Æ