[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-29]
MISMANAGED MILITARY FAMILY
HOUSING PROGRAMS: WHAT IS THE RECOVERY PLAN?
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 4, 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-903 WASHINGTON : 2020
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Megan Handal, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
WITNESSES
Beehler, Hon. Alex A., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Energy and Environment.......................... 7
Henderson, Hon. John W., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installations, Environment, and Energy......................... 6
McMahon, Hon. Robert H., Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment, Office of the Secretary of Defense................ 3
Modly, Hon. Thomas B., Under Secretary of the Navy............... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Beehler, Hon. Alex A......................................... 57
Garamendi, Hon. John......................................... 29
Henderson, Hon. John W....................................... 49
Lamborn, Hon. Doug........................................... 31
McMahon, Hon. Robert H....................................... 32
Modly, Hon. Thomas B......................................... 41
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Military Officers Association of America Statement for the
Record..................................................... 65
US Army Bi-Weekly Housing Action Plan Update................. 81
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Gabbard.................................................. 85
Ms. Horn..................................................... 86
Ms. Houlahan................................................. 87
Mr. Kim...................................................... 85
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Kim...................................................... 95
Mr. Scott.................................................... 91
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 92
MISMANAGED MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAMS: WHAT IS THE RECOVERY PLAN?
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 4, 2019.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Garamendi. The committee will come to order. I want to
thank my colleagues for joining us here on the dais. And I
notice in the back of the room, some military families joining
us again, and thank you for your--for enlightening us and
telling us about the problem so that we can move forward with a
solution.
In February, this committee heard from a panel of very
courageous military spouses who told us of the unhealthy and
unsanitary living conditions that they were experiencing in the
privatized military housing and the continuing impacts these
conditions have on the health of their families.
In addition to our panelists, this committee and many of
our members have received thousands of emails and letters with
similar accounts of mold, lead contamination, shoddy
maintenance, shoddy workmanship, unprofessional property
management staff. These accounts paint an unsettling picture of
many of our privatized, family-housing developments.
Equally disturbing is the fact that when these families
reached out to their chain of command for help, instead of
getting the support that they desperately needed, they received
shrugs of indifference, and they were told that there is
nothing the military service could do to help them. Well, that
was the wrong answer.
We heard from them, we held a committee hearing, and we are
here today to hear what the United States military is doing to
support the families and the services that they provide to this
country.
In recent weeks, the military services seem to have become
energized about getting to the root cause of this crisis. We
have heard encouraging news from senior leadership at the
engagement of health and safety inspections, inspector general
investigations into work order processes, and housing hotlines
to expedite getting families the needed help.
However, efforts have been performed--these efforts have
been performed at the headquarters level, and they may not have
necessarily trickled down to the installations. We continue to
receive large amounts of correspondence from families
struggling in today's privatized housing. We have heard that in
some cases, the very efforts headquarters have put in place to
improve the situation have led to counterproductive practices,
like closing the maintenance work orders too quickly, and
instead of using privatized partners, nondisclosure agreements
are often used also.
The services must expeditiously move from their assessment
mode into implementation. They must use best practices from the
housing developments that are working well and quickly
implement the fixes required to conduct effective oversight at
headquarters level, and provide the necessary support to our
military families at their installations.
I expect our witnesses will provide us with information on
the steps they are taking today to make headway on these issues
and a detailed road map from here into the mid term and long
term to keep this issue from ever happening again. Our families
deserve better, and this committee will demand that the
services do better.
With that, I would like to turn to my ranking member and
good friend, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, for any remarks he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
the Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for calling this important hearing. This is the second hearing
we have had on this extremely important topic. To begin with, I
want to commend the courage and persistence of military spouses
for bringing this issue to our attention. Without the diligence
of military families raising their voices on behalf of others,
we might still be uninformed about these troubling problems.
This was truly a grassroots effort in the best tradition of
America.
Sadly, our collective management of military family housing
was not in keeping with our proud traditions. There is no
question that Congress and the military services were less than
diligent in our oversight. My colleagues will recall the
compelling testimony we had from several military spouses last
February. They described an unyielding bureaucracy unwilling to
address health issues and closing work orders with no real
resolution. The frustrations they faced in trying to resolve
health and safety concerns for their families made a deep
impression on all of us.
Thankfully, the military services now understand and accept
that they have not provided adequate oversight over housing
programs and they are each taking steps to improve the
situation. To be sure, not all housing programs suffered from
mismanagement. Even so, the general disengagement of service
leadership and the evisceration of housing staff, particularly
at installation level, left a void. That void led to
mismanagement at too many projects.
By now, the military departments have assessed the
situation. We are here to learn what needs to be done to fix
the problems and maintain those fixes into the future. There is
no more important work for this subcommittee to undertake, and
we will work with our Senate colleagues to make sure that this
important issue is addressed as successfully as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses, but before they
start, as I think all of us know, we will have votes in about
an hour, maybe an hour and 15 minutes. So we are going to move
along a little more expeditiously than normal.
So, Mr. Robert McMahon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment, we welcome you; also, Mr. Thomas Modly, Under
Secretary of the Navy; Mr. John Henderson, the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and
Energy; Mr. Alex Beehler, Assistant Secretary of Army for
Installations, Energy and Environment for the Army.
All of us should note that Under Secretary Modly appears
before us today due to the turnover of personnel in the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Navy for Energy, Installations
and Environment. And his seniority should in no way reflect
negatively on the Air Force, Army, or Department of Defense,
who send the people that are specifically responsible. So
having done that little bit of appropriate--we will now move
on.
So, let's start with Mr. McMahon.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. McMAHON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR SUSTAINMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Secretary McMahon. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member
Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity today to testify on military housing. I
would like to begin by acknowledging all of the family members
that have come forward in recent months to share their
experience. This took tremendous courage, and we appreciate not
only what they did, but more importantly, what they do every
day in support of their spouses. What we have heard from them
reinforces that we collectively must do significantly better.
For those of us that have lived in military housing before
privatization--and I have lived in nine different base homes
during my 34-year military career--we know that the quality of
privatized housing is significantly better than when DOD
managed it.
However, for more than 80 percent of our current military
population who didn't experience the poor housing of the past,
this is all they know, and they expect us to get it right 100
percent of the time.
As you know, 90--or 70 percent of our military members live
off base. For the 30 percent that live on base, our goal is to
offer them a safe, high-quality, and affordable home where they
want and choose to live. We must and will do better. We need to
improve upon communications, we need to improve upon
engagement, and we need to improve upon responsiveness.
At the same time, we must ensure the long-term viability of
our privatized housing projects, so that the future residents
will have high-quality housing 20 years from now as well.
It is important to distinguish between what housing
privatization is, and what it is not. The key element is that
we no longer own privatized homes. This does not mean we should
not have oversight responsibilities and authorities, but it
does mean that we do not have contracts to be governed by
clauses. As such, we exercise our authority through the
agreements we have entered into with our privatized partners.
This partnership is key. We must fulfill our oversight
responsibilities and our partners must meet their obligations
as landlords.
Since the beginning of the year, the military departments
have conducted an intense campaign consisting of site visits,
reviews of privatized housing conditions, meetings with
families in communities, and senior-level discussions with
privatization partners to address property management issues.
We have developed a series of corrective actions, based upon
this campaign, that we are now putting in motion, categorized
in terms of near-term, mid-term, and long-term.
Examples of these actions include implementing a resident
bill of rights, determining the feasibility of developing a
common tenant lease, clarifying processes for residents to
raise health concerns, and for health providers to report
issues as appropriate, and establishing resident customer care
advocates.
The Department of Defense is committed to working closely
with you and your staff to ensure our members and families have
safe places to live, work, play, and pray. We, and our industry
partners, are fully committed to first ensuring that today's
residents of privatized housing have a safe, high-quality, and
affordable home, where they want to live and choose to live,
and secondly, ensuring the long-term viability of our
privatized housing projects, so that our future residents, 20
years from now, have exactly the same thing.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary McMahon can be found
in the Appendix on page 32.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Modly.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS B. MODLY, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Secretary Modly. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member
Lamborn, distinguished members of the Readiness Subcommittee,
on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, Richard B. Spencer,
thank you for the opportunity to testify to you regarding the
urgent actions we are taking to immediately improve privatized
housing and the quality of life for our sailors, Marines, and
their families.
As you well know, we ask a tremendous amount from the
members of our Navy-Marine Corps team in defending our Nation.
So to learn that we, as the Department of the Navy and its
leadership, have not fully lived up to our commitments to
provide quality, safe housing was both embarrassing and
alarming to us. It was embarrassing because it reflects poorly
across our entire naval institution, to include those thousands
of people who actually work extremely hard every day to ensure
that those goals and objectives are met. And alarming in that
it raised a number of systemic issues that we needed to
correct, issues that should have been addressed long ago, given
our solemn commitment to each and every service member and
their families that we take care of them to the very best of
our ability.
In the end, this issue is not so much about property
management as it is about leadership. We have recommitted
ourselves to fixing this problem so that our people are
provided the housing they deserve, and so that they can focus
on the important jobs we ask them to do.
Therefore, we are comprehensively reviewing the business
systems, reporting mechanisms, and oversight procedures
governing the way housing maintenance issues are reported,
remediated, and verified in privatized housing.
We are also striving to make personal contact with every
sailor and Marine who lives in a PPV [Public Private Venture]
housing unit. And to date, I am proud to say that the Navy is
100 percent complete on that task, reaching over 44,000 sailors
living in PPV or government-run housing. The Marine Corps will
be complete with this task by April 15th, and to date, they
have made direct contact, face-to-face, with over 58,000
Marines.
I have also directed the Naval Audit Service to perform a
comprehensive review of the PPV program and to report back to
me within 60 to 90 days. The objective of this audit is not
only to look backwards, but to provide insight into how we can
better understand and anticipate emerging trends and align
incentives and accountability across the program.
