[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







      MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                               ___________

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

              DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chairwoman

  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia         JOHN R. CARTER, Texas  
  ED CASE, Hawaii                         DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland          
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada          

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

              Jennifer Neuscheler, Brad Allen, Nicole Cohen,
                     Nick Burton, and Luke Georgiadis
                            Subcommittee Staff

                               ___________

                                  PART 4

  Military Privatized Family Housing Oversight .........     1 
  Department of Veterans Affairs .......................   181 
  Meeting Veterans' Full Needs: Update on Women's 
    Health, Mental Health, Homelessness, and Other 
    Programs  ..........................................   267  
  Air Force Installations and Quality of Life Update ...   345 




        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               ___________


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
49-963                   WASHINGTON : 2023  








                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                        KAY GRANGER, Texas
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina            HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California         ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia           MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  BARBARA LEE, California                   JOHN R. CARTER, Texas  
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota                 KEN CALVERT, California 
  TIM RYAN, Ohio                            TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland       MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida         STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                      CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                    DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 
  DEREK KILMER, Washington                  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania             MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  GRACE MENG, New York                      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                     STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts         DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  PETE AGUILAR, California                  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                     JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                    JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey         BEN CLINE, Virginia
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan              GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  NORMA J. TORRES, California               MIKE GARCIA, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                    ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona                  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ED CASE, Hawaii                           JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana           
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                              
                                   
                                   

 
     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

                              ----------                                
        

                                          Thursday, March 31, 2022.

