[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 112-3]

HEARING

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING

MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION PROGRAMS OVERVIEW

HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 9, 2011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-859 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
TOM ROONEY, Florida MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
JOE HECK, Nevada DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011

Page

Hearing:

Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
Programs Overview.............................................. 1

Appendix:

Wednesday, February 9, 2011...................................... 23
----------

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011
MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION PROGRAMS OVERVIEW
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1

WITNESSES

Gordon, Robert L., III, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Military Community and Family Policy, Office of Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readinesss........................ 4
Gorman, Richard, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Army Family and
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Command........................ 5
Larsen, Timothy R., Director, Personal and Family Readiness
Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department,
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps................................ 6
Milam, Charles E., Director of Air Force Services, Headquarters,
U.S. Air Force................................................. 7
Patrick, Rogers, Acting Director, Fleet and Family Readiness
Programs, Commander, Navy Installations Command................ 6

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 28
Gordon, Robert L., III....................................... 30
Gorman, Richard.............................................. 57
Larsen, Timothy R............................................ 103
Milam, Charles E............................................. 120
Patrick, Rogers.............................................. 85
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 27

Documents Submitted for the Record:

Testimony of Sid L. Scruggs III, International President,
Lions Clubs International.................................. 139

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Ms. Bordallo................................................. 145
Mrs. Davis................................................... 145

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

Mr. Jones.................................................... 149
Mr. Wilson................................................... 149
MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION PROGRAMS OVERVIEW

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 9, 2011.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, I am Congressman Joe
Wilson, and I am delighted to welcome you to the first meeting
of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee for the 112th Congress. And I am delighted
we have an outstanding panel that we will be getting to.
Before I begin I want to thank the staff members who helped
make this subcommittee so important for our service members,
military families, and veterans. And a living example of
bipartisanship is to my left, and that is that Mike Higgins is
remaining on to be the professional staff member. He has
traditionally done this even in another Congress. And so--like
the 111th--and so I am very grateful that Mike is available,
and he is so knowledgeable on issues relative to what we will
be discussing today. And so I am so happy that he has agreed to
stay on.
And of course on the majority side I am very grateful that
John Chapla, a very distinguished VMI [Virginia Military
Institute] graduate, is with us. And then we have Jeanette
James, who has just been instrumental in promoting the military
health issues for this committee. I want to thank also Craig
Greene and Jim Weiss, and on the minority side Debra Wada. And
so we have got people who truly are available to all of you.
And I also want to thank the individual staff of different
offices who are here.
And as we begin today I also want to thank--we do have our
freshmen here. In fact, he is all of one right now. But, hey,
all you need is Colonel Allen West. And so, Colonel, I want to
welcome you to the subcommittee. And I know that we have a
number of others who are on their way with so much going on
simultaneously. At least we will not be interrupted by votes.
And so this is going to be a remarkable occasion that we
actually have an orderly committee meeting.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel will begin the 2011
hearing cycle with two hearings on the Department of Defense,
DOD, nonappropriated fund activities. Today we will focus on
morale, welfare, and recreation, MWR, programs. Tomorrow the
subcommittee will turn its attention to the commissaries and
exchanges, DOD's grocery and department stores.
The subcommittee has always viewed the wide range of
programs that comprise the military morale, welfare, and
recreation, or MWR, community as essential elements within a
healthy military community. The subcommittee remains strongly
committed to supporting these programs. However, it is clear
that DOD has correctly crossed over into a new era of austerity
marked by an increased fiscal scrutiny of all programs in an
unrelenting pursuit of increased budget efficiency. As the
recipient of appropriated funds, MWR programs will be subjected
to increased pressure to maintain effectiveness while operating
more efficiently.
While demands for increased effectiveness and efficiency
are to be expected, I fear that misperceptions about the
absence of a link between MWR programs and combat readiness
will place these programs at a greater risk of being cut too
deeply. I believe that vibrant MWR programs are critical to the
health of the military community they support, and their
superior combat capability is directly dependent on the
strength of the military community.
We must not allow MWR programs to become easy targets for
the budget cutters. Certainly there will be cuts, and
identifying the programs to be reduced will require difficult
decisions. It is my hope that MWR managers are prepared to make
those decisions and demonstrate the willingness to find
savings. But those managers must also be prepared to fight hard
to factually justify the programs that are truly critical to
service members and their families.
We hope to learn more about the strategy that MWR managers
will pursue in the coming months to meet the demands of the new
era of budget austerity.
Next, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Susan Davis.
And I would like to, even before she speaks, thank her for her
prior role as the chairman of this committee. She always was a
person who conducted the meetings fairly, in a bipartisan
manner, and I certainly want to continue the tradition of
Congresswoman Chairman Susan Davis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I certainly will look forward to serving with you,
and I just want to say that I know that you always were very
supportive of my role, and I intend to be supportive of yours
as well. And I appreciate being here.
And I also wanted to thank, of course, our witnesses that
are here today and to say that I, too, am very happy to have
Mike Higgins sitting here between us because he is a tremendous
source, and I also value all the other staff members who are
going to be continuing. All have been very active on the
personnel committee in the past and bring great skills and
great aptitude in this area. And so it is a tremendous resource
for us to have them. They really provide so much information,
and a real good source, I think, of thinking about ideas, and
how we go forward, and what some of the challenges and the
problems will be. And as we know in past years, we will have
plenty of those. So I want to thank them as well.
Mr. Gordon and Mr. Patrick, welcome. I believe that this is
your first opportunity to be with us before the subcommittee,
and so I am glad that you are here.
Mr. Gorman, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Milam, welcome back to you
all as well.
Today is the first part of a 2-day set of hearings that
will focus on morale, welfare, and recreation programs and the
military resale community. We hold these hearings annually
because these programs are important and extremely valuable to
our military personnel and their families.
Ten years of conflict have placed a tremendous burden not
only on those in uniform, but also on their families, and in
particular, we know, their children. It is important in today's
All-Volunteer Force that we ensure that the support they need
is there for themselves and their families. And as the chairman
has mentioned already, as we look at the budget climate ahead
of us, we know that we have to ensure that the MWR and the
military resale programs continue to provide a wholesome
quality of life for those who volunteer to serve in uniform.
We know, of course, that we also must ensure that spending
resources are spent efficiently and effectively. We certainly
have a responsibility to do that. But we also have to think
about the service member and their families.
I certainly look forward to an open and a frank discussion
on these issues. The dedication and commitment of our MWR
employees that they have displayed to our military families
under the most challenging of conditions have been remarkable,
and we are grateful for their contributions.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
Thank you all for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, and, of course, we
couldn't proceed without recognizing and thanking Congresswoman
Madeleine Bordallo for being here, and she, of course,
represents the strategic island of Guam. What a beautiful
territory. If you ever get a chance to visit, Hawaii looks a
lot like Guam.
And then I am very grateful we have been joined by--the
freshman contingent has now doubled, thank goodness.
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler is here, and Congresswoman
Hartzler is from Missouri and represents the extraordinary
military facilities of Fort Leonard Wood. And so she will
certainly be a great member of our committee, and she has
already proven her dedication, we have discussed it, to the
military personnel and military families in her district, and
veterans.
We are grateful to have an excellent panel of witnesses.
Mr. Robert L. Gordon is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Military Community and Family Policy, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Mr. Richard Gorman is the Chief Operating Officer of the
U.S. Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Command.
We have Mr. Rogers Patrick, who is the Acting Director of
the Fleet Family and Readiness Programs, Commander, Navy
Installations Command; Mr. Timothy R. Larsen, who is the
Director of Personal and Family Readiness Programs, Manpower
and Reserve Affairs Department of the U.S. Marine Corps; and
Mr. Charles E. Milam, Director of Air Force Services,
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. And it is a great day for us in
that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Patrick, this is the first time that
they have appeared before the committee, according to Mr.
Higgins, and then--and he is always correct.
And, Mr. Larsen, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Milam, welcome back. And
we may be joined at any time, we have a gentleman from Ohio,
Congressman Mike Turner, to the hearing. He may be here to
participate in the hearing, and I would ask for unanimous
consent that he be permitted to do so following the members of
the subcommittee. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement from Lions Club
International be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 139.]
Mr. Wilson. And we will begin now with our witnesses.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GORDON III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, MILITARY COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY, OFFICE OF
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS

Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am delighted to testify before you today. I am
grateful for this committee's strong support and will provide a
quick update of our MWR activities.
I am pleased to report that in 2009, the CFI [Claes Fornell
International] Group, whose methodology underpins the respected
American Customer Satisfaction Index, conducted the first DOD
MWR customer satisfaction survey. The results indicate that MWR
is fine, but could use work, which I don't think is surprising.
The results help us to target available funding in areas that
provide the greatest benefit in terms of improving MWR customer
satisfaction. Fitness and outdoor recreation were highlighted
as areas needing improvement. The survey will be conducted
biannually.
Thanks to the generous support of Congress, overseas
contingency operation [OCO] funding provides free Internet
access, recreation, entertainment, and library programs for
troops in combat.
To remain flexible and provide child care surge capacity,
we designed programs with civilian child care providers to help
families find affordable, quality care close to home. In 2011,
we will further expand child care for our families using local,
State, and Federal child and youth delivery systems. Thirteen
States will participate in the pilot.
DOD youth programs are particularly important now. About
117,000 military children have at least one parent deployed,
and research suggests that they experience more stress than
their peers. We fund a popular nonmedical counseling program
for children up to 18 years of age to discuss issues affecting
them, including bullying, self-esteem, and coping with
deployments.
My written testimony outlines our ongoing work in greater
detail. Please be assured that as we focus on efficiencies, we
will take care of our most valuable asset, our service members
and their families. Thank you for your support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon can be found in the
Appendix on page 30.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gorman.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GORMAN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, U.S. ARMY
FAMILY AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION COMMAND

Mr. Gorman. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am
privileged to appear before you today to share some of the ways
we honor and support our soldiers for their service and their
sacrifice.
Everything we do every day is designed to support soldiers.
Sometimes the support is direct; at other times it is indirect
through support to their families. But all we do is always with
the soldier at the center of our focus. Your support through
the difficult post-9/11 period has allowed us to be successful.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation serve soldiers wherever
they serve. That includes those at Camp Arifjan, as well as
those at Fort Hood and all points in between.
MWR programs help soldiers maintain physical fitness and
alleviate combat stress by temporarily diverting a soldier's
focus from combat. It also increases readiness because mission
accomplishment is directly linked to a soldier's confidence
that their families are safe, resilient, and capable of
carrying on during their absence.
Soldiers, families, and civilians are our greatest
strategic asset and are indeed the strength of our Army. The
Army has long recognized that if we do not retain the family,
we simply will not retain the soldier.
I am also very happy to report today that Army MWR Funds'
collective financial posture is sound and supports our soldiers
and families today, and will into the future, with cash assets
exceeding liabilities by a rate of 1.5 to 1.
We have seen the huge burden of 9 years of war, and we will
continue to care for our soldiers and their families, a top
priority for our Army.
On behalf of America's Army, I want to thank you for your
continued and steadfast commitment, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorman can be found in the
Appendix on page 57.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. As an Army veteran and
father of three sons currently serving in Army National Guard,
thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers Patrick.

STATEMENT OF ROGERS PATRICK, ACTING DIRECTOR, FLEET AND FAMILY
READINESS PROGRAMS, COMMANDER, NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND

Mr. Patrick. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and
distinguished Military Personnel Subcommittee members, I am
pleased to discuss the current status of the Navy's Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation program with you.
The Navy has continued to make significant strides in
providing top-quality MWR programs. During 2009, MWR remained
financially sound with resources totaling $920 million. This
consisted of 426 million in appropriated fund support and 494
million in NAF [nonappropriated fund] program revenue
generated, with a net income of $17 million.
Results from fiscal year 2010 were also positive, and I am
pleased to report that after a 1-year deviation from the norm
in 2009, Navy MWR has exceeded the 85 percent appropriate fund
support metric for Category A programs and met the 65 percent
metric for Category B programs in fiscal year 2010.
Navy Installations Command's unique organizational
structure of bundling quality-of-life programs to include MWR,
fleet and family support centers, the galleys, and housing for
both families and bachelors into a single organization has
enabled us to partner with our public-private venture housing
corporate partners through neighborhood community centers. This
quality-of-life model has lowered our program overhead costs
and streamlined our communications processes. With support from
the Congress, our President, and the Secretary of Defense, the
Navy has funded more than 30 new child development centers,
which will increase our current capacity by 7,000 spaces and
reduce our waiting time for services to no more than 3 months.
MWR programs provide sailors with a firsthand demonstration
of the Navy's commitment to their quality of life. MWR offers
some of the best recreation programs and developmental outlets
for our sailors' family members. Whatever the need, wherever
the location, our patrons know they can count on MWR to deliver
on our promise of high-quality facilities, services, and
programs. Thank you.
I would like to submit the rest of my statement for the
record, and I stand by to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patrick can be found in the
Appendix on page 85.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Patrick.
We now have Mr. Timothy R. Larsen.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. LARSEN, DIRECTOR, PERSONAL AND FAMILY
READINESS DIVISION, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Mr. Larsen. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to represent the Marine Corps and to provide a
report on our MWR and family readiness programs.
We thank the Congress, especially this subcommittee, for
your continued support and your recognition that these are
critical programs to resiliency and readiness of marines and
their families.
We have been engaged in a multiyear effort to transition
marine and family programs, and this includes the establishment
of family readiness officers, the redesign of our Exceptional
Family Member and School Liaison programs, and numerous
quality-of-life improvements at remote and isolated commands.
Feedback from marines and families has been very positive, and
we have built the requirement into our fiscal year 2010
baseline budget, with an increase of about $110 million.
The current effort of program transitions as outlined by
General Amos in his planning guidance is focused on enhancing
the resiliency of marines and families. The Commandant's
planning guidance also tasked us with ensuring that marines and
their families have access to quality facilities and support
programs as well as the resources necessary to provide a
quality standard of living. His guidance also directs that we
review and improve Family Readiness and Transition Assistance
programs, and we move to more fully integrate behavioral health
efforts within the Marine Corps.
We appreciate the support from Congress as well as our
partnership with the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]
and the work that we do with sister services, all of which help
us and contribute to our ability to provide and deliver quality
services and programs for our marines and sailors. And on
behalf of marines and families, I thank the subcommittee for
your oversight and continued support of Marine Corps programs
and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen can be found in the
Appendix on page 103.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Larsen, and we now
have Mr. Charles E. Milam.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. MILAM, DIRECTOR OF AIR FORCE SERVICES,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE

Mr. Milam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Military
Personnel Subcommittee members, for the opportunity today to
present the status of Air Force MWR programs. We appreciate the
leadership and support for the readiness and quality of life
for our airmen and their families. The men and women of Air
Force Services are making remarkable contributions to ongoing
overseas contingency operations and humanitarian efforts. We
will not lose sight of our core function to provide mission-
ready airmen; however, in order to focus on the mission, we
must provide support for our airmen and their families; simply
put, caring for people.
In my 25 years in Air Force Services, our scope of
operations has never been bigger. Our MWR team nearly 48,000
strong now provides the most robust Caring for People programs
in recent history. We have stretched our traditional MWR model
to forge a stronger Air Force community, evolving and expanding
our services to meet the constantly changing needs of our
airmen and their families.
Beyond our traditional combat support and community service
roles, we are enhancing our efforts in warrior and survivor
care, family readiness and resiliency, food transformation,
nonmedical counseling services, outreach programs, inclusive
recreation, dignified transfers, and much more.
Last year's Year of the Air Force Family reemphasizes our
commitment to a strong sense of Air Force community, and Air
Force Services has key roles in our enduring road map for
expanded programs and services in health and wellness, airmen
and family support, education and development, and airmen and
family housing.
As we build these better programs, though, we must also be
vigilant about budget pressures to use fund troop dollars for
purposes that ought to be supported with appropriated funds.
As the spouse of an Air Force officer who is currently
deployed to Afghanistan and the father of two young children, I
fully understand the challenges that we face and certainly the
importance of taking care of our airmen and their families.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and I look
forward to working with this subcommittee. And I welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Milam can be found in the
Appendix on page 120.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Milam, and thank you
for your family's service, too. And you certainly have a good
perspective of how important military families are.
Continuing the tradition of Congresswoman Susan Davis, we
will have the 5-minute rule, and Mr. Higgins is going to be the
master of this. And so he is the final arbiter.
And I want to thank all of you for being here. My interest,
obviously, as a Member of Congress, and I am very grateful I
represent Fort Jackson. I am almost as fortunate as
Congresswoman Hartzler. And I represent Marine Corps Air
Station Beaufort, Parris Island, Beaufort Naval Hospital, and I
have--also as a family member I am very grateful. I have got
three sons who served in the Army National Guard, I have got a
son who is a doctor in the Navy, and I have got a nephew who is
currently in the Air Force. So we are a joint service family.
I certainly think it is a reasonable expectation that
budget pressures on installation commanders and other managers
would require a reduction in appropriated funding for MWR
programs. Those cuts could take the form of an across-the-board
reduction against all MWR programs being diminished in
effectiveness. But I hope and suggest that there may be a more
strategic prospective that protects the funding levels for
critical programs while eliminating programs that are not as
important to the welfare of military families, and service
members and veterans.
Mr. Gordon, is there a DOD-wide plan to review all MWR
programs to prioritize which programs should receive
appropriated funds and which programs that do not match up?
Mr. Gordon. I think the services have done a very good job
assessing their programs to getting a sense of the state of
those programs now and the degree to which they provide
effective quality of life for our service members and their
families.
One thing, I think, to note is that we have to be much more
sharply focused on what families and service members want,
first of all. And I had mentioned in my statement about the
customer satisfaction survey. That helps to a great degree
because we now know the points of emphasis for our families and
our service members, what they consider important in terms of
morale, welfare, and recreation, and will use that.
But as important, maybe even more important, is our
leadership, and we have the right leadership in place to make
those sorts of assessments. You see some of it before you here.
But that leadership has been very, very focused on ensuring the
top priority for the human element of what we do in the Defense
Department. As we all know, we are about machines and people,
and as we usher in this 21st century, we have been at war now
for 10 years, this notion of focusing on our human element, our
service members, their families, because in terms of retention,
in terms of readiness, it is absolutely essential.
So with the customer satisfaction survey, with the
assessment that the services have done in terms of morale,
welfare, and recreation activities, and then with the success
of those programs.
I was in the Army for 26 years, and a dependent as well,
who lived overseas in the American Augsburg Youth Activities
Association. So I have seen the transition. I was just at Fort
Campbell, and the services that are provided today are just
outstanding. So with respect to leadership, with respect to
assessment of programs, and with respect to the infrastructure
in place, I think we are in good shape.
Mr. Wilson. I appreciate using the word ``respect.''
Another way to phrase respect, too, is respect for family
members, and so that is what you are doing.
Mr. Gordon. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And actually for all other panel members, have there been
funding reductions already? What is the effect? For each
member. You can begin, Mr. Milam.
Mr. Milam. We haven't seen the exact numbers yet, but we
are working some cut drills just to anticipate some reductions.
We are focusing on certainly the warfighter first and some of
our key warrior and survivor care programs for our wounded
warriors, our mortuary affairs operations, child care. We just
completed a Caring for People Survey with over 100,000
responses from the total force to include Guard and Reserve,
and civilians, and family members. That gives us a good
indication of where we need to prioritize our resources.
So without really seeing the specific cuts, we can't
identify the exact cuts that will take place, but we are
working the drills as we speak.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Gorman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
We acknowledge the environment we are in and the need to be
ever more fiscally conscious.
At the same time, we are blessed by the Army leadership's
commitment to the Army Family Covenant. You are aware that
General Casey came out of Iraq in April of 2007 to become our
36th Chief of Staff; believed at that point that the Army was
out of balance and over the next 6 months put us to work to
create the Army Family Covenant. The commitment to funding that
is steadfast.
In 2007, our family and MWR programs were funded about $749
million, and on the first of October 2007, the beginning of
fiscal year 2008, that commitment was doubled to 1.4 million,
most of which initially in OCO, and in 2009 and beyond has been
transferred into the base. So we are confident that the
resources remain in place at least for as far as we can see.
At the same time, we also accept the responsibility to
develop what General Casey calls a cost culture where we turn a
new page in our approach to fiscal management, where it is not
about executing dollars, but it is about what we get for the
money we spend in terms of the value we provide our service
members and their families in exchange or in turn for their
magnificent service.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Either one.
Mr. Patrick. Yes, sir. The two points I would like to make
for Navy, listening to the customer, we have been using CFI,
the same contractor, for about 8 or 9 years now. So we have got
some pretty good empirical data. We have been using it to shape
our programs all along.
Once we focus on which programs are the most important, we
are switching gears and looking at standardization, and trying
to deliver the program consistently across our bases, and using
the best practices of the bases we know do it exceedingly well,
and try and economize in that fashion.
Mr. Larsen. Sir, currently in this year, next year's
budget, we have not taken any reductions in the appropriated
funds. But last year as we did the POM [program objective
memorandum], we did take some reductions through the POM
process.
What the Marine Corps has done and put in place for the
future, as we go through developing the budget through the POM
process, they have a prioritized list of programs, and these
family programs are on that prioritized list, and before any
reductions are recommended or projected in those areas, there
has to be a decision made by the leadership of the Marine Corps
on whether or not they will take that.
We are doing an assessment of our programs top to bottom.
There is about 100 programs. We are looking at all of those
programs. We are getting input from commanders as they rack and
stack those programs as far as from their perspective. We are
getting input from family members. We are also getting input
from marines. And we are looking at usage data. Before we
decide we are going to reduce the funding in the programs, we
want to see what the impact is going to be on mission and on
the importance of those programs to the marines and families.
Mr. Wilson. I thank all of you, and we have just been
joined by Congressman Austin Scott. Congressman Scott also
represents very significant facilities in the State of Georgia.
We want to congratulate him, too. A great honor. He was elected
the president of the freshman class of the 112th Congress, one
of the largest freshman classes in the history of our Nation.
So the president of the class is pretty important, but he is
even more important than usual. So congratulations.
And we go to Congresswoman Susan Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
In many ways I think you answered one of my first questions
about the viability of the programs, because one of the
concerns that I think we have is that there are some
individuals, and I am sure some Members of Congress as well,
perhaps some new Members, who would question whether or not we
need to have commissaries and exchanges for our military
families, and whether or not it wouldn't be fine for people to
go shop in local community stores.
I think the issue that sometimes gets lost is that the
nonappropriated funding that comes from these activities
impacts the programs that you have all been just talking about.
So I wonder if there is--perhaps one of the ways of helping us
as well as we look to those programs and which ones have
greater viability perhaps than others is what would it look
like if, in fact, we didn't have that kind of nonappropriated
funding, we didn't have those resources? Is there a way that
you would talk about that so that people would understand how
important they are?
Mr. Gordon. Right. You know, we build a sense of community
with those programs first. It is a military community that has
been at war for a long period of time. Sixty to seventy
percent, depending on the service, of our service members and