Finally, we are reaffirming that our PPV partners must
remain an important component of the housing solution offered
to military families. Our agreements with them are designed as
a partnership, and not as a traditional outsourcing contractor
relationship. And so we need far more frequent senior
leadership engagement with them going forward.
We are also ensuring our military leaders understand that
we have not outsourced their responsibility to be advocates for
our service members who reside in a PPV housing unit. It is an
essential function of commanders and small unit leaders to be
engaged in the well-being of sailors and Marines and their
families. This is a moral obligation commanders have to their
people, but it is also one that can have a profound impact on
overall readiness of the force.
It is important that they understand that the PPV structure
is a partnership in which their role in that partnership is not
only financial and governance, but rather, it is to be an
advocate for the tenants whom that partnership serves.
We cannot allow ourselves to take our eyes off the ball on
this critical responsibility again, and we are taking every
possible step to ensure that we don't. I detailed many of the
specific actions we have taken in my written statement, and I
can assure you, the Department of the Navy is all hands on deck
in getting after this problem.
I respectfully request that the statement--written
statement be entered into the record. And thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Modly can be found in
the Appendix on page 41.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Without objection, your statement
and the statement of all of the witnesses will be entered into
the record.
Mr. Henderson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HENDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND ENERGY
Secretary Henderson. Good morning, Chairman Garamendi,
Ranking Member Lamborn, and distinguished members of this
subcommittee. It is an honor to represent our airmen and senior
Air Force leaders here today. My full written statement has
been submitted for the record, but I just wanted to submit--
just summarize the actions we have taken to address the
challenges with privatized housing at some of our Air Force
bases.
We have heard the concerns of our airmen, their families,
and Congress, and Air Force leadership at every level is
aggressively addressing the challenges identified with family
housing. We take the health and safety of our airmen and their
families very seriously. Air Force leadership is currently
working through 39 significant initiatives along 5 lines of
effort to empower residents, integrate leadership, improve
communication, standardize policy, and improve oversight.
On February 12th, Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein
directed an inspector general assessment of policies,
procedures, and best practices for handling resident complaints
and protecting residents from potential health and safety
hazards. This assessment will wrap up soon, and we intend to
incorporate their recommendations into this action plan.
On February 15th, Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein
directed 100 percent health and safety review of family housing
in an effort to identify the scope and extent of our housing
challenges across the Air Force. We completed the review on
March 1st, and our commanders are addressing over 4,700
deficiencies that were identified. To date, over 1,900 of those
deficiencies have been resolved, and we continue to
aggressively work with our project owners to close out the
remaining 2,800 or so items.
And this week, the Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Chief
Master Sergeant also sent a tri-signed letter to all wing
commanders, reinforcing their leader roles and responsibilities
as they apply to privatized housing management at our bases. We
are collaborating with the Office of Secretary of Defense, the
other services, Congress, project owners, and our families and
advocates to develop a resident bill of rights, which is
intended to be consistent across all the services.
The Air Force submitted a $31.2 million fiscal year 2020
unfunded request to add 250 personnel to our housing management
offices. This team is the center of gravity for advocating for
our residents, providing oversight for our project owners,
keeping the chain of command informed, and providing the
critical, on-site leadership and management where it matters
the most.
We are also taking steps to improve engagement with our
airmen who lived in privatized housing. For instance, we
established a toll-free hotline where residents can report
their concerns with privatized housing, and we are crafting a
policy to establish tenant councils for both privatized and
government-owned housing across the Air Force.
Along with these near-term actions, we have also initiated
a number of mid- and long-term efforts in collaboration with
our project owners to improve performance incentive fee
structure, to automate systems for maintenance work order
visibility, to add rigor to our maintenance quality assurance,
to provide mold and moisture policies, and enhance our annual
site audits.
Thank you for the invitation to appear here today and for
your continued support of our airmen and their families. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Henderson can be found
in the Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Beehler.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX A. BEEHLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Secretary Beehler. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member
Lamborn, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to testify on the current state of the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative, and answer any
questions you may have. I want to begin by thanking the
committee members for their continued support and commitment to
the Army soldiers, families, and civilians. I look forward to
working with you to achieve our mutual goal of improving the
condition of Army housing.
First, I would like to emphasize that the safety and well-
being of our soldiers and their families is paramount. The Army
is committed to providing safe and secure housing across its
104,000 family homes, of which more than 87,000 are privatized.
The recent reports of substandard conditions in some of our
military housing units are deeply disturbing. It is
unacceptable for any of our families, who sacrifice so much for
our country, to endure such hardships in their own homes.
Army senior leadership directed installations to inspect
housing, talk with families, and press housing CEOs [chief
executive officers] into action. We recently required
installation commanders to visit all family housing to ensure
no family resides in a home with life, safety, or health
deficiencies, and we are currently evaluating the results.
Additionally, a recently revised Army survey addressing
housing issues will be sent to residents shortly, and we will
review our findings with housing CEOs.
To further address concerns, each installation garrison
commander has established hotlines and conducted town hall
meetings, providing residents the opportunity to voice concerns
to Army leadership. Common themes at these town hall meetings
included poor customer service, lack of work order
transparency, and residents' inability to hold housing
companies accountable.
Additionally, the service secretaries recently introduced a
tenant bill of rights, to which we welcome your input, though
the reforms will not stop there. All companies have agreed to
ensure sufficient trained technicians and staff will be
available to address problems, as well as issues brought up in
our town hall meetings.
The incentive fee structure and project metrics will also
be reviewed.
Going forward, it will be our task to take these
commitments and codify them in project documents.
Our mission is to provide high-quality homes and living
experiences, both privatized and Army-owned. We remain
committed to providing safe and secure housing for our soldiers
and their families, but we need to do better. It is clear that
we have let some of our Army families down, and moving forward,
we are committed to applying the resources necessary to oversee
and fully address these issues. Our soldiers and their families
deserve no less.
Thank you for your interest in this matter as well as your
continued support of the Army.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Beehler can be found
in the Appendix on page 57.]
Mr. Garamendi. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. We
have a very significant participation by the members of the
committee, and we have little time. I would ask the members to
see if we can work on 3 minutes rather than 5. Otherwise, we
are going to leave a lot of our members without having an
opportunity for questions. And I will make mine very, very
brief here.
It is very obvious to me that the principal problem here
was a lack of attention to this issue. From the witnesses
today, and from the written testimony as well as personal
meetings, the branches of the military, including the Office of
the Secretary, have stepped up, paying attention, and have put
in place plans that, if enacted and carried out over time, will
reduce this problem and quite possibly eliminate it.
And I want to make quite sure that the commanders and the
officers responsible for the installations are given both the
responsibility and the authority to solve the problem on their
bases. And I think this is a question that goes to at least the
three--well, all four of you. Is that the case, has this issue
been pushed down to the commanders, the officers responsible
for the various installations?
Secretary McMahon. Mr. Chairman, let me start, and what I
will tell you is, we reviewed it from a legal perspective that
says that our commanders have full authority to have both the
responsibility and the authority to oversee that, and then I
will let the services comment specifically.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Let's start with the Navy and
just run down the line.
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir. Absolutely, we have empowered
our installation commanders to be at the forefront of trying to
resolve these issues, but I would also say it is also a command
issue as well, even to the--as I mentioned in my remarks, at
the smaller unit level, making sure that our junior leaders
understand their responsibility for watching out for their
sailors and Marines, and being engaged in that. That helps to
elevate issues more quickly, and I think that is going to be a
key to getting after these problems more quickly.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Henderson.
Secretary Henderson. On behalf of the Air Force, yes, we
are counting on our leaders and commanders to lead us for our
corrective action plan.
Secretary Beehler. On behalf of the Army, absolutely. It
has already been implemented, what to reinforce to the garrison
commanders what their responsibilities, duties, and obligations
are in this area. It is reflected in enhanced training that the
garrison commanders will have. It also has been reinforced by
requiring the garrison commanders to have regular town
meetings; be engaged with responding, and their housing
authorities, to the 24/7 hotlines; and basically educating the
residents to make sure that they engage their chain of command
up through and including the garrison commanders, and on up to
senior commanders, and even the Army headquarters, if, indeed,
no satisfaction at the lower level has been incurred.
Finally, the garrison commanders also are being instructed
in how effectively to use the incentive fee approval that
occurs every 90 days as far as appropriately rewarding the
private companies for their performance during that time
period.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Also, it is probable that you will need additional
personnel, or at least people assigned to these tasks. As we
review and prepare for the NDAA [National Defense Authorization
Act], we will look specifically for that piece of it. Are
people going to be assigned to carry out this, and some of your
testimony spoke to that.
Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, thank you
for this important hearing. I will work with you to make sure
that the action plans that are formulated are carried out, and
we will continue our oversight in the future.
Mr. Henderson, before I get into the general question for
all of the service branches that are represented here today, I
am going to ask you about one item in particular that
apparently is some late-breaking news. And it has to do with an
employee of the firm that operates privatized housing at the
Air Force Academy having been arrested for fraud. What can you
tell us about that, and does it reflect in any way on the Air
Force's oversight.
Secretary Henderson. Good morning. Thanks. This is an
ongoing situation at the Air Force Academy, and with our
project owner there. It is a very unfortunate situation. But I
also think it serves as a good example of what routine
oversight looks like, and what it looks like when it is working
correctly.
Just to give a little background, to speak in generalities
since it is still ongoing, in the fall of 2017, our project
owner, and through our normal audits, our annual audits that we
do at the projects, we caught some financial anomalies with the
management at the Air Force Academy. We immediately took action
with an initial investigation conducted by the project owner,
that the Air Force was--that monitored. Once we found out that
those anomalies led us to what we thought was fraudulent
activity, we turned those matters over to the law enforcement
authorities in Colorado Springs who conducted their own
investigation, again, that we cooperated with.
Since then, a person has recently been charged with
financial fraud. Hunt--I am sorry. I wasn't going to say the
company. Our project owner there has agreed to come back and
reimburse the academy, the $169,000 which is, we think it was
the estimated amount of the financial fraud, so that is taken
care of.