              MILITARY PRIVATIZED FAMILY HOUSING OVERSIGHT

                               WITNESSES

CODY CALDERON, PRIVATE FIRST CLASS, MILITARY PRIVATIZED HOUSING 
    RESIDENT
RACHEL CHRISTIAN, FOUNDER AND CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER, ARMED FORCES 
    HOUSING ADVOCATES
NIKKI WYLIE, MILITARY PRIVATIZED HOUSING RESIDENT
PATRICIA COURY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOUSING, 
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ELIZABETH A. FIELD, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, 
    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
PHILIP RIZZO, CEO/COO, LIBERTY MILITARY HOUSING
BRIAN STANN, PRESIDENT/CEO, HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES
RICK TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, FACILITY OPERATIONS, RENOVATION, AND 
    CONSTRUCTION, BALFOUR BEATTY COMMUNITIES
CAROLYN TREGARTHEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LENDLEASE COMMUNITIES
MAJOR GENERAL AL AYCOCK, MILITARY PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE, CORVIAS 
    MILITARY LIVING
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on the bottom of your screen or 
whatever device you are using that will show how much time is 
remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn to 
yellow. When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, 
and I will begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member; then, members present at the time the hearing 
is called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, 
alternating between majority and minority; and, finally, 
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing in any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Today, we welcome three panels to testify on the conditions 
and oversight of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, 
or MHPI.
    The first panel will feature two residents telling their 
personal stories and challenges that they and their families 
faced while living in privatized housing. They will be joined 
by a privatized housing family advocate, who will be able to 
speak broadly about the issues families faced in privatized 
housing across all services and housing providers.
    The second panel will include the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Housing, Ms. Pat Coury, and the 
Director of Defense Capabilities and Management at the 
Government Accountability Office, or GAO, Ms. Elizabeth Field. 
These witnesses will be able to explain the oversight and 
history of privatized housing, the partnerships between the 
providers and the government, the steps being taken to address 
systemic housing issues, and the future of housing resiliency.
    The third panel will be representatives from five of the 
largest private housing companies: Balfour Beatty Communities, 
Corvias Military Living, Hunt Military Communities, Lendlease 
Communities, and Liberty Military Housing. We expect this panel 
to explain current challenges privatized housing faces, past 
and current legal issues, steps being taken to improve service, 
and the impact of the recently implemented Tenant Bill of 
Rights.
    As we all now know, beginning in August of 2018, Reuters 
began publishing a series of articles chronicling health and 
safety issues experienced by military families living in 
deplorable, privatized military family housing conditions.
    Many of us traveled to some of these privatized family 
settings and were able to actually do walk-throughs and see 
exactly the conditions that families were living in. Not to 
mention that these companies have been engaged, in some cases, 
in fraudulent activities being conducted by some providers.
    These articles prompted a groundswell of similar stories 
from diverse families of all services, ranks, pay grades, and 
geographic locations. It became quickly apparent that these 
issues were systemic.
    Servicemembers and their families experienced mold 
exposure, rodent infestation, water leaks, smells, broken 
appliances, rude and dismissive housing management. And, adding 
insult to injury, there was ineffective oversight of the 
program by the services. The Department of Defense and the 
housing providers they had entrusted to take care of our 
servicemembers and their families had gravely failed.
    The services reported that a lack of visibility on work-
order processing had contributed to the overall lack of 
oversight. In addition, the system incentivized work-order 
completion without respect to the quality of maintenance 
performed, which led to poor workmanship and unqualified 
personnel performing the work. Further, an overemphasis on 
occupancy rates incentivized the quick turnover of homes, 
which, in turn, can lead to a lack of preventive maintenance 
and repairs between tenants.
    The system was broken. Those who were bravely serving our 
Nation and their families were being neglected, ignored, and 
taken advantage of.
    Since then, Congress and the Department of Defense have 
taken key steps to remedy the crisis and right the ship. 
Congress passed legislation as part of the 2020 National 
Defense Authorization Act that included a Tenant Bill of Rights 
which would ensure all servicemembers and their families were 
given quality housing, responsive customer service, and the 
right to challenge the system for wrongdoing without the threat 
of retaliation.
    In February 2020, the Department of Defense announced that 
the Defense Secretary and the uniformed service secretaries 
signed the Tenant Bill of Rights, implementing 15 of the 18 
tenant rights. And, finally, on August 1, 2021, the Department 
signed the updated bill of rights, implementing all 18 rights.
    I was glad to see that all privatized housing partners 
testifying today implemented these 18 essential rights for our 
servicemembers and their families.
    And we had a--at the beginning of this process, we had a 
very comprehensive oversight hearing, like we are doing today, 
to make sure that we could hear from affected families, make 
sure that we could hear from the government, the governmental 
agencies responsible for oversight, and also to hear from the 
companies.
    And there is clearly still much to be done, as we have seen 
by the continued stream of negative stories making their way to 
the press, which is part of the reason for calling this hearing 
today, because we want to make sure, particularly because we 
are responsible for the quality of life of these military 
families, that we make sure that we are conducting the 
oversight to be certain that the Tenant Bill of Rights, all 18 
of them, are implemented and that we don't have, you know, a 
regression when it comes to progress.
    And that includes not only persistent issues with 
inadequate housing conditions and quality of service but also 
the troubling, shameful, and, frankly, infuriating revelations 
of illegal incentive fee fraud committed by multiple providers.
    I look forward to hearing some explanations today from 
those privatized housing providers on how they are making 
systemic changes in the operations and oversight of their 
housing portfolio, and I know my colleagues join me in 
expecting full transparency.
    This is an important hearing, in which we will discuss the 
state of military privatized housing, the progress made over 
the last few years, the ongoing challenges faced by our 
military families, and the crucial steps we must take moving 
forward. I do want to thank all of the witnesses for attending 
today and my colleagues for participating in what will be a 
longer than normal hearing, and I am looking forward to an 
informative, candid conversation.
    At this time, I would like to yield to my ranking member, 
who has been really a fierce advocate for military families, 
particularly given that he represents so many of them, for his 
opening statement.
    Judge.
    Mr. Carter. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You 
know, I am pleased we are kicking these off, these hearings, 
because it is great to get to work on the 2023 budget request.
    We all know that safe and adequate military housing is key 
to readiness. I want our soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines, 
Guardians, all those folks, to have good housing, sufficient 
housing, so that they don't have the worries of what is going 
on with their families when they are deployed. Nothing could be 
worse. Active Duty and deployment are tough enough without 
worrying about your family back home.
    I am disappointed we continue to hear these stories about 
problems in privatized housing. When I came on this committee, 
Chet Edwards was the chair, and he was one of my colleagues 
from back in Texas, and everybody was so proud of the new 
housing program. And it is a crying shame that we are dealing 
with these kind of issues with something we were so proud of 
less than 15 years ago. So something is wrong, very badly 
wrong.
    And believe me, I know what mold infestation is, because 
the first term I ran for Congress I had it in my house, and I 
lived in my garage with my beautiful wife for 9 months while I 
was campaigning. So you can't pull the wool over my eyes. I 
know what it is.
    I am looking forward to finding out about this. I want to 
hear about what is going on with this at Fort Hood. And I am 
looking forward to this hearing.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Judge. And thank 
you for being the partner that you have been right through and 
also for really providing the committee and me with the 
legislative history about this. It has been important and 
helpful.
    So now we will welcome our first panel: Private Cody 
Calderon, Ms. Nikki Wylie, and Ms. Rachel Christian.
    This panel includes a servicemember, Private Calderon, and 
a military spouse, Ms. Nikki Wylie, who are currently residents 