their families live off post. These programs bring them back
together when we are talking about our commissaries and our
exchanges. It is a place of meeting not only for our Active
Duty, but for our Guard and Reserve and our retired service
members. So that sense of community is absolutely essential.
But there is the effectiveness issue as well in terms of
the 31.5 percent savings, in terms of a benefit for our
commissaries, the fact that we have 923 child development
centers where we can have our 180,000 of our 200,000 children
who need that have a place to go. So it is a workforce issue as
well.
I think it is an ecosystem that we have built. And within
that ecosystem we have the efficiency, and we have the
effectiveness, and we have the equity, and with this team, I
would argue, we have the innovation to be able to build that
sense of community to sustain readiness and retention.
Mrs. Davis. I don't know if anybody else wanted to comment
further. Yes, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, ma'am.
To have these programs is part of the--I think they are
critical. They are essential to the way we run the other
programs. The nonappropriated fund programs support the other
family programs that--some of which we get some appropriated
funds for; some of them, depending on what category they are
in, we share the funding between appropriated and
nonappropriated funds. But as part of the nonpaid compensation
that we get for the service members, it is critical for them.
We provide a savings and a value in the exchanges that they
are able to buy things at about 27 percent less than in
retailers outside the gates. So there is a real value to that,
especially the young family members. The young service members
with families really realize that benefit. We have programs in
place like ``My Cost Is Your Cost,'' where we sell things at
cost, whether diapers, formula, baby food, some of those other
items like that, milk and eggs, milk and bread and things like
that, to really help defray some of the cost of living that
some of these young families are experiencing.
The dividend that we realize from that funds these
programs, and to take that away or to remove the appropriated
funding from that would really restrict the ability to generate
the nonappropriated funds, and it would cause us to have to put
more money back into the programs.
So the connection between the appropriated, nonappropriated
funding for these programs is very important. It is critical to
our ability to provide these services.
Mr. Gorman. I would just add, and I concur with everything
said, that from a financial perspective, we earn about $200
million a year on our garrisons in nonappropriated funds to be
used to support families. About 75 percent of that money is
provided by the dividend from the Army and Air Force exchange
system. So the continued viability of both the commissary and
the exchange system is critical.
I would also add that the lion's share of our appropriated
funds are spent in recreation, but even more so in Army
Community Services, which provides counseling and family
services, and our Child and Youth Services program.
The survey of Army families, just completed this past
summer, indicates that over 60 percent of our families are
pleased with the way the Army is treating them after 9 years of
war. And I think that really speaks for itself.
Our leadership, General Casey and Lieutenant General Lynch,
the Commander of the Army Installation Management Command,
frequently say that our Army is not going to break because of
its soldiers, but it might break because of its families. So
therefore, we need to stay resolute in our commitment to
funding those things that help them feel good about who they
are, what they do, and where they serve. Thank you.
Mr. Milam. I would just echo everything that has been said,
and certainly the dividend stream from AAFES [Army and Air
Force Exchange Service] has an enormous impact on the quality-
of-life programs and construction projects that we have in the
Air Force. Taking that away or impacting that in any way would
have a huge impact on quality-of-life programs.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And Congressman Allen West.
Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it really is an
honor to sit here before each and every one of you. And having
done 22 years of Active Duty service myself, coming from a
father who served in World War II, a mother who did civilian
service for 25 years with the Marine Corps district
headquarters in Atlanta, an older brother who served in
Vietnam, a nephew who is a captain serving in Fort Knox right
now, and also a wife who is a military dependent--her father
served two tours in Vietnam, two of her brothers served in the
Air Force--and, of course, both of my daughters, who are 17 and
14 now, born out at Fort Riley, Kansas, spent time in Fort
Riley, Fort Leavenworth, Camp Lejeune, and then also Fort Hood,
Texas. So what you are talking about here is very near and dear
to my heart, because my two daughters have been beneficiaries
of the great Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs. And
also I spent 3 years working for the Installation Management
Command [IMCOM] after I retired. So please give my regards to
all of my friends at IMCOM out there at San Antonio Texas.
But one of the things I would like to bring up a question.
This past Saturday I had the opportunity of attending a Navy
League event down at Fort Lauderdale, and the Chief of Staff of
the Army USSOUTHCOM--I mean, USSOUTHCOM [United States Southern
Command] was there, Major General Ayala. We just talked about
commissaries, and one of the things he brought up is the amount
of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen we
have in and around that headquarters. And he asked if they
could get the opportunity of having a commissary built there
for them, because there is something about a commissary system.
It is not just about people going to a Walmart, or Costco, or
whatever. It is a camaraderie that a commissary allows you to
have, and then also when you think about a lot of the retirees
there.
So one of the things I want to ask is if you could do that
assessment of looking at having a commissary system down there
for the United States Southern Command, because I think it is
very important. I think that when you look at the cost-benefit
analysis, you will see that you could generate a lot of funds
with the retired community down there.
My real question is this: I saw how the Army on-post
housing transformed when we went to the privatized system, and
that was a great system because you were able to do a lot of
things as far as the repairs and the responsiveness to the
servicing of those quarters. And so I would ask is that
something that we have shared across all of our services to
look at how we can improve the responsiveness of our on-base,
on-post installation housing?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your family's
service as well.
I am going to let the services answer about how much they
are sharing among themselves, but we are trying to institute
more programs actually at the Department of Defense where we
are actually bringing together the services to exchange
information, and ideas and best practices. We have a service-
to-service meeting now where the Deputy M&RAs [Assistant
Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs] come together. A
real success story, for example, is the Army Spouse Employment
program, where the Army talked about that program, and we are
looking at making that program purple now and expanding that to
all military spouses in terms of availability for jobs.
So I think with this new leadership, we are much more apt
to get together to start to exchange ideas and best practices
that are working. But let me defer to the services in terms of
specifically housing.
Mr. Larsen. Well, I don't think most of us on this panel
don't really do housing, but I will just give you a couple of
points that I might be aware of.
As a former installation commander, I was a little familiar
with some of the issues with housing, but I would offer that
all of the services have taken advantage of the PPV [public-
private ventures] and be able to do public-private ventures and
improve the housing on the bases. If you go around and look
across the board, when we have town hall meetings and we meet
with service members, they routinely are very appreciative of
what the services have done for them as far as the housing is
concerned. And so I think we made huge progress in that area.
We are doing similar things in lots of other areas to see
if we can get joint ventures with private companies to help us
do different activities on our installations. So I think, in
that regard, it does have some applicability to the members of
the panel here. And so we are working together on a lot of
these things. We have several efforts that are ongoing to share
information. Actually, on a routine basis, the exchanges and
commissaries are working together to try to improve the quality
of services we provide to service members.
Mr. Milam. The Air Force has undergone similar
privatization on the installations, which, of course, more and
more Air Force personnel and families have moved off base as a
result of that.
One of our challenges from a quality-of-life and an MWR
standpoint is how do we reach those families? And it almost
becomes the model of the Guard and Reserve where we have our
military living out in communities, and where we have less
focus on the bricks-and-mortar piece of the installation on the
base.
What we do know through several surveys is at the end of
the day, our military members are going home if they live off
base. They are not hanging out at the clubs like they used to
back in the day. They are going back where their families live.
And we also realize that that sense of community is established
in the neighborhoods that you live in, where you go to church,
where your kids go to school. So what we are challenged with as
we look through our programs and our efficiency drills is how
we reach them and continue to support them with our MWR
programs.
Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
We next go to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very
pleased to be on this personnel committee again. I was with you
last time, and, of course, Mrs. Davis.
I have a couple of very important questions for Guam. The
first question is for Secretary Gordon or Mr. Patrick, and it
is regarding a contracting issue for MWR services on Guam. I
understand that your office may not be the contracting
authority, but it will certainly impact the quality of MWR
services on Guam and the relationship between MWR services and
our local business community.
I understand that there may be a sole sourcing of the MWR
service contract to an off-island firm when local companies
that are HUBZone [Historically Underutilized Business Zone]
certified are willing to do the work and are, in fact,
currently performing this contract. I further understand that
the contract may be sole-sourced because of time constraints or
personnel shortages at the contracting authority, which I
believe is FISC [Fleet and Industrial Supply Center] in Pearl
Harbor.
This is simply unacceptable to me, gentlemen, and I have
long stated that all contracts out in Guam should be
competitively awarded. So can I get your commitment to work
with our local MWR folks and the Joint Region Marianas to
address this matter? I want to ensure that we have fair
competition for this contract. The people of Guam are very
concerned about it, and there will be other contracts that will
be implemented in the future.