The matter is still ongoing. We are respecting the
investigative process and the due process of the individual
charged, but we continue to cooperate with authorities to
ensure that--and ensure that these mechanisms are in place so
that we can catch these things when they come up each year.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Well, thank you for taking action on
that. Please keep the committee informed on how that comes
along in the future.
And my question for each of the three service branches
here, including the Navy and Marines, is, do you have the
necessary legislative authorities to improve management of
privatized housing, and are you able to carry out your action
plan under your current budget numbers?
Secretary Modly. Sir, I think that we absolutely have
enough legislative authority to handle this problem, as it has
been brought to light. This was really a management and
leadership problem, less so than an authorities problem. So I
think we are okay in that respect. We probably will need some
help with respect to staffing, just staffing up some of these
housing offices, in legislation.
But I think with respect to authorities, I think we all
feel comfortable that there is nothing lacking in the
authorities themselves. This is more of a--as the chairman
mentioned, paying closer attention to it, getting better
metrics, so we have more leading indicators of problems before
they occur.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Henderson.
Secretary Henderson. I would agree with that. I think with
regard to legislative authorities, we have that. Any
constraints that we have are really within the transactional
documents, with the project owners, and, in some cases, we need
to go in and adjust those. For instance, the metrics in
performance incentive fees, things like that.
And then with regard to help--per my opening statement, we
are going to look to restaff our housing offices that were cut
during the course of personnel cuts and sequestration. We need
to--we have decided that was clearly a mistake, and we are
asking for $31 million in an unfunded request to restaff those
back to their original strength.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I will insert an editorial comment here
before Mr. Beehler comments, and that is, sequestration had
some very unfortunate results. We know you had to make tough
choices and sometimes unpalatable choices. We are hoping with
last year's budget, the current-year budget, and next year's
budget that we are still negotiating, we have the top-line
numbers that really allow us to get back to where we should be.
Mr. Beehler.
Secretary Beehler. I echo the comments that have just been
made by my fellow counterparts in the services. It applies to
the Army. We are undergoing comprehensive assessment in what
our requirements and needs are. At this point, we don't feel
that we need additional legislative authorities. It is clearly,
first and foremost, getting our management side of the house in
order. We have already hired 119 additional staff for our
housing authorities at the installation level. We have money
put in for the fiscal year 2020 budget to make sure most of
those positions are sustained going forward.
We know that the private companies with whom we work have
committed to up to several hundred additional, to perform some
of the same overarching oversight, and we will hold them
accountable as well.
So we--as I say, we are an ongoing assessment, so we will
have a better handle in 3 to 6 months as to how effective we
have been in providing the management oversight we need to
have. And we will come back to the committee.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you all for being here. Thank you
for the first steps that we are taking.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Kim.
Mr. Kim. Thank you for taking the time to come here today
and talk about some of these next steps that you are planning
to take. I think that is critically important. But I just want
to take a step back here, because I want to make sure that as
we are talking about this, and as we are thinking about these
next steps, that we understand that this isn't really just a
policy debate here about what to implement here. This is very
personal. This was as personal as anything that I have seen in
my time in Congress, where right here in this room, we had
military families telling us about their immediate needs right
now.
So what I am concerned about, what I don't have a good
sense, leaving this room right now, yet, is, what are you doing
right now to be able to address those that have immediate
concerns, health concerns, housing concerns, with the places
that they have, right now? You know, what can you say to me
right now, to assure me that your response to this is at the
scale of the magnitude of the problem at stake?
A number of you have mentioned how you are doing surveys of
different homes, and the numbers of homes that have problems
are in the thousands. So have you scaled up? Are you surging
personnel and resources right now? Do you have a timeline in
which I can reassure some of the families that I am in touch
with, that they are going to have the kind of response that
they need on an immediate and very personal level? I would like
to just go through the line here, please.
Secretary McMahon. Congressman, if I could, let me start.
After the February hearing, I literally gave out my email
address to some of the family organizations that if they did
not feel that they were getting adequate response, they could
email me directly and that I would personally get involved. I
have done that on a number of occasions. I have contacted the
individuals to my left right now. They have been extremely
responsive. And then the follow-up by individual to make sure
that we were taking care of issues.
I will speak for my partners, and then allow them to speak
for themselves. But the responsiveness that we have, both in
general but to specific issues, is focused on ensuring we take
care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their
families.
Secretary Modly. Representative, I want to echo those
points, and particularly echo your points. I mean, this is
extremely personal for everybody. And as I mentioned in my
statement, there are a lot of people who work very, very hard
and have done an outstanding job in PPV to ensure these homes
are in good condition for our sailors and Marines. But they are
now painted with the same broad brush, and that is a little bit
unfair. But they are taking it because they recognize that this
is part of family responsibility in the service to handle this.
I have two children on Active Duty. One of them has lived
in privatized housing. It was fantastic for them. So we know
that these are problems that we have to address. We are--as I
mentioned, we are talking personally, reaching out personally
to every single person in the Navy and Marine Corps who lives
in privatized housing. Through that process, we have identified
on the Navy side over 4,000 issues--about 4,700 issues. Of
those 47, about 2,800 have asked for a personal visit, in-
person visit to try and resolve the issue. And we are well on
the way at ticking away at that. I think we made about 900 of
those visits to address the specific problems. That is in the
Navy.
And the Marine Corps has about 7,000, and they have had
7,000 personal visits in follow-up to these questions. So I
think we are taking it extremely seriously, as well as taking
it personally, but we are trying to do everything we can
immediately to address the immediate concerns.
But the longer-term issues are also very important to us.
We just don't want to seem like we are overreacting. We want to
make sure we fix this in the long run, and that is some of the
longer-term things that we are working on, with the partners as
well.
Secretary Henderson. Good morning. The--like Mr. McMahon,
my family and I spent about 18 years in military housing, some
of it privatized, some of it before privatization. And I
completely understand how personal this gets with families when
things aren't going right, or when the family members deploy
and we are leaving our families to fend for this on their own.
And so it is a very difficult situation.
That is why we went in for the immediate actions and to ask
for a 100 percent review of the health and safety conditions in
our housing. That resulted, and now our numbers are up to close
to 50,000 of our families who live in housing have been
contacted, interviewed, assessed their safety concerns. And per
my opening statement, where we had come back, commanders and
leaders went into the house, validated what the issues were,
and we opened up about 4,700 work orders for which they are now
surging on, and we are battle tracking here essentially with
the Air Force.
At the rate that we are resolving these, I expect it to
take another 30 to 45 days to close these out. In some cases
where conditions were unsafe, we are moving families into safer
housing and taking care of that for them.
And then part of this, a huge part of the loss of trust
here in our assessment was just--was just a lack of
communication, a lack of understanding of what the--what a
dispute resolution process, the lack in roles and
responsibilities of the commanders and leaders, and a lack of
understanding of maybe the resources that were available. So we
are working really hard to reengage and communicate better with
our families.
Mr. Kim. Thank you. Unfortunately our time has expired, but
I just want to press having tangible timelines of when we can
deliver for these families, make sure they are getting the
health care that they need to be able to have these remedies in
tangible ways. I just ask that we follow up on them. Thank you.
I yield back.
[Secretary Beehler's response to Mr. Kim's question can be
found in the Appendix on page 85.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
We are going to try to keep this as tight as we possibly
can. We have a lot of members that would like to speak.
Mr. Scott, you are next.
Oh, before you come on, Mr. Scott, we have received a
statement for the record from the Military Officers Association
of America. Without objection, we will enter that into the
record here. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 65.]
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
known General McMahon for a long time now, and I can assure you
that if he is in charge of resolving an issue, that you are
going to get a satisfactory outcome. He is--he takes it head
on, and has done a wonderful job. Did a wonderful job at Robins
Air Force Base, and I am glad he is in the position he is in.
I had a chance to talk with Mr. Henderson yesterday for a
while. One of the things that I will tell you, in the bill of
rights, that is important to me, and in talking to the men and
women that came to testify before us, when a contract mandates
mediation, and then that contract has loser-pay provisions in
it, that would--could effectively force a soldier to pay 100
percent of their annual income to carry a housing company, a
multimillion dollar housing company, to a mediation, that is
not acceptable. And so the loser-pay provisions of the
contracts--I don't mind the mediation. I am happy that the
mediator, as I understand it, is going to be part of the chain
of command, but that is not a--that is not a square deal or a
fair fight for our soldiers to mandate mediation and then to
mandate loser-pay on our soldiers.
With that said, I want--Mr. Henderson, Hurricane Michael
hit the southeastern United States October the 10th. Is the
most pressing thing for the Air Force right now, in your
position as head of installations, a disaster supplemental?
Secretary Henderson. So I think the most--the most
pressing, the most pressing thing for the Air Force right now
is solvency, getting through fiscal year 2019, and a lot of
that is attributed to the money that we fronted on--to recover
from disasters at Tyndall Air Force Base, now Offutt,
earthquakes in Alaska. And by fronting--by taking the fiscal
year 2019 funds and--and doing exactly what we believe was the
right thing to help those bases recover and get those missions
back online, we have asked for supplemental funding, and at
this point, without that supplemental funding, we are looking
at very severe impacts to Air Force solvency for the rest of
fiscal year 2019.
Mr. Scott. Perhaps ``urgent'' would have been a better
word. But I want to make my colleagues aware of this, and I
want to give equal criticism where criticism is due. A Senator
from New York, a Senator from Vermont, refused to allow a vote
to push forward on disaster assistance this past week. We had
been promised--those of us hit by the storm have been promised
disaster assistance from both sides, in both Chambers, since
mid-October, that any bill to open the government would include
the disaster assistance and the supplemental funding, including
the funding for the Air Force. That hasn't happened.