in military family housing. They will describe the conditions 
that they have encountered, the difficulties they face in 
persuading officials to address serious maintenance issues, and 
the problems with receiving adequate remediation.
    They are joined by a military housing family advocate, Ms. 
Rachel Christian, who can testify about the experiences and 
treatment of servicemembers across all services and housing 
providers.
    We will start with Private Calderon, then Ms. Wylie, and 
finally Ms. Christian. In light of the many witnesses that we 
have today and the multiple panels, I would ask that everyone 
keep their opening statements to 3 minutes. We certainly have a 
lot of ground to cover today.
    Private Calderon, your full written testimony will be 
included in the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to 
summarize your opening statement.
    Private Calderon. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I 
really appreciate that. I am grateful for this opportunity to 
speak today.
    And the story I will share is not really unique, and while 
I am going to fill it with the specifics to me, it is not 
specific to me. I think of the hopeless, the voiceless, the 
sick while I am speaking to you now, those that are willing to 
literally sacrifice all, and the families who support them. And 
I think about the heroism it takes to not sit idly by, for the 
worst thing a human can do is turn a blind eye to injustice. 
That is how I feel.
    My name is Cody Calderon. I am a husband; I am a soldier. 
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of my first day in the 
Army, and today I gather the courage given to me by my wife, my 
peers, my leaders to share my family's experience with 
privatized housing in the military.
    I was placed in Corvias housing on August 12, 2021. That 
was 11 days after the revised military privatized housing 
initiative Tenant Bill of Rights was placed into effect. My 
wife, Alyssa, immediately knew something was wrong with the 
home. We couldn't pinpoint it. We chalked it up to 
environmental allergens or just the shock of a new lifestyle.
    Being 32, I am afforded a few advantages over your typical 
private first class. Firstly, I have dealt with these problems 
in the civilian sector. I have battled landlords. I have fought 
for housing. I have the confidence and conviction to take this 
head-on. I am not afraid to fight for what is right, regardless 
of the consequences, like I feel other servicemembers may be. 
But a great leader told me to always choose the hard right over 
the easy left, and I live by that.
    So here are the hard facts. There is mold in my home. No 
standard was followed to ensure safe remediation. And the Army 
agrees to follow Installation Management Command, IMCOM, 
standards, and they accept the Institute of Inspection, 
Cleaning, and Restoration Certification--that is the IICRC--as 
the guideline for proper maintenance.
    And I need to stress, the implementation of the Tenant Bill 
of Rights is not just a list of suggestions; they are a 
standard that is required to guarantee the health, safety, and 
rights of the individual.
    And that is what we are fighting for here: the rights of 
the individuals that put in a maintenance request, that have 
the work performed that did not follow IICRC standards. They 
are told that the home is safe to live in, and then they 
subsequently get sick because of negligence. Corvias turns the 
unit over to the next soldier's family, and this just happens 
in perpetuity.
    Now, both of the homes that we have been offered since this 
issue with our original home, they have been riddled with mold 
and maintenance issues. I have submitted dispute-resolution 
paperwork, requested my schedule for a displacement per diem. I 
have spoken with the military housing office, asked for 
rightfully owed timelines. I have gotten nothing. I haven't had 
any correspondence in 7 days.
    My wife and I have gone from hotel to hotel over the past 
month. We find ourselves now, as I sit here right now, in an 
Airbnb 30 minutes from base, and I have to commute three or 
four times a day, with $4-a-gallon gas prices--all of these 
expenses coming out of my pocket because no one is taking 
accountability.
    This is a moral hazard at its worst, in my opinion. In the 
Army, if a soldier fails to meet or exceed an expectation, they 
are held accountable. But if a housing company fails, who does 
the accountability fall on?
    And I feel like, for too long, privatized housing companies 
have operated with a sense of impunity, just leaving countless 
families in the wake of their negligence. Each citizen puts 
their faith in us to protect the standards of this country, but 
what happens when the standard, the foundation that supports 
those protectors, is built on these mold and sewage and lead 
and pest issues?
    If we are strong as our weakest and as fast as our slowest, 
how ready are we, really, if we are as healthy as our sickest? 
The Army's mission is to fight and win the Nation's wars, but 
what do you do when we are fighting to win the war on safe and 
habitable housing in our own Nation?
    Thank you for the time.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    Private Calderon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Appreciate it, Private Calderon, and 
we will look forward to engaging in some Q&A with you.
    Ms. Wylie, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize 
your opening statement.
    Ms. Wylie. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Good morning, esteemed subcommittee members. I am Nikki 
Wylie, wife and partner of Marine Corps Master Sergeant Trevor 
Wylie for 12 of the 18 years he served on Active Duty.
    In November 2018, after 4 months living between Airbnbs 
while on the housing waitlist, we accepted a house in the 
Shadow Mountain community in Twentynine Palms, California. The 
disclosures we had to sign upon acceptance, including lead 
paint, asbestos, and other potential hazards, were alarming, 
but at this point we needed stability for our family.
    As soon as we moved in, our previously healthy children 
began experiencing breathing difficulties, skin rashes, and 
allergy-like symptoms. Just 2 months into living in our home, 
we experienced our first water intrusion incident, requiring 
baseboard removal and an industrial blower, which caused my 
then-1-year-old to exhibit symptoms almost instantly.
    Over the following year, we repeatedly voiced our concerns 
to LMH maintenance staff and their maintenance manager over the 
presence of mold, the unsafe nature of the air we were 
breathing, and the impact on my children's deteriorating 
health. By this time, my 1-year-old had recurring pneumonia and 
opacities on his lungs.
    Their only consolations were to repeatedly use their 
moisture meter and put it in my wall and tell me that, at this 
given moment in time, in this particular area, their readings 
weren't high; there couldn't possibly be mold present in my 
home. Or they would offer Band-Aid fixes like caulking over 
visible mold.
    Finally, a turning point came in December of 2019 when we 
had a gas leak. I detected it. I evacuated my family, and I 
notified Lincoln. Their maintenance worker came in and told me, 
all clear, there was no gas leak. By this point, I trusted my 
judgement, my intuition, over Lincoln's definition of safety, 
and I called in the base fire department, who determined we did 
in fact have a gas leak that could have had lethal 
ramifications.
    Now, using this blatant disregard for our safety as well as 
some other asbestos-related issues in the community, I 
contacted an LMH executive, who passed my concern on to their 
vice president. The VP finally set the gears in motion to 
finally get my home tested for mold.
    However, a Lincoln worker and maintenance manager came out 
for a ``pre-inspection,'' wherein they cleaned my vents and 
wiped away visible evidence of mold prior to the real 
inspection.
    The next week, a contracted company inspected my home and 
acknowledged spots of water intrusion and mold verbally to me 
but later refused to acknowledge the presence of mold in formal 
reports. Upon my insistence, they did contain the impacted 
areas, which included all three bathrooms, my HVAC unit, my 
laundry room, and an exterior wall of my home. However, only 
after excessive back-and-forth did LMH finally change out my 
HVAC coils and ductwork.
    We were out of our home for a total of 32 days, during 
which time LMH continued to collect our BAH, as we were 
shuffled between hotels before eventually being placed in 
junior enlisted off-base housing. We did receive a $75-per-diem 
check for the days we were displaced but not until well after 
we were back in our home. Thus, it could have been a great 
financial burden for a family without monetary reserves.
    I would like to unequivocally express concern that 
privatized housing companies are utilizing contractors and 
subcontractors whose revenue is generated almost entirely by 
the housing companies and so are, therefore, acting as a 
mouthpiece for the housing companies' interests with a fear of 
losing a large amount of their revenue if they disagree or even 
abide by proper protocols. I witnessed this both first- and 
secondhand throughout this process.
    Additionally, throughout our housing issues, Lincoln 
repeatedly attempted to discredit my husband with his 
relationship with his command. I would ask that, moving 
forward, no other family should suffer a detriment to the 
servicemember-command relationship merely because they are 
speaking out about their housing issues.
    Families should not have to choose between living on base 
and keeping their families safe.
    Thank you for your time.
    [The information follows:]