So, Mr. Gordon, could I get your answer on that?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much, and I will certainly look
into it. Competition is important.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
Mr. Gordon. I will take this for the record as well to dig
into it. I will look into it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 145.]
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Because this was a competitive
awarded contract, and now all of a sudden it is sole-sourced.
And the second question I have--Mr. Chairman, do I have
time for a second?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Good.
The military on Guam has a strategically important
footprint and perform critically important missions for our
country every day. MWR plays an important role in sustaining
the readiness of the force, and to that extent I am wondering
what more proactive efforts can be taken to work with the
airlines that fly in and out of Guam to provide improved
discounted offers for morale leave? I do know that Continental
Airlines offers some discounted ticket prices, but service
members on the bases still have a difficult time taking
advantage of Guam's location and proximity to other Asian
destinations because of the general high fares out there. So is
this something that could be looked into further? And, Mr.
Gordon, you or anyone else that could answer that.
Mr. Gordon. I think there is a larger issue here, too, and
I am glad that you brought that up. And the question is how we
are partnering with our nonprofit and our commercial sectors
given this new fiscal austerity that we are going to witness.
So that is certainly worth looking into.
At the same time, I think the good news story is we are
looking and reaching out for those sorts of partnerships. A
perfect example is our child care arena where we are working
with 13 States, for example, to do something about the shortage
of roughly about 37,000 slots for child care. And it is these
sorts of partnerships where we can once again reduce, for
example, costs for our service members and their families, and
at the same time get some efficiencies as a result that are
worth looking into. So I will certainly do that as well.
Ms. Bordallo. Good.
I think I have just a couple of seconds left here. This
question, the third one, is for Mr. Milam with the Air Force.
In your testimony you discussed the Food Transformation
Initiative in the Air Force. Can you discuss to what extent
appropriate sustainability practices are utilized in this
initiative? Are you looking at providing food sources that
within a 150-mile radius as is generally accepted
sustainability practice?
Mr. Milam. Ma'am, let me preface my response by explaining
why we started Food Transformation, why we got into this. We
are challenged, we have a platform, a food service delivery
platform, in the Air Force that is over 60 years old. It has a
32 percent utilization rate, it costs over $20 per plate to
feed an airman, and, quite frankly, has the lowest customer
satisfaction rate out of any of our MWR programs, about 67
percent. That is a D. That is not acceptable. So we are taking
a hard look at transforming, how we do--how we deliver food in
the Air Force.
To certainly improve the quality, the variety and the
availability, we have contracted with ARAMARK Corporation, and
we started out at six test locations that we have out there.
The feedback that we have so far has been very positive. Across
the board we are looking at about a 22 percent increase in
utilization. In fact, last week I was at MacDill Air Force Base
at Tampa, and, speaking with the personnel down there, they had
an average customer rate of about 350 to 400. They are up to
1,300 customers per day. One of the problems they have is the
throughput of bringing those people through, but the quality
has certainly improved.
We are delivering this Food Transformation effort through
the contract, through a delivery order focusing on both the
appropriated fund, the flight line feeding, as well as some NAF
functions that they have out there. So there is a benefit
certainly to the military as is the contractor.
Overall there will be a savings with this initiative of
about 25 percent for appropriated funds. So we are not only
saving money, but we are improving the quality, the
availability, and the variety of food. On average, we have
increased food service at these locations from 66 hours per
week to 112 hours per week.
This is a model that we want to adapt across the board.
There is currently a GAO [Government Accountability Office]
review, and I think they are going to report out to Congress
around April time frame. We would like to continue our Food
Transformation effort at other locations in the Air Force.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
be on this subcommittee. I am glad to be here today, and I am
proud to represent Missouri's Fourth Congressional District,
not only Fort Leonard Wood, but also the Missouri National
Guard headquarters and Whiteman Air Force Base.
And as a former family consumer sciences teacher, child
development is very important to me, and the family is very
important, so I appreciate all of your priority and what you do
to make family a priority in the armed services.
Mr. Milam, in looking at some data that was provided for us
ahead of time regarding the childcare facilities, I just wanted
to ask a question a little bit about the percentage rate for
Category B funding. I know that at Whiteman Air Force Base we
are very pleased with the stellar, brand new childcare facility
there, the Susie Skelton Child Care Center. It is just
absolutely beautiful, and I know it is very well received there
on base. But from the data that I look at, it looks like that
the Air Force overall has only a 56 percent investment in child
care, and I just wondered what your thoughts were, given how
important it is. The Air Force seems to be a little out of step
with providing services, contributing less funds, than the
other services are to this category. So what are your thoughts
on that, and what is the Air Force doing?
Mr. Milam. The fees are matching, where we get 50 percent
appropriated fund support, and then the parent fees are matched
50/50. So we are a little bit above, I believe, the OSD
requirement for that.
Certainly child care is very important in the military, and
I have two children age 5 and 6 who are in the program, so I
fully understand that. When we survey our parents, certainly
the most important thing for them is the availability of child
care. So if someone gave me more money, I think one of the
first things I would do is look at the availability in
increased spaces, not only spaces in a physical structure on
the installation, but perhaps providing additional childcare
subsidies for our Guard and our Reserve units that are out
there.
I believe our fees are fair, they are in line with the new
DOD fees, with the nine-tier structure, and the support that we
currently provide in the APF [appropriated funds] meets the
standard. So what we are focusing on now, ma'am, is to ensure
that we can deliver more child care, availability of child
care, to our airmen and their families. That is the piece that
will reduce the stress on our families is having child care.
Now, certainly the cost of child care is a factor when we
survey our families, but it is not the factor.
Mrs. Hartzler. So I need a little clarity. I am just new
here. I thought the goal was 65 percent, and it is 56 percent.
So you are saying that you are not below the goal?
Mr. Milam. The matching fee is 50/50. The goal to Category
B activities is 65 percent. We are meeting that. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
We now have Congressman Austin Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Gordon and Mr. Milam, I represent Robins Air Force
Base in Georgia. And we are blessed in Georgia with many bases
and certainly want to work with you to maintain that.
And my question really gets back to the MWR and any changes
that are made. What guidance is the DOD going to give to the
base commanders with regard to those changes, or are the
individual commanders going to be allowed to work with their
personnel and determine what changes should be made to
accommodate those budget-related issues?
Mr. Gordon. From the DOD perspective, ensuring a
consistency, first of all, that we are meeting basically
category A, or category B, or category C, very important, but
that consistency in policy as well. At the same time--and I
then will let Mr. Milam discuss the Air Force--commanders have
a great responsibility, and they are on the ground and really
do understand the needs and requirements of their families and
their service members.
I recently visited both Fort Carson and Fort Campbell, and
one of the instrumental aspects in terms of providing care is
also an outreach to community. It is not just about what is
going on, as we all know, on that post or base, but how well
the command integrates with the community, because, once again,
most of our service members and their families live off post.
They live off base. So those commanders and that sort of
assessment is absolutely instrumental.
At the same time I do think we have the policies in place
to ensure a consistency across the force, and we have an
emphasis basically on our service members and their families in
terms of the overall platform of morale, welfare, and
recreation and its importance to readiness and recruitment.
With that, I will turn it over to the Air Force, and we can
get more specific.
Mr. Milam. Certainly the programs that we look at as far as
the efficiencies at the Air Force strategic level, there is not
one size that fits all that I have found across our
installations. In many respects when we have an issue with
child care at one base, we may not have that at another base,
or a recreation program may be vibrant at one location and not
the other. So it is difficult to say, let us trim these
programs across the board. That is not a fair assessment. What
we have to do is look at the installation specifically. And I
think the installation commander certainly has the authority to
make his or her own changes.
Food transformation, for example, is a very, very positive
impact on the airmen, but the current dining facility at Robins
may certainly fit the needs or may be suitable for those airmen
that we have today.
So, again, whatever changes we make in the Air Force may
not be a blanket change across the Air Force. I think the
installation commander will still have the authority to make
those changes.
Mr. Scott. If I could just follow up with that. I do
believe that the local base commanders in working with their
people should be allowed the flexibility there, and I
appreciate that and hope that we continue to pursue that. And
just what a member of the Navy on the west coast desires as far
as recreational facilities may be very different from what a
member of the Air Force in central Georgia desires. And I think
that if those decisions are left to the local base commander
instead of coming out of Washington, I think that is the best
way to serve our men and women in uniform on those bases. Thank
you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. We are very fortunate. We have just been
joined--I don't know if he is ready--by Congressman Dr. Joe
Heck from the Republic of Nevada. So we are very grateful to
have--Congressman, if you would like to ask questions, we are
doing--and this is the hearing in regard to morale, welfare,
and recreation programs, and if you would like to ask any
questions, we would be happy to hear from you.
Dr. Heck. I will waive the motion.
Mr. Wilson. And actually you have come right at the time as