Now, I do think that those games are being played, and I
think that it is a Senator from New York and a Senator from
Vermont predominantly playing those games. But I also think it
is extremely irresponsible for the Office of Management and
Budget to not submit an official request for supplemental
disaster assistance funding. And I can't--I just can't
understand with the magnitude of the impact of these storms to
our Air Force, to readiness, to our installations, to the men
and women in uniform, I can't understand why our Office of
Management and Budget, controlled by my party, didn't submit a
request for supplemental assistance, which I think is
absolutely unacceptable. And I think it is unacceptable that
Senator Schumer and Senator Leahy have played the games they
have played with disaster assistance.
And I want to remind everybody, we have one legislative day
after today before we leave, and we will not return until April
the 29th. Would it make a difference to you if you got a
disaster bill today versus, say, May?
Secretary Henderson. Absolutely, Congressman. We have
already stopped projects, stopped funding for projects in order
to preserve those funds for readiness needs. We are impacting
aircraft and satellite repair, and we are--at some point, we
are going to have to--we will be stopping or slowing down
recovery at Tyndall, and we will only do life, health, and
safety things at Offutt. And that--by deferring that money,
since it is one-year money, if there is supplemental funding,
that means we have to come back and work twice as fast to get
that executed at the end of the year.
Mr. Scott. My time is about to expire. I have a tremendous
amount of respect for you. I apologize for interrupting, but
you are also, according to the Air Force, going to cut 18,000
training and flying hours starting over the next couple of
months. Is that correct?
Secretary Henderson. That is--that is the intended
consequence without supplemental funding.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I will control myself. Although I will say there is $1
billion slushing around in the Department of Defense that could
have been made available for this purpose.
Let me now move to our next, Ms. Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Hi, and thank you. And, Mr. Scott, I also
appreciate your comments, too, and I don't think it is a good
idea to play games. I trained at Tyndall Air Force Base, but I
also have family in Puerto Rico, and I feel like we are playing
with everybody's lives in these partisan games, and so I
appreciate your comments.
I also am a third-generation military member myself. My dad
and my grandfather served full careers in the Navy, and my
brother and I grew up in military housing. My mom and her five
brothers and sisters grew up in military housing off and on.
And so this is personal to me, too, for a lot of reasons.
And so my questions first are sort of, I guess, tactical in
nature, and then maybe a little bit more personal in nature.
One is that we have talked a little bit about readiness and
whether or not people are genuinely going to be able to deploy
when they have issues like this at home. But a second question
is, how about recruitment? Have you seen any sort of
implications to this in terms of recruitment because of this
narrative that has been following military housing around?
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, I will start, and then I
will turn it over to the services. We all understand that we
recruit the individual; we retain the family. And they care
about four things. Our military families are tremendously
resilient, and they can go with just about any challenges they
face. All they ask for is a safe place to live in, adequate
medical attention, good schools for their kids, and when we
move them, we don't break all their stuff. And so this is an
integral part----
Ms. Houlahan. That is a lot.
Secretary McMahon. In reality, we are working those issues
today. I personally have two of those four that are on my
plate. We are dead serious about making sure that we provide
our military families, whether on installation or off, with a
safe place to live and something they can----
Ms. Houlahan. And I guess I only have 3 minutes' time. Has
anybody any data about whether or not this has impacted
recruitment in any form?
Secretary Modly. Representative, we don't have any data on
that just yet. We are, obviously, getting a lot--pressurized on
recruiting because of the state of the economy. That is always
going to cause us issues. But we haven't seen anything yet
related to this that is impacting either recruiting or
retention in the Navy.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And my second question is also a
two-part question. And I, in addition to being a former
military member, a veteran, I am also a mom, and I spent the
last few years of my career focused on early childhood
development, pre-K through fourth grade, literacy particularly.
We know that kids under 6 who are exposed to things like lead
and like mold and those sorts of things, end up experiencing
pretty significant delays. Have we--I know that, Mr. Henderson,
you talked a little bit about the 50,000 people who you had
documented. Have we quantified at all how many kids under 6
have been impacted by this?
Secretary Henderson. Ma'am, we have not quantified numbers
for children under 6.
Ms. Houlahan. And my second part of the question is, if we
haven't quantified that, perhaps we should. But has there been
any effort to put some sort of teeth into this, by identifying
through teachers, or daycare providers, or parents themselves,
sort of the signs that you should look for if your child has
been impacted by mold, or your child has been impacted by lead?
Secretary Henderson. We have--ma'am, I would like to take
that for the record--it is an important question--and get you a
detailed response. We have done some communications on--with
mold awareness for our families who move into the homes,
especially when we have ones that are prone to mold, and areas
that are prone to mold. I don't know that we have reached out
to teachers and counselors and outside folks like that, though.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 87.]
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, if I could add to that as
well, we have created, within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, a team of both our military construction, our family
housing personnel, plus our medical folks to begin to look at
where there is a cross-utilization of some of the experiences
that we have had. An integral part of that is one of our deputy
assistant secretaries, who happens to be a pediatrician, who
happens to be an expert in the effects of both lead and mold,
to help us better understand how we ought to move forward. So
we are not where we want to be with that, but we are looking at
that and have an understanding that we need to do a better job
in the future of being able to respond to the issues of our
children.
Ms. Houlahan. And this has something to do with sort of
what Representative Kim was talking about. I think that we can
all agree that we are in a bad place. I think what we need to
agree on is what the path forward is, and how we--I am not
engineer, how we quantify it, how we measure it, you know, how
we move forward with discrete programs that will address it,
and I am just sort of poking around for that.
I only have a half a minute left. Does anybody have any
sort of quantifiable discrete programs that are out there to
address these issues, particularly pre-K or early childhood
development issues?
Secretary Beehler. Ma'am, the Army has comprehensive
testing of children under 6 for lead, particularly focused on
housing from pre-1978, and has been able to track data that
shows that children with lead in their systems at that age,
within the greater Army community--all children are tested for
lead, whether they are in the 1978, old housing or not. And the
vast majority, which is an extremely small minority of such
children, are actually--they reside outside military housing.
So the important thing for the Army----
Ms. Houlahan. And I am terribly sorry. I have run out of
time, but I am happy to take the rest of your answer on the
record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 87.]
Secretary Beehler. We are happy to do it. The point is that
we test the children, regardless of where they are housed, and
track it appropriately through their development.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Houlahan, you raised an important issue,
one that--the committee has become aware of a document produced
by the Navy and the Marine Corps Public Health Center, that
seems to discourage clinicians from suggesting that a patient's
home could be contributing to their condition, and to--and here
I quote--``avoid commenting on the habituality, integrity, and
remediation requirements for specific buildings,'' end quote. I
am sure the Navy has taken steps to rescind that memo and to
send out an appropriate one. We will let it go at that.
I would like now to turn to Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
you for being here. I heard someone mention it, about the role
of the commander. And when you think about the role of a unit
commander, whether it is, let's say, go right down to platoon
commander and second lieutenant and the platoon sergeant, okay.
We know that the role of the command team at any unit level is
not just on the battlefield. It is 24/7. If you are deployed,
it is one thing; if you are in garrison, it is another thing,
but it is the welfare of your troops and their families. And I
was glad to hear you mention that, because that is one of the
challenges, as you know, as we bring in the all-recruited force
here, and it is third generation, is that it is not a 9-to-5,
Monday-through-Friday job. You have responsibility for the
health and welfare of all of your Marines, soldiers, sailors,
airmen, coastguardsmen, et cetera. And I applaud your efforts
to develop that role in conjunction with the continuing role of
the base commander, and how that all relates then to those
being served, the families, and then how largely then it falls
into the base commander's lap in dealing with the Patricians or
Lincoln or whoever the PPV, you know, owner of the property is.
This is evolving. And we know we have issues. But I applaud
you, and whatever we, this Congress, can do to back you up, as
you develop that role of those various commanders, and then
with the company, you know, the companies. That is going to be
our success. We will get through this. But I just thank you for
that, and I will buy back some of the valuable thing that we
cannot ever get back, is time.
And I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Bergman, thank you so very, very much.
We all look for more time.
Ms. Gabbard.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen.
I would like to follow up on the focus on command. I think
each of you responded to the chairman's question about the
important role that first-line leaders have, all the way up the
chain of command to the installation commander. I think it has
been a common feeling that has been addressed as more and more
of this issue has been exposed, about the lack of role that
command has played thus far.
And so my question is, as you have said, this will be the
focus going forward. What will change so that the command is
empowered to actually do something about it? It is one thing to
be informed of the issue; it is another thing to actually be
empowered. Were they not empowered to take action to address
some of these problems with the contractors previously? If not,
what will change so that they can going forward? Mr. McMahon.
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, thank you for the
question. If you go back early in the program, when folks
didn't think they understood it, we had very comprehensive
education programs for our leaders to describe to them what
their role was, what authorities they did not have, what
authorities they had, so that they could effectively oversee
the privatization effort.
Over time, as we became comfortable, as we looked at the
metrics and perceived the metrics to tell us it was going well,
as you know we have an infinite number of issues, a finite
amount of time, in terms of training, this quite frankly is
something that fell off the scope. We thought it was going fine
and so we reduced, and then, in some cases, actually eliminated
that education as part of our leadership development for our
leaders at all levels.
The reality is, of when we look at this today, it was an
issue that we should not have dropped off, and the services are
taking action today to reinstitutionalize that training that
was integral a decade ago but over time, as we have continued
to reduce that training, has fallen off the scope. And I will
let them comment further.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Secretary Modly. Representative, I think it is a really
good, important question, because some of the things that we
can do at the command level, I think, are very, very simple,
and not sophisticated things at all. You know, asking our
junior leaders to have a face-to-face conversation with their
people once a week and ask them: How are things going with your
housing? How are things going with your family? Look them in
the eye and just ask those questions. That is not a high-tech
solution, but that would solve a lot of these problems.
The biggest problem, from my perspective, in looking at
this, was finding out about issues after they had become major
problems. So we need to have much better systems and ways to
understand issues as they emerge, as we start seeing trends.
And the data is all there. Most of our--most of our partners
manage these properties using the same data system. We just
have to be able to get into there and understand when trends
are happening, so we can measure how long it is taking, and we
can start raising the alarm bells at the right time. So that is
sort of, one, the sophisticated data side.