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Ms. Wylie.
    And last but not least, Ms. Christian, your full written 
testimony will be included in the record. You are recognized 
for 3 minutes to summarize your opening statement.
    Ms. Christian. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member 
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the 
Armed Forces Housing Advocates are proud to represent families 
living in privatized military housing across the Nation. Still, 
we are dispirited that an organization such as ours is 
necessary to exist.
    My name is Rachel Christian, and I am co-founder of the 
Armed Forces Housing Advocates along with Sarah Kline, Kate 
Needham, and Noelle Pacl. We believe that readiness starts with 
a safe home. The lives, health, and safety of our military 
families are at risk daily, and even more egregious are the 
continued disability rights violations that they face.
    Today, we see environmental hazards and improper repairs 
being completed; maintenance staff performing plumbing and 
electrical work without training or proper certifications. At 
Fort Drum, a family experienced a natural gas leak in their 
home for 6 months. When the maintenance director was asked 
about his team's qualifications at the site, he replied that 
they had none and that none were required.
    Many reasonable accommodations for families with 
disabilities are being denied or ignored. The housing partner 
often requests unreasonable amounts of information and puts 
layers of red tape in place for even the most minor requests.
    Requests for window fall-prevention devices are denied or 
installed with extraordinary costs. Since 2019, seven children 
at Naval Base San Diego have fallen from windows and suffered 
traumatic brain injuries.
    Sewage leaks are a common occurrence in military housing. 
Housing partners will refuse to replace carpets that have been 
soaked in raw sewage and will pump sewage into yards where 
children play.
    Faulty construction at Fort Leonard Wood left a military 
spouse with a traumatic brain injury just within this past 
year, and yet the company responsible is refusing to reply to 
the request for assistance.
    These examples are not unique and only a portion of the 
problem. Under the Tenant Bill of Rights, an electronic work-
order system was implemented. It is clear that there are mass 
discrepancies between the documentation in that system and the 
work orders being placed by residents.
    The Tenant Bill of Rights has also provided dispute 
resolution to some military housing tenants. However, most 
families are being turned away and denied access to the dispute 
process for arbitrary reasons. The discretionary fashion of 
this so-called ``right'' leads to more frustration and families 
believing that they have no recourse. Rights are not rights if 
the families cannot access or utilize them.
    Military families should not have to turn to social media 
to be heard. Families deserve an outlet that they can count on 
when local housing management systems fail. H.R. 7144 would 
create a public feedback tool for military families, which 
Congress can use to identify issues and hold housing companies 
accountable proactively.
    Readiness starts with a safe home, and we are not ready.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]   
    