we prepare to adjourn. But it is really very appropriate that
you came, because I was going to mention as we conclude how
much I appreciate the freshmen participating. So thank you very
much, and I hope that you find your experience on this
committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee, rewarding.
I know that as Congresswoman Davis was chairman, she certainly
made sure that everybody had the opportunity to participate.
And so I thank all of you. And Colonel West was here
earlier.
So a point that was made, Mr. Gordon, by you, and that is
that your programs, as described so well today, are
instrumental for a sense of community, which is the military.
And then Colonel West was pointing out camaraderie, and to me I
think of people serving in the military as part of the military
family, and it is a military family that is providing for young
people in families opportunity for young people to serve to the
highest and fulfill to the highest of their ability. So I want
to thank you for letting that occur.
And we do have time for Mrs. Davis to ask another question
as we get ready to conclude. And then, Dr. Heck, if you do want
to participate, we would be happy for a question, but it is
your call.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Heck, surely this might give you a little
breathing space if you had a question. One or two here really.
This goes to you, Mr. Gordon.
One of the concerns I hear frequently, in fact I just heard
it the other day when I was meeting with a number of sailors at
32nd Street in San Diego, has to do with special needs children
and the families, the challenges that they face. During the
National Defense Authorization Act review and our passage of
that for 2010, we had a requirement in the bill that
established the Office of Community Support for Military
Families with Special Needs under the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I understand that this may
not be directly in your lane; however, I want to ask you a
little bit about any of your involvement in that, because it
does feel as if those two departments, at least, would possibly
be working together and developing that program.
What has been your involvement, and where are we?
Mr. Gordon. Good question. And the office does come under
Military Community and Family Policy. It is run by Dr. Rebecca
Posante. Where we are is we have staffed up. We have staffed up
the office. She has her full complement basically of staff
members.
Let me preface, moving on, by saying before I came to this
job, I was in the nonprofit community where we were very
focused on youth with disabilities. And so I don't come to this
with a degree of naivete about what we need to do in this area,
because prior to this very focused on how we empower youths
with disabilities, how we make people aware of their needs and
what they can do in our society in terms of making it very
productive, but also their needs in terms of, you know, key
aspects based on what the disability is. And so in terms of
special needs, we have got an office now with the kind of
leadership that can focus on those key areas for our service
members who have families with special needs.
So I would say first we have staffed up with the right
people. I would say, second, we are going to start conducting,
and we are engaged in this now, a survey of what those needs
might be and how we might best address them.
One of the issues for our service members and their
families is education, it is a perfect example, where our
children are going with special needs and whether they are
getting the quality care that they need, and if there are
alternative ways of doing that better. So that is one of the
things that we are going to look at.
But I am happy to say that we have got the staff in place,
we are coming up with a blueprint for action, and we look
forward to working with the services and Congress on that.
Mrs. Davis. Great. I am glad to hear that, that it is
moving along. In some ways the establishment of that office was
also because we knew it is pretty difficult to answer all the
needs of all the families out there, but if we have one
particular place, that can be helpful.
Did the DOD then provide the $50 million that was directed
in the law to that office? Is the money there, and is it being
utilized?
Mr. Gordon. Good question. I have to take that for the
record, too, to make sure that it is. We have gotten what we
need at this point in time to really get a good start. Whether
the full funding was provided, let me take that for the record
and get back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 145.]
Mrs. Davis. Great. Thank you.
I also wanted to mention we know that there was an Army
family conference just recently, and they highlighted at that
conference a number of needs. The high suicide rate, the
lengths of deployment, short dwell time, to lack of PTSD [post-
traumatic stress disorder] screening and rising divorce rates
are some of the top areas within the Army. So I am wondering,
Mr. Patrick, and Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Milam, if you have also
identified, say, the top three or four concerns within your
service, what they are.
Mr. Milam. Yes, ma'am. We have a similar annual conference,
it is our Caring for People conference, and last year we had a
special group for the special needs families. They have
identified several challenges.
I am proud to say that we now have a trained Exceptional
Family Member program coordinator at all of our installations.
We hired 35 full time, those with installations that had 175 or
more special needs families; and those that had less, it became
an additional duty at the Airman and Family Readiness Centers.
Beginning next month we will have a robust respite program
for special needs families, up to 20 hours of care per week to
give those families a break. And this is all about reducing the
stress on those families, as you mentioned, and how we can do
that.
But having those Exceptional Family Member program
coordinators at the installation now takes some of the burden
away from the families when they move from base to base. They
can go to that single point of contact and have all of their
personnel-related questions, their medical-related questions,
and get pointed in the right direction, where before they never
really had those services. So we have come a long way in the
Air Force with a long way to go.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to comment quickly? I think
my time is up.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, ma'am, very quickly.
The Exceptional Family Member program in the Marine Corps
has been one of the priorities of the previous Commandant, and
the passion for that program is shared by the current
Commandant and his wife. The enrollment in the program is up by
about 43 percent over what it was. If you look at 2001, we had
about 4,500 people that were enrolled in the Exceptional Family
Member program. Today there are not quite 10,000. So there is a
significant increase. We think there is still room to grow
based on the propensity of some of these conditions that could
be as much as about 16,000, so there is still room to continue
to grow.
We have case workers, 1 per 225. We have respite care that
is provided to all the members--the service members, families
that are in the program, 40 hours a month for respite care. So
we are doing a number of things to help address those needs.
Additionally, on the issue of suicide, and dwell time and
some of those other factors, they have a significant impact on
the readiness of the force and the ability for us to regenerate
and be resilient. If you look at the Marine Corps this year,
and we don't have a silver bullet, and we don't know the
answer, but our suicide rate--our suicide rate is down, and the
numbers are down from 62 last year to 39 this past year. So it
is significantly reduced. Why? Because the leadership has been
focused on it. The commanders are involved. We have done
training of the individual marines. There is peer-to-peer
training and different things that we have done. We have put
things in place to really try to get--to make an impact on that
serious situation, and I think we are making progress. We are
not advertising that we have solved suicide or anything like
that, but because of the engaged leadership of--the senior
leadership of the Marine Corps, we have made an impact in some
of those areas.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Congressman Joe Heck.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies to you, and
the committee members and the panel for my tardiness, but I am
quickly becoming well versed in conflicting subcommittee
meetings.
Mr. Gorman, my question is for you, hello, thank you for
being here. I quickly glanced through your packet, and I saw
that you mentioned--I don't know if you did in your testimony
again, but in the writing about the Army OneSource Program.
From someone whose family has used it, having been a deployed
service member and relied on Army OneSource for simple things
like finding a plumber when I wasn't home to fix a problem, I
think that is a great program. I also saw that you refer to the
Army Community Covenant program, excellent program. I am
actually going to be participating in a covenant signing this
weekend in Pinellas Park, Florida.
What I didn't see in there, and I hope this in your lane,
the Strong Bonds program.
Mr. Gorman. It touches us. Strong Bonds is actually a
chaplains' program. We are their number one assist, if you
will. Three of our four Armed Forces recreation centers, in
Garmisch, Germany; in Seoul, Korea; and at the Haleakala in
Honolulu, Hawaii, are the major sources of where those events
are held.
General Chiarelli, the Vice Chief of Staff in the Army, at
the Army Family Action Plan meeting 3 years ago, I guess it
was, and in that process we always asked the delegates--we just
finished this year's program 2 weeks ago--give us five things
that are working and five that are not. From one year to the
next, behavioral counseling, or lack of it, went from being the
most significant issue to not even on the list. General
Chiarelli tied that to two reasons: One, through the graces of
the OSD, we have the military family life consultants and
Strong Bonds. It attempts to get in a collegial way at those at
greatest risk for marital problems. The entire Army is focused
on suicide reduction through a wide range of resiliency
programs.
So I couldn't say enough for Strong Bonds. We don't per se
operate the program, but we are in support in a big way.
Dr. Heck. And I appreciate it. It is a phenomenal program,
and it goes exactly to the points that you mentioned about
trying to reintegrate deployed family members as well as
decreasing some of the suicide risks.
Do you see, if possible, a bigger role for your
organization in trying to reach out and provide more of those
programs in a more timely, cost-effective manner?
Mr. Gorman. I see our role like our overarching challenge
to ever be more efficient with the dollars we are blessed to
have; to help the chaplains use each dollar more effectively
for the purpose that they have got them, which is to identify
the challenges our young men and women and their families feel
and help address them.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gorman.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Heck, for your being so
proactive and involved. This is great.
I would like to thank all of our panelists for being here
today, the witnesses. And we appreciate all that you do for our
service members, military families, and veterans. And at this
time we shall be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