But to your point, we have to emphasize with our younger
leaders how important it is to have those types of
conversations, because of their responsibility to the member
and their families.
Mr. Garamendi. I am going to do something here. Mr.
Beehler, you have been kind of on the far edge of this table.
So if we can jump over to you, then we will come back to the
Air Force.
Ms. Gabbard. I will just add another follow-up to that, Mr.
Beehler, that I wanted to, that is linked to this, but also to
something you mentioned earlier about making some changes that
will reward some of the private contractors. You know, from--
from my standpoint, we are talking about a basic level of
service that we, as taxpayers, are paying these companies to
provide for our service members and their families.
So I guess my first question is, as we are talking about
empowerment, we are also talking about accountability. So
before we start talking about rewards, I think we first need to
address how these contractors are being held accountable for
providing what we are paying them to do.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 85.]
Secretary Beehler. Thank you, Representative. And what I
meant by, quote--and I should have put it in quotes--rewarding
the private companies, is that every 90 days, and I think this
applies to--across the services, there is an incentive-fee
determination that is made by the garrison commander, based on
performance of the private companies. And it is the--it is the
perfect opportunity and responsibility for the companies to be,
if you will, judged and rated, so that if the companies have
not done well in those 90 days, they don't get 100 percent of
the incentive fees. In some cases, they might not get any
percent of the incentive fees.
And the point that I was attempting to make is that the
garrison commanders, in the case of the Army, had all too often
sort of rubberstamped the request for 100 percent award of
incentive fees per quarter. That is no longer the case. We
actually have removed, for the time being, and brought it up to
Army headquarters, to, A, make those determinations, but more
importantly, we are training the garrison commanders to know
their responsibilities in this area, and that they will take
advantage of the data collection on, for instance, the work
order responsiveness and performance to help them make the
judgment----
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Beehler. I am sorry, my time
has expired. It is obviously very disturbing to see that this
kind of rubberstamp and 100 percent incentive payments were
being made previously. Glad to hear that it is not any longer.
I hope we have the opportunity to address the fact that if a
contractor is not performing, if they are underperforming and
not meeting their marks, we are not talking about getting a
lower percentage of incentives. We are talking about
accountability to make sure that they are actually doing what
they are contracted to do before you even begin to have a
conversation about incentives. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Ms. Horn.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today,
and thank you to the chairman and ranking member for this
critical conversation.
I have many things I want to ask and say. First, I am glad
we are addressing this; but second, I still remain horrified at
the stories that I have heard from service members and their
families in my community and across the country. And as we
continue to address this, there is a couple of things that I
want--I want to start off with, is going further into the
conversation around the culture, the commanders, and how this
was allowed to get to the place where it was, because I have
heard a couple of you say that you are beginning to address it,
and that these were a few people, and that I am incredibly
troubled by the fact that--that these companies were getting
their full incentive pay, even as thousands of people across
this country and enlisted who--and their families, who are
suffering. I have stories from my district, and images, of
these things that were being covered up. And it is just--it is
unacceptable.
And as we fix--as we move forward to fix this problem, one,
I want to find out if you have begun to make any plans to
reimburse these families for the out-of-pocket costs for
things, including mold testing, medical care, and so many other
things that our military families have had to incur as a result
of the mismanagement and problems that these companies have
caused.
Secretary Modly. Representative, thanks for the question.
I don't know that we have been presented with opportunities
to do that. However, once we are, I am quite certain we will
look at those and figure out a way to compensate if there was a
problem like that.
I just am not aware, and I will take that one for the
record to find out exactly what has happened in the past with
respect to those types of issues.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 86.]
Secretary Henderson. Ma'am, for the Air Force, what we have
done is ensured that the--in an effort to better communicate
with our residents, make sure that they know that they have
resources inside the Air Force and legal assistance resources
inside the Air Force to request claims and make claims against
the project owner for costs like mold testing, maybe damages to
furniture or something because of negligence, or extended
medical care costs. And so we have provided the information for
them to better go about doing that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 86.]
Secretary Beehler. In the case of the Army, the project
companies are reimbursing family. We will take further details
for the record, but this has been ongoing at least over the
past several months, if not longer.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 87.]
Ms. Horn. Thank you.
And following up on a couple of other things from Ms.
Gabbard and Mr. Scott, one, I want to echo--and I appreciate
being on this committee and working with the concern across the
aisle that these are not issues that should ever be partisan,
and we should be placing the well-being of our service members
above everything else.
So, to Mr. Scott's point, I just want to reiterate that the
fact that we have lose-or-pay provisions and forced mediation
from enlisted is something that I would like to say I think we
need to address.
And, Mr. McMahon, I would like to know if there is any
plans to begin to address those issues.
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, as you look at the bill
of rights that we are putting together that we have shared with
the committee so we can get your specific input, next week we
will sit with the family organizations, share it with them so
they have the opportunity.
But that is exactly what we want to ensure we deal with
with the bill of rights, that it is clear to both our private
partners as well as to our members, what they can expect and
set those expectations before we get into a situation where we
are trying to resolve this.
Ms. Horn. And, finally, I want to circle back one more time
to Ms. Gabbard's point about the incentive fees and if there
has been a consideration that these fees could be recovered
that were previously paid, if there is any pathway to recover
some of those fees for these properties that were clearly
mismanaged and are now requiring costs be outlaid for health
care, for so many other things for our service members.
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, I will take it for the
four of us.
I am unaware--I will go back and talk to our acquisition
personnel to see if there is, but I am unaware of any tools
since we have made the commitment at this point that they could
be recovered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 86.]
Ms. Horn. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Chairman.
And thank you all so much for taking the time to be here
today.
Like some of my colleagues, I was raised in military
housing as well. My dad had a 30-year career in the Marine
Corps, and so I spent my entire childhood growing up on
military bases. And it is interesting that, back when I was a
kid, before you could move out they would come in with a white
glove and go in every corner and look in every vent, and, I
mean, it was as disciplined as my father's career was.
And so it is a little disheartening to have learned about
this over the past months. And it is happening, in fact, in my
home State of New Mexico, where the climate is extremely dry.
So I am disheartened, to say the least.
But in addition to everything that has been mentioned here
today, I have heard reports that retaliation still persists
against military families who are raising concerns about the
conditions of their housing. This is extremely troubling as
retaliation is a big part of the breach of trust between the
Department of Defense and families that lead these families to
come to the press and to Congress in the first place, and it
must stop.
I realize that for some military wives one way they can
communicate with other families is through social media. And so
I realize that that is one way they have been trying to figure
out who all is suffering from the same issues that they are.
So I wanted to ask each of you if you commit now to
adopting and enforcing a zero-tolerance policy on retaliation
against any families, any military families, who are raising
concerns about the housing, including within the chain of
command, on the bases where our service members live and serve
and the housing offices that should be advocating for our
military families and among the private contractors who we are
paying to serve our families.
So if each of you could let me know if the zero-tolerance
policy on retaliation is happening now and if it is being
enforced.
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, I will tell you that we
have zero tolerance for it, to the point of proactively giving
out our email addresses, so if we hear of it, folks can reach
out to us to take care of it. But absolutely a zero tolerance.
Secretary Modly. And for the Department of the Navy,
Representative, absolutely that is the case. We have made it
very clear to our partners it is unacceptable, and it is also
one of the key planks of the tenant bill of rights that we are
developing.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
Secretary Henderson. Ma'am, that has always been the policy
of the Air Force, and this was an opportunity for us to
reinforce that.
Secretary Beehler. Ma'am, the same with the Army.
And one step forward, the Army has an inspector general
assessment going on that will be completed in about a month and
a half, and that is one of the aspects that they are looking
into, to see if there is any such activity reported and further
investigate. So we will have confirmation of exactly the lay of
the land. And if there is such activity, it will be dealt with
appropriately within the particular channels involved.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. And I will ask that any of those
contact emails or contact numbers be submitted to the record so
that, in the chance that anyone from my district calls me and
tells me they are being retaliated against, I can actually have
some information where they can contact someone to remedy that
situation. So thank you for that.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Ms. Haaland. You might have already kind of answered this,
but who is responsible for investigating claims of retaliation
against families, whether internal or external, to the
Department of Defense? Do we know that?
Secretary McMahon. Within the Department and with each of
the services, ma'am, the inspector general has a responsibility
of taking that on. Prior to that point, our leadership ought to
be looking at those issues. And should it get to the level, it
would be the DOD IG [Department of Defense Inspector General].
But each of the service inspectors general will look at that.
Ms. Haaland. Excellent.
Does anyone else have anything to add to that? No? Okay.
And are there any consequences, and what are they, for
anyone who retaliates against any military families trying to
report these housing issues? And, to your knowledge, have those
been enforced?
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, in terms of specific
actions, I will tell you, because there is zero tolerance, if
it is a military member, specific action is taken against that
individual on a range of different actions. If it is a civilian
member of the Department of Defense, action is taken against
them, up to and including removal from service of the Nation.
So it is taken very seriously.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
And last on this issue, when and how will you communicate
this policy, including resources for families and the
consequences for those who engage in retaliation, to relevant
parties?
Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, across the board, each of
our services have communicated that to their members and the
families. Part of the town halls that you have heard alluded to
is underscoring the fact that there is zero tolerance for
retaliation.
I have personally shared that with all of the CEOs of the
respective privatization partners that we have, so there is
clear understanding of what our expectations are, and that is
that we support our family members and our military members in
terms of privatized housing.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much.
And, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Haaland.
We have completed the first round of questions.
Mr. Lamborn, if you would like to make some closing
remarks, if you would, and then I will do the same.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
And this is an important hearing. Thank you all for being
here. Thank you for the first steps that each of the services
and that DOD-wide are making.
I can tell that the specificity is there, the metrics, the
harnessing of incentives, the re-education or better education
down to the garrison level of the leverage that we do have with
the private contractors and for it to be reenforced to them of
their obligations and responsibilities, contractually and
morally.