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much to all of you 
for your opening remarks and for your participation today.
    We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, 
recognizing members in order of seniority as they joined at the 
beginning of the hearing, alternating between majority and 
minority. And please be mindful of your time and allow the 
witnesses time to answer within your 5-minute turn.
    I will begin by just thanking all three of you for being 
here today. Your experiences, whether they are living in 
privatized housing personally or working with families that 
live in privatized housing, are really going to help the 
subcommittee understand the issues that have plagued our 
servicemembers and their families and that continue to do so.
    I do want to ask Private Calderon and Ms. Wylie if you have 
anything to add that, you know, was not able to be included in 
your opening statement in terms of the housing and the 
challenges that you faced when you were trying to report those 
issues to your service or to the private housing companies.
    And, really, what I would be interested in knowing is, has 
this gotten any better? I realize that all 18 Tenant Bill of 
Rights elements weren't all implemented until last August, so 
that is not that long a timeframe, but have you noticed any 
improvements?
    So are there any additional housing challenges, both in 
terms of the problems plaguing your own home and the response 
time and response quality from your service or the private 
housing company?
    We will start with Private Calderon.
    Private Calderon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Urgency. I have felt like there has been no sense of 
urgency. And this has been going on for well over a month.
    It is disheartening because I also feel like my wife 
doesn't have a voice in any of this, and she is dealing with 
most of this while I am trying to do my job at work. They won't 
listen to her. It would be really amazing if we were allowed 
that sort of separation where our spouses could handle some of 
these issues, but we have been shut down at every turn.
    And I am also tired of not getting specific at least 
timelines for what is going on. They are just leaving me in the 
dark.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The company is leaving you in the 
dark?
    Private Calderon. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And how was your service's 
responsiveness?
    What we did in, I think, the last fiscal year--there really 
wasn't an oversight layer at DOD, and we provided funding to 
ensure that they could put in a layer of oversight at the 
service level and then--you know, I know what they initially 
did was, they put in, you know, base-level oversight.
    Have you noticed a change since either of those oversight 
measures were taken?
    Private Calderon. I don't know if I am entirely qualified 
to answer that, seeing as the short amount of time that I have 
been in the service. So honestly, I would not be able to 
accurately answer that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. That is fair.
    Ms. Wylie.
    Ms. Wylie. Thankfully, a lot of our major concerns were 
abated. I will say, in the--I kind of avoid Lincoln primarily 
right now in terms of calling--I am sorry, Liberty. They are 
now Liberty. I don't call them that regularly if I can help it.
    But in the couple of instances where I have had them in, I 
have had a couple of minor things, like--well, not following up 
with the water intrusion issue we had on December 25. I mean, 
it was on Christmas, but they came into my home on that day, 
and then there was never any followup. And in the work order, 
it shows that the followup was canceled. I didn't cancel it, so 
I would also say, things like--I am supposed to be having a 
HEPA filter replaced monthly. That was a part of the 
conditions, I guess, of me reentering my home when we did. And 
that has not happened.
    So I won't say that things are any better. Those are minor 
concerns, but I am assuming that if I am seeing minor things on 
a house that was, you know, kind of a big priority to them for 
a while, that others are probably seeing much the same.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And from both of you, have you 
heard--I assume you have--heard from fellow servicemembers with 
similar issues in regards to reporting housing deficiencies or 
requesting remediation or responsiveness from your own service 
in order to--your own service's oversight of the housing 
companies?
    Private Calderon. At Fort Polk, yes, on a daily basis.
    Ms. Wylie. Same.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So these are not unique. You are not 
alone.
    Private Calderon. Not at all, in any way, shape, or form.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, gosh, Private Calderon, since 
you have only been here a year and we have engaged in passage 
of the Tenant Bill of Rights and implementation of it, it is 
disturbing that you wouldn't have at least seen some--at least, 
if not noticed some improvement--what you are describing seems 
identical to what we heard in the original hearing that we had.
    And, Ms. Wylie, you have been around a while. It doesn't 
sound any different for your family either. That is disturbing.
    Okay. And then, Ms. Christian, I just have a quick question 
I want to get in. Could you tell us about the work that your 
organization does and the resources that you provide? And can 
you give us a broad overview of the issues you have seen across 
the board and the lack of responsiveness?
    Ms. Christian. Sure.
    So our organization is a grassroots nonprofit that, since 
May, has assisted over 1,300 military families across the 
country, spreading a variety of issues, from minor, you know, 
incidents with housing all the way up to assisting families 
filing Fair Housing Act complaints, seeking out their 
Representatives.
    But our main purpose is to help families work within the 
current system that they are provided. So we have a step 
process that teaches families how to go to their chain of 
command, how to send emails out. Some spouses are alone and 
have never sent a professional email. So we assist them in that 
whole process.
    And it is advocacy in teaching them how to advocate for 
themselves, because we know this issue is going to be a common 
one that they are going to have occur throughout their time in 
the service. So we teach them, so that maybe next time, if they 
have an issue, they are able to proactively do it for 
themselves.
    And I will say, we do get a lot of issues handled that way, 
but we do still see problems, such that PFC Calderon sees, 
every day throughout our work.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    My time has expired. And, gosh, I have a lot more 
questions, but, you know, we will just submit those to you, if 
you can answer them for the record. Because I really do want to 
get as broad a sense from you all, the ones experiencing all 
these challenges, as possible for the members.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter, you are recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. To the two witnesses in housing, their 
residences, how old are those residences? Do you have any idea?
    Ms. Wylie. I believe the Shadow Mountain community was--I 
know was during the 1970s. I am not certain of the exact year.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    PFC Calderon.
    Private Calderon. I know that my home was built in 1988, 
but most of the other homes in my neighborhood are either from 
1982 or 1979, I believe.
    Mr. Carter. The truth is, we need to do new construction, 
but we are having trouble with new construction too. So that is 
another issue.
    Do you know whether or not--well, you probably wouldn't--
when these things were built, there was a built-in maintenance 
pot of money provided to the builders at the time they signed 
the contract? Do either one of you know?
    Private Calderon. No, sir.
    Ms. Wylie. I know at the time that our homes were built 
they were obviously not under the--they didn't fall under the 
current system. They were military-owned. So I couldn't speak 
to that either.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, I will ask the next panel.
    Well, let me tell you, you have my sympathy. Because if you 
hear how bad I talk, how much I cough, it has a whole lot to do 
to a mold infection back in 2002 in my house, and I have never 
quite gotten over it. So God bless you.
    I yield back.
    Private Calderon. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.
    Okay. Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In all honesty, this is just a really frustrating hearing. 
I am in my fourth year on this committee, and the very first 
hearing when I joined the committee in 2019 was on privatized 
housing. And I have the distinct sense that we just are still 
not on track, in terms of where we are trying to get to.
    And so, for me, I am trying to understand exactly what the 
situation is, where the problem is right now, and see if we can 
somehow go back and get our fingers on it. I mean, we have 
moved on Tenant Bill of Rights, we have moved on greater 