February 9, 2011

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

February 9, 2011

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.061

=======================================================================

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

February 9, 2011

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4859.111

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

February 9, 2011

=======================================================================

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS

Mr. Gordon. Although Section 563 (c) of the NDAA 2010 authorized
$50M for the programs for Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations did not
follow. However, the Department took the following actions to comply
with the NDAA:

Provided the Services bridge funding in FY 2010 and FY
2011 to establish case managers (120) within the Exceptional Family
Member Program (EFMP)
Drafted a new policy for the Exceptional Family Member
Program (EFMP). The policy will include elements regarding the
assignment of members with families with special needs and support such
families. We anticipate a draft will be ready for review by the
Military Departments Service review in Spring 2011.
Initiated three research studies:
-- Availability and accessibility of services for children
with autism (due in spring 2011).
-- Availability and accessibility of Medicaid to military
families with special needs (anticipated completion September
2011)
-- Benchmark study to assist in establishing community support
programs for military families with special needs (anticipated
completion November 2011).
Developed professional materials to communicate the EFMP
to military families. Materials to be disseminated to all military
installation family centers in Spring 2011. These professional
materials include materials with the EFMP joint logo such as a pop-up
banner, table cloth, outdoor banner, notebooks and lapel pins.
Developed electronic learning modules, which will be
available to families with special needs and to providers on DoD and
Military Department websites. The eLearning modules will educate
families on the benefits and services available to them and the member
with special needs. Anticipate summer 2011 completion.
Initiated a Functional Analysis of the EFMP including a
study of the Military Departments' databases and case management
systems as a first step in developing a joint database/case management
system. The Functional Analysis will be conducted during FY 2011 to
examine existing systems and project future needs for sharing
information. This is a long term project to assist in the development
of a joint database. The final outcome will network EFMP community
support, personnel activities and military health systems to provide
information as needed for assignments and for community support.