So I am really happy that we are making progress. But we
will be continuing to oversee this. This is something that is--
like I say, good first steps, but it is only the first steps.
And time will prove and tell that this is being successfully
rectified, and I look forward to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. I want to thank the committee members for
their intense interest in this matter and, equally or perhaps
more important, the family members who had the courage to bring
this issue to the attention of Congress. You have done a great
service for all of the members, all of the men and women who
serve in our military.
And I want to really express to you, those people that had
the courage to come forward, you have made a difference.
Within, really, 2 months here, less than 2 months, the
leadership of the Department of Defense and the services have
stepped forward and have put in place a series of projects and
programs that should, if carried out over time, resolve many of
these problems.
I want to just follow up on some of those. First of all,
each of the services and the Secretary, or the Office of the
Secretary, have indicated that they have emails and telephone
numbers that are available to receive complaints. I assume that
those will be available, the committee will have those, and we
will make those available to anybody that would like those.
Similarly, when the bill of rights is produced, I believe
there is a draft that the committee has. I think it is being
updated today and on into the days ahead. When that update is
available, we will pass it around to all the members of the
committee and to any Member of Congress that is interested for
their comment as to the effectiveness, the efficiency, or the
sufficiency of it. And that will, I assume, have the various
contacts within the garrisons, within the installations, as
well as at headquarters.
Also, we noticed that each of the services are rebuilding
the personnel necessary to monitor. That will be part of the
work that we will do in the NDAA and the upcoming work that
this committee has in that regard to make sure that that is in
place. And we will, of course, beg our appropriators to fund
those positions.
The lease contracts are under review. The information that
I have received on some of the leases would indicate that the
leases that are in effect would clearly be illegal in some
States and communities--for example, Washington, DC. So those
contracts are in process of being reviewed--that is, the
contract between the owner of the housing and the tenant that
is the military family. So that will be part of it.
And I would assume those leases will also have a--the new
leases will have some sort of mechanism for complaints. The
issue of retaliation has been raised by all the members and by
the services. Those issues of retaliation are over, and we will
be watching.
Finally, we will be following up. I want to commend and
compliment the services and the Office of the Secretary for
jumping on this issue, for laying out paths that will resolve
these issues going forward. And heads up, folks, we are going
to be coming back to this issue before this year is over. We
will let a couple of months go by, we will see how things are
going, and then you will all come back and we will have a
conversation to see the progress that has been made.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GABBARD
Secretary Henderson. The Air Force has initiated five lines of
effort to specifically address the problems we are facing in privatized
housing. These efforts include: empower residents, improve oversight,
integrate leadership, improve communications and standardize policy.
Each of these lines of effort have a number of tasks we are actively
working. We concur that ensuring that our chain of command and leaders
are actively involved with privatized housing is critical. To that end,
the Air Force recently sent a letter signed by the Secretary, Chief of
Staff, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force to each installation
commander reemphasizing their roles and responsibilities regarding
oversight in privatized housing and the protection of the health and
safety of military members and their families. Additionally, to
integrate leadership, we are currently doing the following:
Increasing commander involvement in Management Review
Committees and performance incentive fee determinations to drive
compliance with closing documents
Adding resident councils that will communicate directly
with commanders
Adding a tenant advocate position at the installation
level to act for the commander in assisting residents when issues arise
Adding additional manpower to our Air Force housing
offices which support the commander in increasing quality assurance
inspections of work orders and other maintenance tasks
Providing commanders information on the outcome of
inspections, any health and safety concerns, and maintenance and
leasing metrics during monthly and quarterly updates
All of the above actions will inform commanders along the chain of
command and empower Air Force leaders to rectify any negative trends.
We believe these actions in concert with others in our lines of effort
will address the underlying root causes, integrate our commanders and
ensure the program is delivering safe and high quality housing our
military members deserve. [See page 19.]
Secretary Beehler. Safe and secure family housing is a key function
of Army installations and, ultimately, Soldier readiness. To provide
long-term oversight the Army has realigned Installation Management
Command under Army Materiel Command, which improves advocacy within the
Army for all installation requirements. This realignment establishes
unity of command and effort on Army installations, improves the
readiness of our Soldiers and formations, and strengthens the well-
being of our Soldiers, Civilians and their Families. An immediate
change in March 2019 to improve accountability over Army's MHPI
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) partner performance was to
elevate the approval of all incentive fee awards to the HQDA level. The
Army continues to review incentive fee metrics with the RCI companies
with an eye to enhancing garrison commanders' involvement in the
incentive fee decision process. These metric changes are intended to
shift focus to achieving positive housing outcomes for our military
families, quickly and with quality workmanship. The Army is also
rebuilding its expertise in exercising oversight at the installation
level, to include hiring additional quality assurance personnel,
gaining access to RCI partner work order data to improve
responsiveness, and continuously improving garrison commanders' housing
oversight training. Additionally, the Army, in conjunction with the
other Services, is working to codify the methodology for residents to
withhold rent when RCI partners do not meet their obligations. [See
page 19.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM
Secretary Beehler. The Army conducted 100% visits to all privatized
and Army owned family houses. We immediately set up a Housing Crisis
Action Team to monitor and track homes with life, health and safety
issues. We established a Hot Line phone number at every installation
which can be accessed by any housing resident should they prefer
privacy to report any housing issue. The Army is hiring 114 Quality
Assurance and Quality Control personnel across its installations over
the next two months to increase its oversight, and we have enhanced our
Quality Assurance Program and oversight to ensure maintenance trends
are captured and addressed. The enhanced quality assurance procedures
are conducted by Army Housing careerists; 100% inspection of all homes
are completed between occupancy maintenance; 100% physical inspections
of all life, health or safety issues work orders; we contact 5% of all
residents with recently-completed work orders to determine satisfaction
and Army Housing Management staff visits those expressing
dissatisfaction with the maintenance conducted. The Army is also
working to empower residents through a smartphone/web application that
will streamline customer feedback submissions and enhance quality
assurance and quality control for work orders. [See page 13.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HORN
Secretary McMahon. The housing privatization projects own, operate,
and maintain the privatized housing under the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative and, therefore, are the entities responsible
for timely and properly remediating any issue in a privatized home. If
a project fails to timely and properly remediate an issue, the existing
deal structures provide the mechanisms for the Military Departments to
hold the MHPI private partners accountable for substandard housing. In
addition to withholding of incentive fees, the Military Departments
have certain rights regarding major decisions made by the privatization
project, to include the right to require replacement of the housing
management and maintenance service providers if warranted based on
overall poor performance as defined in the deal structure documents. In
a small number of cases, a Military Department has required the housing
privatization project to replace the property management service
provider. As ASD(Sustainment), I am working closely with the Military
Department Assistant Secretaries who directly oversee their respective
privatized housing projects to establish near-term, mid-term, and long-
term actions that the Department needs to take to address current
conditions in privatized housing and restore the program to the success
that it enjoyed in its first 20 years. [See page 20.]
Secretary McMahon. The existing legal documents do not provide a
mechanism to recover fees previously paid to a service provider of a
project. However, as mentioned previously, I have been working closely
with the Military Department Assistant Secretaries to ensure that they
are taking steps to reinvigorate their oversight of privatized housing
projects, to include quality assurance, monitoring, enforcement of
performance requirements by privatization projects, withholding of
incentive fees, and other action forcing mechanisms provided for in the
existing legal deal structures. I am also working with my staff to
implement new performance metrics to better monitor Military Department
oversight and privatization partner performance to help ensure that the
Department addresses housing concerns raised by residents and keeps
this commitment over the long-term. [See page 21.]
Secretary Modly. The Department of the Navy is committed to working
with our private partners and installation commanders to remedy
systemic Military Housing Privatization Initiative issues. We are
working diligently with the other military services to develop a
Resident Bill of Rights, which will better describe problem resolution
options for families when dealing with private housing companies.
Military members and their family members are eligible for care through
the military medicine network including military treatment facilities
and network providers. Treatment provided by these services is covered
under normal military medical benefits with TRICARE, as the medical
insurance provider. Care from out of network providers is not covered
and will not be reimbursed without valid pre-authorization. Tests not
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, other non-approved tests,
and treatments are not covered. Validated clinical tests exist for very
few environmental exposures, and Navy Medicine has established
processes for reporting and response. These include lead, drinking
water quality, lead in drinking water in priority areas (i.e., schools,
day care centers), and perfluorochemicals. Many more environmental
exposures, such as mold and radon, have no validated clinical tests or
findings to support a direct linkage between environmental exposures
and clinical symptoms or physiologic changes in patients that are
exposed. With respect to mold testing, Navy Medicine's policy reflects
Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control
recommendations to not routinely sample for indoor mold. Reimbursement
for testing in private homes or privatized housing falls outside the
scope of Navy Medicine and would need to be addressed to the landlord.
However, no mechanism or funding source has been identified to
reimburse service members or their families for unauthorized expenses
pertaining to this matter. [See page 20.]
Secretary Henderson. Air Force military members who are seeking
reimbursement for the costs of mold testing within the home and any
associated property damage due to mold in privatized housing have
several avenues for remedy. First, they should first file a claim
directly with the privatized housing owner. If the member is not
satisfied with the resolution of that claim, they may then file a claim
against any private renter's insurance policy they have, and then
finally file a claim with the Air Force (through the Air Force Claims
Service Center). Congress enacted the Personnel Claims Act to lessen
the hardships of military life by providing payment for certain types
of property loss. However, it is not insurance coverage and is not
designed to make the United States an insurer of the personal property
of claimants. The Air Force cannot prejudge whether such claims will or
won't be payable, but the Claims Service Center will review the claims
individually in light of the Personnel Claims Act and the associated
regulations. The Personnel Claims Act does not authorize the Air Force
to approve claims made by civilians or retirees for the cost of home
mold testing or other personal property damage. Reimbursement for costs
associated with medical care is dependent upon the individual's status.