requirement of military engagement, and we have tried to move 
on access to information and complaints, we have tried to move 
on required timetables for repairs, and yet we have this 
hearing. And so that is just deeply frustrating. And I 
apologize to you for the fact that you are still in this 
situation.
    I guess I would like to understand--what I am trying to 
understand is how widespread is the problem still. We have 78-
some-odd privatized housing communities throughout our country.
    Private, I think if I understand your testimony correctly, 
you have lived in one of those over 1 year, so obviously you 
are experiencing issues there.
    Ms. Wylie, you have lived in four? Is that right? I think I 
read your resume and it said you have been in six different 
places but two of them in your own home. Is that right? So have 
you been in four communities?
    Sorry, you are muted. You are muted.
    Ms. Wylie. Technical difficulties.
    No, I have actually only lived in two military communities. 
And, as it would happen, they have actually both been aboard 
Twentynine Palms at two different times we were stationed out 
here.
    Mr. Case. Okay. I understand that.
    And, Ms. Christian, you obviously are advocating across the 
board.
    So here is the general question: Are we still talking about 
a systematic problem across the system, in your view, or are we 
talking about fairly isolated or at least narrowing communities 
that are still highly problematic, or, for that matter, 
companies versus, you know, a broader kind of indictment of the 
entire system? That is what I am trying to get to.
    Because, you know, I have many of those communities in 
Hawaii. We have tens of thousands of military families living 
in privatized communities in Hawaii. And there are issues, but 
they don't seem to, at least, arise to the same level of kind 
of systematic as is true in other parts of the country. So that 
is what I am trying to just make sense of.
    So let me just start--Private Calderon, you said you speak 
for many other people, and I am sure you do. What is your sense 
of it? Are we still dealing with a systematic issue here, where 
we just have to go back to the beginning and talk about much 
broader solutions? Or are we on the right track and narrowing 
in on solutions? Or what is your assessment?
    Private Calderon. I think, as a whole, we are on the right 
track.
    I think the most difficult part about this is people become 
stuck in their ways. There are people that have worked for 
these companies that have been there for decades, longer even, 
so it is a difficult-to-teach-a-dog-new-tricks sort of thing. 
They are used to operating in this way, and now we are 
implementing these new standards, and they are like, ``Well, I 
don't want to have to actually do my job now.''
    I do think it does sort of need to be torn down. I think we 
need people that are advocates for health and safety and not 
profit. I think we need to prioritize that, generally and very 
specifically.
    And, yes, I do speak with people quite often--I just spoke 
with a woman in my unit the other day who gave birth 2 months 
premature. The child has health issues. She was working all the 
way up through her pregnancy. Conceived and gave birth and 
still lives in that same home. Says that her ceiling is 
bubbling down, there is mold, the floor is creaky. It is just--
it is so upsetting to me that it is blatant disregard.
    Mr. Case. Entirely understood. And I guess I am just trying 
to focus in on how widespread is that situation, how widespread 
is that sentiment still.
    So, Ms. Christian, in the time I have remaining, what is 
your assessment across the entire system, the 68-some-odd 
communities? Is it still systemic? Or is this specific to 
companies, you know, cultures of some companies, as the private 
just said? Some companies have a harder time changing than 
other companies. Or is this specific to older communities 
versus newer ones? What is your answer?
    Ms. Christian. It is absolutely systemic still.
    And I will tell you that the issue is not necessarily with 
the individuals on the installation level, but, rather, the 
impact that they are truly able to have on the installation.
    We now have a Tenant Bill of Rights where a government 
housing office is dictating whether or not a family has access 
to dispute resolution. They now have individuals coming in and 
checking their homes and qualifying them as being safe or not 
in between turnovers, which hypothetically is a great idea and 
something that I would love to see if it was implemented in a 
way with someone who is certified.
    We just had a recent inspection go through, and an Army 
family had two gas leaks missed in their homes by the 
government housing office employee, and it is because they are 
not certified or trained in this.
    Mr. Case. Okay.
    Ms. Christian. So I do believe that there is a missing 
piece there that, if implemented, would change this.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    And one of the frustrating things about Ms. Christian's 
response just now is that part of the problem was that the 
companies were sending in unqualified people just to get 
through the tickets that have been submitted, rather than 
actually send somebody in who knows what they are doing. I 
mean, how do you not send in a specialist who knows how to 
handle a gas leak?
    I feel like I am stuck in 2019 and that there is--you know, 
recognizing that the bill of rights implementation, you know, 
is less than a year in, but--I guess we will ask our next panel 
and the panel after that those questions. Forgive me.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    And, also, I know I have one other question for this panel, 
so if anyone has a second round of questions, just let me know.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity. And I really do appreciate you getting this 
hearing together. I think this is a very important topic.
    I have personally gone out to some of the housing in my 
district at the Naval Air Station Lemoore. We have had some 
issues, ourselves, trying to work with some of these facilities 
in improving houses, building new houses. I mean, the problem 
is just across the board, and it truly is a frustrating thing.
    So, Mr. Calderon, Ms. Wylie, Ms. Christian, thank you for 
joining us today and sharing your stories. I really do 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Calderon, I sincerely hope that your immediate housing 
concerns are addressed as swiftly as possible. And I think we 
all need to hold these guys to a higher standard.
    My question is to Ms. Christian. The Tenant Bill of Rights, 
which we have talked about a little bit here, was implemented 2 
years ago. And in your testimony you expressed a concern, and I 
know that the chairwoman just mentioned it as well, lack of 
training, the lack of qualified people, which we are seeing 
across the country in all different segments.
    But what do we need to do better when it comes to training 
these advocates? I mean, what would you say are the most 
important topics we really need to hit on? If you could talk 
about that a little bit.
    Ms. Christian. Training needs to be specialized to what 
they are looking at, right? If you are in North Carolina and 
you are a North Carolina-certified home inspector, that should 
be the type of person you are seeking out to come and clear 
these houses. These are going to be the types of people that we 
want in these houses in ensuring that the safety is going on.
    Tenant Bill of Rights did allow for an industry standard of 
treatment in one of the rights, but there is actually no clear 
definition of industry standard unless you dig deep down into 
State law. And because of the lack of training across the 
board, some of our installation commanders still don't realize 
that State laws need to be followed on the installations with 
the government housing office. And that is on the burden of the 
resident to prove to the installation commanders, to their 
government housing employees, and then also to the local-level 
privatized housing partners.
    So the training really needs to be specific to home 
inspections. I don't believe that is an outlandish request, and 
it sounds sort of simple, right? You would think that the 
person coming in would be certified.
    Say that you were checking the electrical in a home--
Georgia. Fort Stewart has a lot of electrical issues on their 
installation, and they had non-electricians coming in and 
certifying fire hazards that have caused fires throughout the 
electrical wiring even though an electrician has said it was 
not accurate.
    So things like that really need to be put in place, and I 
do think the system that you have implemented with the Tenant 
Bill of Rights could work if we went that route.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. So, I mean, the training, making sure 
these people are qualified, have a background in it.
    And as far as us getting the information out, obviously we 
have worked with some constituents of our own, and just making 
sure that we go through the list of checkmarks. All right, did 
you reach out to this person on your base? Did you reach out to 
this person within the company that is supposed to be 