We are working with the Military Departments to validate the level
of EFMP staffing necessary to meet the intention of the law for
individualized services, and to ensure that the Military Departments
have adequate funding for these positions beginning in FY 2012. [See
page 20.]
______

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

Mr. Gordon. The Department of Defense will ensure fair competition
and opportunity to all qualified firms. The Department of Navy
responded in detail to Congresswoman Bordallo on February 9, 2011
regarding her concern for federal contracting opportunities for
companies on Guam in general and about a Morale Welfare and Recreation
(MWR) contract currently being performed by a local company in
particular. [See page 15.]
?

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

February 9, 2011

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

Mr. Wilson. Each year, the Department of Defense spends billions of
dollars to provide services to military personnel and their families
through the Defense Health Program. Included in these services are
caregivers who look after the children of military personnel and
provide other family related services. Background checks for service
providers, and a system of ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of
those checks, should be an integral part of this system to guarantee
the safety and security of the children and families these programs
serve.
What is the Department doing to ensure that individuals
participating in childcare programs under the Defense Health Program
are qualified service providers who have undergone a thorough and
current background investigation?
Mr. Gordon. As background, child development programs operate under
policies established by the Office of Military Community and Family
Policy. Therefore, childcare providers do not fall under the Defense
Health Program. The Department of Defense (DOD) is committed to
ensuring the safety of children left in our care. It is our policy that
employees and contractors in our Child Development Centers are required
to undergo extensive background investigations.
Mr. Wilson. Does the Department require that contractors providing
childcare services to military personnel subject caregivers to a
background check?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, all contractors, as well as employees, providing
childcare services are required to undergo background checks.
Mr. Wilson. If so, what procedures are in place to ensure this
requirement is adhered to?
Mr. Gordon. A higher headquarters Service representative inspects
for compliance during the annual unannounced certification inspection.
Mr. Wilson. As part of the background check, what information and
databases are required to be checked?
Mr. Gordon. All child care employees undergo a Child Care National
Agency Check with Inquiries (CNACI) as a condition of employment. The
CNACI requires a search of virtually all federal law enforcement
records, including those maintained by the FBI, DOD, the State
Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), Customs and Immigration Enforcement, and the Treasury
Department. It also includes a search of local law enforcement records
and Military Installation records and a check of state criminal history
records for all states in which the subject of the investigation has
resided during the preceding 10 years.
Mr. Wilson. How often are these background checks required to be
updated?
Mr. Gordon. Background checks are re-accomplished every five years.
Each Service ensures compliance with the background check policy during
the annual certification inspection conducted by the Service higher
headquarters staff.
Mr. Wilson. Under what procedures does the Office of Military
Community and Family Policy examine childcare service contract
applicants?
Mr. Gordon. MC&FP relies on the Contracting Officer's
Representative (COR) of the Service that functions as the Executive
Agent of the contract to perform these duties.
Mr. Wilson. Have any no-bid contracts been awarded for childcare
services in the past two years? If so, please provide the Committee
with details on these contract awards to include: the procedure and
criteria under which that contract was awarded; whether the contract is
still in place; and a copy of the signed contract.
Mr. Gordon. We are unaware of any ``no-bid'' contracts that have
been awarded for childcare services in the past two years.
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES

Mr. Jones. The Department has a very active program to assist
family members who are moving from base to base. I think we can expect
continued high levels of relocations considering the number of moves
due to BRAC, returns from the Middle East and transitions out of the
military. Can you provide me with an overview of your plans to support
all of this increased mobility? I am interested in your internet
outreach program such as adding training and coordinating with the
Defense Personal Property Program so that the relocation personnel can
better assist families in the use of the Move Dot Mil portal.
Mr. Gordon. The Department has robust ``high-tech/high-touch''
programs to assist Service members and their families who are
relocating from base to base. We have over 300 Relocation Personnel
Specialists who are located in Family Support Centers worldwide to
provide personal, high-touch assistance to members and families. The
services provided include counseling on:

Financial Management
Moving/Renting
Household Goods
Education/Schools
Special Needs Family Members
Stresses of moving and how to recognize them
Spouse Employment Assistance
Cultural adaptation
Community orientation

Additionally, the Military Departments have active sponsorship
programs that facilitate the adaptation of members and their families
undergoing a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move into new working
and living environments, to minimize the anxiety associated with a PCS,
and to afford members and their families the greatest opportunity for a
successful and productive tour of duty at their new location. Sponsors
at the new location provide personalized outreach, information, and
assistance to relocating members and their families.
The two high-touch programs above are augmented by three web-based,
high-tech applications available on the MC&FP MilitaryHOMEFRONT website
(www.
militaryhomefront.dod.mil):

1. The MilitaryHOMEFRONT website offers a ``Plan My Move''
application that is available 24/7 for members and families who are
relocating to a new installation. The application includes a
customizable calendar and other tools, including pre- and post-move
checklists to assist members and families with planning and tracking
the many elements involved with a PCS move.
2. MilitaryINSTALLATIONS provides information on the new
installation to include phone numbers and contact lists base wide. Both
``Plan My Move'' and MilitaryINSTALLATIONS refer users to the Move Dot
Mil portal to establish their move of household goods.
3. The eSponsorship Application and Training (eSAT) is designed to
support military service members assigned the responsibility of unit
sponsorship. The application contains online training, tools, and
resources for sponsors and links to all Department websites supporting
the PCS process, including Military OneSource. eSAT contains a
downloadable checklist of the sponsor's duties and a printable
certificate of completion of training.

Mr. Jones. The Air Force has taken several measures to improve the
quality of food offered at on-base establishments. I have heard good
things about your initiative to improve dining operations on base. How
is this ``Food Transformation Initiative'' going and should it be
accelerated?
Mr. Milam. Food Transformation is having a positive impact on our
Air Force Food Service capabilities. Meals served at our dining
facilities at the six pilot base locations have increased 22% since we
implemented Food Transformation in October 2010. Results from the Air
Force Caring for People survey conducted in December 2010 show customer
satisfaction has increased at our locations where we have implemented
Food Transformation. Using the nationally recognized American Customer
Satisfaction Index (ASCI) as the measurement tool, Food Transformation
locations scored a 76 in customer satisfaction, as compared to a score
of 68 overall for Air Force dining facility programs.
The Air Force continues to refine and improve our Food
Transformation initiative. We are proud of the progress made to date,
but realize we must continue to dedicate our time and full attention to
this transformational initiative. Maintaining our current
implementation schedule is a key to our long-term success. Our second
portfolio of bases is scheduled for implementation in October 2011,
with semi-annual implementation of Food Transformation to our bases
envisioned for the following out-years. At the present time, we do not
plan to accelerate implementations until we have garnered more
experience in our transformed food service operations, and fully
understand and have implemented solutions to the lessons we have
learned from our current implementations.