TRICARE covers active duty members and their dependents and they could
receive their care free of cost at a military medical treatment
facility. Retirees could also be covered by TRICARE and treated at
military medical treatment facilities at no additional personal cost.
Civilians who live in privatized housing do so of their own choice. Any
medical costs they incur as a result of the negligence of the
privatized housing contractor could result in a tort claim against the
contractor, not the Department of Defense or the United States Air
Force. There is no legal authority that would allow the United States
Air Force to pay a claim to civilians in this instance. [See page
20.]
Secretary Beehler. Families who have paid out of pocket costs for
things such as mold testing can seek reimbursement from the Army's MHPI
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Project Company. Families can
use the installation established housing Hot line to discuss any
concerns they have regarding the home to include reimbursement.
Families also have an Army advocate at each installation housing office
from whom they can seek assistance. [See page 20.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
Secretary Henderson. Question 1. How many children under 6 years of
age have encountered developmental delays from lead and/or mold?
Children are screened for developmental delays at regular intervals
according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The etiology of
developmental delays in children is diverse and evaluation for risk
factors for, or a causal etiology of, developmental delays is dependent
upon the individual clinical scenario. There is insufficient evidence
to link mold exposure as a causal risk factor for developmental delays
in children. There is sufficient evidence to link lead exposure as a
causal risk factor for developmental delays in children. Further
investigation is required to understand how many children under 6 years
of age may have developmental delays from lead exposure and we would be
happy to provide you with that information.
Question 2. What has AF/DOD done to educate parents, teachers,
daycare providers, etc. on lead and mold-related developmental delay
symptoms? As previously mentioned, there is insufficient evidence to
link mold exposure as a causal risk factor for developmental delays in
children. Pediatric patients are screened for lead exposure at
intervals according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and local
requirements. Additionally, education for patients and parents is
provided based on the individual clinical circumstance. Per Air Force
Policy, all children with an elevated blood level, as defined by the
Center for Disease Control (see CDC Fact Sheet), are referred to Public
Health. Public Health initiates a lead toxicity investigation and
tracks and follows-up results for children younger than 6 years of age.
The USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Public Health provides
surveillance and maintains a historical database of past pediatric
blood lead screening results from each installation. We are not aware
of a communications campaign specifically directed to non-parents on
lead and mold-related symptoms. A pediatric medical advisor from the
Medical Treatment Facility is assigned as liaison to Child and Youth
Programs on base for assistance with medical issues and training.
[See page 16.]
Secretary Beehler. Army senior leaders have directed and led the
effort to ensure command oversight of Army's MPHI Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI) housing. Roles and responsibilities at
every echelon are being codified in policy, and the Army is
incorporating training specific to housing oversight in our Command
courses. The Army is also working closely with Navy and Air Force
officials to finalize the Resident Bill of Rights, which will be
incorporated into a revised, standardized tenant lease framework.
[See page 16.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. I have heard from several sources that there are no
plans to touch any of the housing or billeting funds for either
disaster relief or border wall funding. Is this accurate? What
constraints will you be faced with if we are unable to come to an
agreement on budget caps and sequestration kicks in this fall?
Secretary McMahon. As the Acting Secretary has testified, no
military housing, barracks, or dormitory projects will be used to fund
disaster relief or, in the event the Acting Secretary decides to
undertake or authorize military construction under section 2808, to
fund the border barrier construction under that section. At the
beginning of 2017, the Department had suffered from unstable budgets
and devastating sequestration cuts that had eroded readiness and
exacerbated our challenges. Over the past two years, this
Administration, with Congress's support, has made investments to undo
this damage and we are already seeing significant benefits to readiness
across military services. As we move forward, we must work together to
protect these gains while building a military to meet the challenges of
the future.
Mr. Scott. The timeliness and quality of work performed by partner
subcontractors and maintenance personnel is of great concern to
families. How will each service perform oversight required to increase
the transparency and effectiveness of work order tracking to ensure
that residents get the service they deserve?
Secretary Modly. Navy and Marine Corps housing offices at
installations have access to the partner's electronic maintenance
database system (e.g., YARDI) and review work orders for potential
environmental concerns and other issues. The Department of the Navy
(DON) is implementing a series of partner and government metrics, as
well as associated spot checks to improve transparency in tracking work
order status. The DON maintains the right to inspect Public Private
Venture Housing under the terms of the ground lease and associated
project legal agreements, to include short notice inspections for
environmental matters. We remain committed to working with our private
partners and installation commanders to address housing oversight
issues, including improved transparency in tracking work order status.
Mr. Scott. The timeliness and quality of work performed by partner
subcontractors and maintenance personnel is of great concern to
families. How will each service perform oversight required to increase
the transparency and effectiveness of work order tracking to ensure
that residents get the service they deserve?
Secretary Henderson. The Air Force has initiated five lines of
effort to specifically address the problems we are facing in privatized
housing. These efforts include: empower residents, improve oversight,
integrate leadership, improve communications and standardize policy.
Each of these lines of effort have a number of actions we are actively
working. Specific to improving oversight and work order tracking, we
are doing the following:
Working with project owners to provide complete work
order transparency to the residents
Adding additional manpower to increase quality assurance
inspections of work orders and other maintenance tasks
Adding a tenant advocate position at each installation
with privatized housing that will assist residents when issues arise to
connect them with the resources to help resolve them
Establishing resident councils and improving feedback
tools to detect issues earlier.
Increasing commander involvement in Management Review
Committees and performance incentive fee determinations to drive
compliance
Placed Regional Construction Managers at our most
troubled locations with specific training in mold remediation to assist
the local Housing Management Offices and ensure our privatized partners
are carrying out work properly and are employing an effective quality
control team
Established a toll-free line for residents to elevate
concerns, including work order issues, and have them addressed directly
by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center
We believe these actions in concert with others in our lines of
effort will address the underlying root causes and ensure the program
is delivering the safe and high quality housing our military members
and their families deserve.
Mr. Scott. The timeliness and quality of work performed by partner
subcontractors and maintenance personnel is of great concern to
families. How will each service perform oversight required to increase
the transparency and effectiveness of work order tracking to ensure
that residents get the service they deserve?
Secretary Beehler. The Army will increase oversight by enhancing
our quality assurance inspections of all homes between occupancy to
ensure Families are moving into homes that have no outstanding
maintenance issues. The Army is increasing the number of Quality
Assurance and Quality Control personnel across its installations to
improve oversight of housing maintenance tasks. The Army is also
working to empower residents through a smartphone/web applications that
will streamline work order requests, monitor progress, and provide
immediate customer service feedback for a service request.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Stefanik. Secretary McMahon, given the complex nature of mold
and the lack of a national standard for removing and detecting it, do
you believe the Department is equipped to satisfactorily establish a
testing and remediation standard for mold contamination? Follow-up:
Would it be fair to say guidance from public health experts would be
beneficial to developing, implementing and enforcing standards for
acceptable levels of mold and clean-up procedures?
Secretary McMahon. The Military Departments and MHPI project
partners continue to work together to review housing conditions,
address health and safety hazards, and to evaluate policies and
procedures to ensure that any health and safety issues are addressed in
a manner protective of human health and the environment, in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and
applicable DOD and Military Department policies. In all cases, it is my
expectation that the Military Departments and housing privatization
partners keep residents informed about lead-based paint, mold, or other
hazards, and associated mitigation or abatement measures. As health
concerns continue related to exposure to mold, which is a natural
hazard, Federal regulations may become necessary to provide consistent
standards for both remediation as well as treatment for exposure. My
office is working with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs [OASD(HA)] to ensure military families who have
health concerns that may be related to housing receive appropriate
health care services, and that there are clear processes in place for
medical and public health officials to raise concerns about housing
conditions to installation housing offices for investigation and
remediation, as appropriate. My office is also working the OASD(HA) to
ensure processes are in place for DOD medical or public health
officials to share information bout potential housing-related health
conditions with other health officials, as appropriate.
Ms. Stefanik. The Army Housing Action Plan includes adding
curriculum on military housing to the garrison commander course. Is the
Army certain that this is appropriate level of command preparation to
insert this particular training requirement? How will you measure the
training effectiveness? And what comparable actions are the other
services taking?
Secretary McMahon. As ASD(Sustainment), I am working closely with
the Military Department Assistant Secretaries who directly oversee
their respective privatized housing projects to establish near-term,
mid-term, and long-term actions that the Department needs to take to
address conditions in privatized housing, to include the need for
Military Departments to reinstate quality training for installation
commanders and housing staff regarding their responsibilities in
connection with privatized housing so that they are able to provide
quality assurance, and monitor and hold privatized housing projects
accountable for providing timely, responsive, high-quality service and
housing for service members and their families. This includes
understanding their authority to withhold incentive fees and other
forcing mechanisms provided for in the existing legal deal structures,
or to raise significant concerns to high leadership, as appropriate.
Effectiveness will be measured over the long-term based on both the
financial sustainment of the program and improved resident
satisfaction. We are fully committed at the leadership level to
ensuring that the success enjoyed over the first 20 years of the
program is reestablished and sustained over the remaining life of the
program.
Ms. Stefanik. How are the services making modifications to the
current lease military privatized house agreements to integrate
mechanisms for improved oversight and responsiveness to housing
problems, such as a tenant bill of rights or customer satisfaction
incentives? How will this be enforced? What is the level of oversight
within the Department?
Secretary McMahon. The health and safety of our Service members and
their families is a top priority for the DOD. Although privatization
has dramatically improved the quality of on-base housing, there is room
for improvement, including in those areas raised in recent media
coverage. Under my leadership, working together with the Military
Departments and the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI)
partners, inspections of individual homes are underway, resident
communication has increased, and development of an MHPI Resident Bill
of Rights, with input from families and family advocates, is underway.