overseeing? We always try to make sure they are doing those 
things. But if they are sending people who aren't qualified, 
obviously that is a huge problem for us. So, obviously, that is 
one we need to focus on.
    Again, I appreciate all the testimony. I don't have any 
more questions for this specific panel, Madam Chair, so I will 
just yield back the rest of my time.
    So thank you again for your time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Valadao.
    Next up is Mrs. Lee.
    You are recognized.
    Mrs. Lee. I have no questions for this panel. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you so much then.
    Mr. Bishop, are you with us?
    All right. Seeing that Mr. Bishop is not here at the 
moment, we will go to Mr. Rutherford.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank 
the panelists for being here this morning and sharing.
    And I want to follow up and concur with the remarks by my 
good friend from Hawaii, Mr. Case. I apologize. The pictures 
that I saw that you all have provided is reprehensible. No one 
should live in a situation like that--the black mold, the just 
horrible conditions.
    And so, Ms. Christian, if I could ask you, you know, when 
you were describing the advocacy group's role, about training 
the individual members to deal with their leadership on base, 
is--should we maybe put more control or greater responsibility 
on the advocacy group to not only train individuals who are 
living in these conditions how to advocate for themselves, but 
should we have some role that the advocates could play in 
engaging leadership that is not getting these things done on 
time?
    I know, out of the recommendations that came through, I 
think only 8 or 10 have been actually implemented so far in the 
Lendlease (ph), but at least people are, I guess, delaying the 
rest until they can renegotiate.
    So should we look possibly at putting more power into the 
hands of the advocates?
    Ms. Christian. I honestly do not think so. I think that 
this is such a--in the civilian world, this would be a simple 
problem, right? You have a problem with your landlord, you 
request a fix, and if not, you go to the next, which would be 
either your county or your State. I think that the onus really 
needs to be on that government housing office to be relaying 
the information correctly up through their chain to the 
installation level.
    And, as well, on the privatized housing partner, they need 
to see some type of recourse taken against their actions, which 
has only so far been done in the public eye. This hearing is a 
great way to do that, show that this is a problem, but there 
has not been, on installation level, any type of immediate 
recourse for employees or for government housing employees that 
are denying families their rights.
    So I don't think that adding another layer is going to make 
it any better, simply because we don't have the initial base 
for a structure to work.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. Well, I am not suggesting we add 
another layer. I am suggesting that we just put more tools in 
your toolbox.
    So let me ask this, because I can tell you, I have three 
military installations in my district. Our housing at Naval 
Station Mayport, NAS JAX, we don't seem to have these problems. 
Ours are going pretty well, actually, according to our tenants.
    So, when I see these photographs that were provided to us--
and we ought to broadcast those somewhere--but, in addition to 
that, I hear you testify that nine children have fallen out of 
windows? First of all, that was in San Diego. Can you tell me 
what company that is?
    Ms. Christian. Yes. That is Liberty. And that is just in 
the past 4 years at one installation.
    DOD is supposed to be sending the information on the number 
of children falling from military housing units to you all. We 
have been trying to get that information, because we do know 
that the numbers being reported are extremely low in comparison 
to the actual numbers of children falling from windows.
    Mr. Rutherford. Now, you may not have this information, but 
do you know how they are falling out? I mean, that seems like 
an inordinate number of children, to me, to be falling out 
windows. Are they windows that go ceiling to floor and they are 
open because the air-conditioningis not working, or----
    Ms. Christian. So there are several reasons, but a lot of 
them occur because the windowsills are low on the second story.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
    Ms. Christian. Evan's Law is a law that was put into place 
after Evan English passed away in Hawaii falling from a window 
unit.
    And that is really the case--military families are moving 
frequently; children aren't used to the environments they are 
in. They have simple things like insect screens instead of--I 
remember when--you know, when you are younger, if you are in an 
older house, you could push on those screens on those windows 
and nothing would happen. They are put in by duct tape or held 
in incorrectly.
    So just the requirement to, if requested, to put in an 
actual window guard would be a wonderful addition and would 
save the lives of children, honestly, in military housing.
    We recently had a resident ask for window guards, and the 
response was, ``There is a sticker on the window that says 
`window fall risk.' '' A sticker is not going to save the life 
of a child.
    Mr. Rutherford. No, absolutely.
    Madam Chair, I see my time has run out, but I want to thank 
you for this panel. And we really need to continue to push on 
this issue, and thank you, Madam Chair, for doing that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. Yeah, something is 
not working. And that is what this hearing is trying to get to 
the bottom of. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
    Okay. I don't see Mr. Bishop. Okay.
    So, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really 
appreciate you holding this hearing.
    I appreciate the testimony from the panel. And what you 
will find is this committee is committed to solving this issue, 
and it has been an issue for far too long.
    I spent 20 years in the Navy, so when we talk about 
housing, I have lived it. My friends have lived it. My loved 
ones have lived it. And one of the things that comes to mind 
is, every servicemember has a housing story, everyone.
    I remember, one of my stories was, we had just had a new 
baby, Daniel, and I was living in housing, and we couldn't use 
our living room because it was as if we were sitting outside. 
There was no insulation. It was really cold. We were in 
Maryland at the time.
    But there is always something. And I think it has gotten to 
the point to where that has become the standard. And it should 
not be that way. You know, here we have servicemembers deployed 
all over the United States, and I would argue, if they are 
worried about what is happening at home, they are not focused 
on the job that they have to do. So it absolutely is connected 
to readiness.
    I have a couple questions, and I would love to hear some 
comments. My first question is for Ms. Christian.
    Do you have any feedback from families on using the 
Interactive Customer Evaluation portal to provide comments or 
complaints regarding their housing?
    Ms. Christian. So, any time we have actually had residents 
try to put anything into a portal that is run by the company, 
we have had instances where the information is being changed on 
the back end.
    So I will give you an example. A family put in and said 
they had a lead-based-paint hazard that needed an inspection, 
and the company repeatedly removed the words ``lead-based 
paint'' from the terminology. Even after multiple emails to 
both the housing company and the housing office to get those 
words back in there, they refused to do so.
    So situations like that are not uncommon. That is just one 
example that I am allowed, per that resident, to speak about. 
But this is happening across the board, where those items are 
not being tracked properly.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no, thank you for that.
    What I hear from not only my constituents--I have several 
bases in the district, Fort Bliss, Lackland Air Force, Laughlin 
Air Force Base--not only from my constituents but also from my 
former shipmates and people I have served with all over the 
country, essentially, the theme is one thing: They don't feel 
as if they have a voice. They feel as if they are constantly 
kind of shunned or pushed to the side. And regardless of their 
pay grade, regardless if they are a PFC and their new to 
service or if they are, you know, senior folks, they have all 
kind of been pushed to the side.
    I think that is one thing maybe we can work on. I would 
love to work with your organization to try to come up with 
maybe some real-time solutions, when somebody picks up a phone 
and says, ``Hey, I need this,'' that they get a real-time 
response.
    Ms. Wylie, I have a question for you, and the question is: 
You know, we have several other panels after this--you know, 
the Secretary of Defense that is in charge of housing and then, 
of course, the leadership of these different private housing 