We are committed to improving communication with residents, without
fear of retribution, and to quickly identify and address health and
safety issues going forward. As ASD(Sustainment), I have met three
times with the housing privatization partner CEOs to ensure their
commitment to the shared goal of providing safe, quality, and
affordable housing where service members and their families will want
and choose to live. Additionally, I have been working closely with the
Military Department Assistant Secretaries to ensure that they are
taking steps to reinvigorate their oversight of privatized housing
projects, to include quality assurance, monitoring, and enforcement of
performance requirements by privatization projects, and withholding of
incentive fees and other forcing mechanisms provided for in the
existing legal deal structures. I am also working with my staff to
implement new performance metrics to better monitor Military Department
oversight and privatization partner performance to help ensure that the
Department addresses housing concerns raised by residents and keeps
this commitment over the long-term.
Ms. Stefanik. Specifically how are the services making
modifications to the current lease military privatized house agreements
to integrate mechanisms for improved oversight and responsiveness to
housing problems, such as a tenant bill of rights or customer
satisfaction incentives? How will this be enforced? What is the level
of oversight within the Department?
Secretary Modly. The Department of the Navy (DON) and Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) partners are collaborating on
the development of a uniform set of key lease provisions to be included
in every MHPI resident lease across the Services. Lease provisions will
be written to clearly identify tenant rights and responsibilities and
integrate mechanisms for improved responsiveness to housing concerns.
In addition, the DON has been working to strengthen the business
agreement oversight processes, property maintenance metrics on
responsiveness, strategic communications, and incentive fee criteria.
The DON has requested additional resources to enable hiring personnel
at installation, region, and headquarters levels to provide additional
oversight of MHPI housing and execution of the program.
Ms. Stefanik. How are the services making modifications to the
current lease military privatized house agreements to integrate
mechanisms for improved oversight and responsiveness to housing
problems, such as a tenant bill of rights or customer satisfaction
incentives? How will this be enforced? What is the level of oversight
within the Department?
Secretary Henderson. The Air Force has initiated five lines of
effort to specifically address the problems we are facing in privatized
housing. These efforts include: empower residents, improve oversight,
integrate leadership, improve communications and standardize policy.
Each of these lines of effort have a number of actions we are actively
working. Specific to empowering residents, we are currently doing the
following:
Working with our sister Services and privatized partners
to develop a Tenant Bill of Rights that will identify basic housing
rights of military members and their families residing in privatized
housing to ensure they receive quality housing and fair treatment.
Adding a tenant advocate position at each installation
with privatized housing that will assist residents when issues arise to
connect them with the resources to help resolve them
Working with our sister Services and privatized partner
to develop a common lease to inform residents of their rights and
establish consistent expectations with the landlord-tenant relationship
Evaluating the current CEL & Associates housing survey
for possible alterations to the survey tool or its implementation to
better assess customer satisfaction
There are also several other measures underway to improve oversight
and ensure responsiveness of project owners. We are currently doing the
following:
Working with project owners to provide complete work
order transparency to the residents
Adding additional manpower to increase quality assurance
inspections of work orders and other maintenance tasks
Adding a tenant advocate position at each installation
with privatized housing that will assist residents when issues arise to
connect them with the resources to help resolve them
Establishing resident councils and improving feedback
tools to detect issues earlier.
Increasing commander involvement in Management Review
Committees and performance incentive fee determinations to drive
compliance
Placed Regional Construction Managers at our most
troubled locations with specific training in mold remediation to assist
the local Housing Management Offices and ensure our privatized partners
are carrying out work properly and are employing an effective quality
control team
Established a toll-free line for residents to elevate
concerns, including work order issues, and have them addressed directly
by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center
With respect to enforcing the requirements of our agreements, the
Housing Management Office verifies the performance of project owners at
the local level. We expect improved project owner quality and
responsiveness by increasing oversight resources at the local housing
office level. Validation of specified performance requirements and
contractual metrics (work order responsiveness, for example) rests with
the Air Force Civil Engineering Center. Enforcement should not be
confused with day-to-day responsibility for the protection and well-
being of the residents of privatized housing. This responsibility
resides with the installation commander and was reinforced through a
recent letter from the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff.
We believe these actions in concert with others in our lines of effort
will address the underlying root causes and ensure the program is
delivering safe and high quality housing our military members and their
families deserve.
Ms. Stefanik. Secretary Beehler, I had the opportunity to review
the Army Housing Action Plan. How will you ensure the positive Command-
led changes that are taking place right now are enduring solutions,
opposed to short-term fixes that may not last beyond the current
leadership?
Secretary Beehler. Primary prevention involves minimizing exposure
to environmental hazards. Facilities managers and housing contractors
identify and mitigate potential hazards through routine inspections,
response to specific complaints, and scheduled turnover maintenance
before a new leaseholder moves in to a vacant unit. Housing offices
educate incoming residents about user-level upkeep and processes for
reporting any concerns. Secondary prevention involves screening for
potential issues before any clinical symptoms develop. To prevent lead
toxicity, Army healthcare providers screen children according to the
American Academy of Pediatrics/Bright Futures guidelines during routine
check-ups at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months, and annually from ages 3 to 6
years of age. Healthcare providers use screening to assess for risk of
lead exposure. Children at increased risk undergo blood testing to
determine exact blood lead levels. Healthcare providers also use
standard questions to screen for other environmental hazards and
provide recommendations to address them. Examples include screening for
second-hand smoke exposure and use of carbon monoxide detectors. A
portion of the screening questions prompt providers to ask general
questions about home and daycare issues, but it does not contain
specific questions about asbestos or mold. Finally, tertiary prevention
includes treating conditions to prevent them from getting worse. For
example, healthcare providers treating a patient with moderate asthma
typically prescribe medicines to control the condition and prevent
wheezing episodes. In cases where mold triggers a patient's asthma
attacks, healthcare providers work with parents, preventive medicine
teams, and facilities managers to help reduce exposure to mold.
Ms. Stefanik. The Army Housing Action Plan includes adding
curriculum on military housing to the garrison commander course. Is the
Army certain that this is appropriate level of command preparation to
insert this particular training requirement? How will you measure the
training effectiveness? And what comparable actions are the other
services taking?
Secretary Beehler. Yes, the additional curriculum in the Garrison
Commander and Senior Commander Courses is targeted at the appropriate
level. Installation Management Command initiated a comprehensive
retraining session in early spring for current and incoming garrison
commanders on family housing oversight. This training was used by the
Commanders during the 100% home visits that took place in March. It is
my understanding other Military Departments have implemented similar
refresher training programs.
Ms. Stefanik. How are the services making modifications to the
current lease military privatized house agreements to integrate
mechanisms for improved oversight and responsiveness to housing
problems, such as a tenant bill of rights or customer satisfaction
incentives? How will this be enforced? What is the level of oversight
within the Department?
Secretary Beehler. The Army, is working closely with Navy and Air
Force officials to finalize the MHPI Resident Bill of Rights. The
intent is to incorporate these tenets into a revised, standardized
lease framework. The Army's oversight of housing management and
maintenance is provided at three levels: HQDA performs RCI project and
program portfolio performance oversight management, and monitors each
privatized project through reviews of monthly, quarterly, and annual
reports as well as compliance visits and special purpose reviews;
tactical day-to-day level oversight is performed by the Army Material
Command and its subordinate, Installation Management Command.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM
Mr. Kim. Military families have a right to make informed decisions
about whether to move in to the homes that are offered to them in
privatized family housing. Are you looking at creating a publicly
accessible database for housing that would contain environmental health
issues related to specific homes and steps taken to remedy these
concerns?
Secretary McMahon. Providing our members with the information they
need to make informed rental decisions, on an as requested basis is
something that the Department can and will facilitate with its
privatization partners immediately. As for a publically accessible
database, that is something we will have to consider carefully, to
ensure it can be reliably operated and maintained so as to serve as an
accurate and complete resource.
Mr. Kim. Military families have a right to make informed decisions
about whether to move in to the homes that are offered to them in
privatized family housing. Are you looking at creating a publicly
accessible database for housing that would contain environmental health
issues related to specific homes and steps taken to remedy these
concerns?
Secretary Modly. The Department of the Navy (DON) is not creating a
public database populated with remediated repair issues. Instead, the
DON is implementing systemic improvements to its business processes and
metrics to improve reporting mechanisms and oversight procedures that
govern how discrepancies are reported, remediated, and verified. This
includes use of government and Military Housing Privatization
Initiative partner database systems to track, rate, and resolve issues
to ensure quality repairs.
Mr. Kim. Military families have a right to make informed decisions
about whether to move in to the homes that are offered to them in
privatized family housing. Are you looking at creating a publicly
accessible database for housing that would contain environmental health
issues related to specific homes and steps taken to remedy these
concerns?
Secretary Henderson. The Air Force agrees military families have a
right to have access to environmental health information to make
informed decisions about the homes offered them in privatized family
housing, but believes a publically accessible database is not the best
solution. Instead, we are looking to better empower our residents
through a Tenant Bill of Rights. A Tenant Bill of Rights will ensure
tenants are present for move-in inspections of homes offered to them
for rent. The Air Force will inspect 100% of units prior to occupancy
with a focus on the health and safety aspects of the home. The
privatized owners are required to make the same disclosures required by
all landlords prior to lease signing. These disclosures provide test
results and other data specific to the home, mitigations in place,
housekeeping recommendations, and guidance on what to do if they have
concerns. The Air Force will ensure these disclosures are taking place
in 100% of leases signed with military residents. In those areas where
mold is more prevalent, project owners will provide residents a mold
addendum as part of their lease and handouts on what to do if they find
any mold.
Mr. Kim. Military families have a right to make informed decisions
about whether to move in to the homes that are offered to them in
privatized family housing. Are you looking at creating a publicly
accessible database for housing that would contain environmental health
issues related to specific homes and steps taken to remedy these
concerns?
Secretary Beehler. The Army understands residents need information
to make informed decisions about their housing choices. The Army's MHPI
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Project Companies will report
on homes being offered that could contain the age of the home, possible
environmental hazards, steps to remedy the environmental hazards, and
what the resident should do if they encounter any maintenance concerns.