organizations themselves. If you were in my shoes, what would 
you ask them?
    Ms. Wylie. One question I would definitely want answered 
would be, what portion of the contractors that they utilize 
work almost exclusively for the housing companies?
    I ask that because I am finding a lot of cases, both that 
are personal and with other residents in my neighborhood with 
issues, we are finding that the results they get when outside 
testing occurs, vice when some of these contractor companies 
that are the go-to companies, we are finding that those are not 
necessarily aligning, and that almost across the board the 
contractors that are the go-to contractors that have the bulk 
of their revenue from the housing companies will align their 
interests with the housing companies. And that leads to some 
false reports, some not following proper protocols, things of 
that nature. And I saw that firsthand throughout our process 
for sure.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great.
    And I will ask one final question before my time is up. 
This is for PFC Calderon.
    Look, you look sharp, man. You look sharp in uniform. 
Clearly, you are just starting your career off. I am really 
excited for you. How does the quality of military housing 
impact your decision on if you are going to stay in service or 
if you are going to punch out?
    Private Calderon. It is a tremendous impact. It has, 
unfortunately, really pushed me away, because I--I got an 
eviction during COVID, and I still have some utility bills on 
my credit, and my wife has some debt, so we really can't rent. 
We even went to go look at off-base housing.
    And I feel like the issue with where we are, especially in 
Fort Polk, is that they kind of know they have a corner of the 
market that really lets them kind of do what they want, because 
the options are so limited. There is one Airbnb in this area. 
They are really not a lot of options.
    So, for me, it kind of makes me feel, do I want to take 
this gamble again? Which is really unfortunate. Because, as I 
said, I am 32. I have lived a life. I have done a lot of 
things. I have started companies, I have failed, I have tried 
again. I really wanted to do 20 years. I don't think I could do 
20 years of this. I don't think I could put my wife through 20 
years of this just for a retirement. And that is the God's 
honest truth.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great. Well, thank you.
    My time is up, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
    That is so disturbing, Private Calderon. It seems very 
basic, that your housing should not be a thought in your mind. 
And the fact that it would drive you out of the service, a 
career choice that you were trying to make, is just an 
abomination.
    For all three of you--and I think I am the only one with a 
round 2 question--but for all three of you, if you could answer 
for me, since the implementation of the Tenant Bill of Rights 
and what we have been told is the layer of oversight on base 
from the service, where they have supposedly put in place 
someone that residents of privatized military housing can go to 
that is employed by the service, that is responsible for, you 
know, taking care of responsiveness or lack thereof, helping 
you maneuver and interact with the company that is responsible 
for fixing your issues, have you noticed any difference since 
the implementation of that layer of oversight and the Tenant 
Bill of Rights?
    Do you have better response time? Do you feel like you have 
a place to go if there is a lack of responsiveness? And are you 
getting what you need in terms of the quality and speed of the 
workmanship to fix any issues?
    Private Calderon, you can begin.
    Private Calderon. Again, I don't feel like I have too much 
time and experience in, but from going back and reading 
people's posts that they do reach out----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But you are experiencing problems 
yourself.
    Whether it was what happened before or not, do you feel 
like you have a place you can go to get responsiveness from 
your service when you are not getting it from the company? And 
you have made clear what the problem is with the company's 
responsiveness.
    Private Calderon. I don't. I wish I could expand on that 
more, but I--there is just this general sense of there is no 
priority, there is no urgency.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because there is not someone to go 
to? Or because when you go to the person that is responsible 
for that, they are not taking care of your needs?
    Private Calderon. That is how I felt. That is how I felt.
    So the military housing office is obligated to provide us 
with an advocate who is supposed to work on our behalf, help us 
through situations like this. In my case, that failed me. I had 
to reach out. I had to find third-party advocacy, my wife had 
to find third-party advocacy, because we weren't being guided 
properly. We weren't being told what to do. We were making 
mistakes, but nobody was kind of, like, holding our hand.
    This is a complicated process. I don't know how to do it. I 
am still learning how to do my job. So, yeah, I do feel failed.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wylie
    Ms. Wylie. I will agree with a lot of what PFC Calderon 
said with regard to, the government housing office has been of 
very little assistance, unfortunately, with navigating this.
    My husband actually ended up switching units after, you 
know, command was really unable to--part of the switch was--we 
are glad now that we are in a different command, because when 
command wasn't able to help us, we had nowhere to go. We felt 
very alone against, kind of, the giant that is the housing 
company and their complicit contractors.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, Ms. Christian, can you speak to 
the experience of the families that you have interacted with in 
terms of whether there has been improvement in where they can 
go for assistance when they are not getting the kind of 
response they need out of the company responsible for dealing 
with their challenges?
    Ms. Christian. I believe this is a really individual-to-
installation question. I do think that there are some advocates 
on the installation in different locations that are doing an 
amazing job trying to help residents, but their hands are tied.
    So, regardless of if they have the ability and they are 
doing their job, I will say that I only know of three 
installations where the government housing office has 
successfully helped residents in any meaningful way when they 
have gone to them.
    But I would say that, even if they do try to assist them or 
give them information, they don't know State or local laws, and 
they most definitely are very poorly versed on disability laws. 
So when residents are asking questions as it relates to a Fair 
Housing Act violation or whether or not the implementation of 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies on their 
installation, that resident advocate does not know and has 
nobody, really, to seek counsel from to get that resident an 
answer.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Fabulous. Okay.
    Judge Carter, do you have additional questions?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will take that as a ``no.''
    Mr. Carter. No. Take that as bad operations.
    We probably ought to kick some doors down. That is what we 
ought to do.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Yeah. That is the next step. I 
don't how many--yeah. My patience has run out, and I know the 
committee's has as well.
    Well, thank you to the three of you for your courage, 
particularly to you, Private Calderon. Know that we have your 
back. The law that we passed that included the Tenant Bill of 
Rights is designed to allow you to feel free to share with us 
freely about the concerns that you have. And we want to make 
sure that the last thing that should drive someone out of the 
service--that was a choice they made, to serve their country--
is the housing that is supposed to be keeping your family 
comfortable and safe and that shouldn't be a second thought.
    I mean, we all experience problems with housing, no matter 
where you live, but, generally, you should be able to take care 
of that pretty quickly. And you shouldn't start with your 
house; you are already in a dangerous situation with your job 
every single day. It shouldn't be dangerous to live in your 
military housing. And it is just unbelievably disturbing that 
we are still at this level of danger and difficulty. I mean, 
seven children fell out of a window and had brain injuries in 4 
years? I am speechless.
    Okay. Assuming no other members have questions of this 
panel, thank you so much for your participation. We appreciate 
your input and feedback. And just know that we will stay on top 
of this as a committee.
    Thank you very much.
    Okay. We will allow for a few minutes to switch to our 
second panel, and so the subcommittee will stand in recess 
briefly for that purpose.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
    We will now welcome our second panel: Ms. Patricia Coury, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Housing at the 
Department of Defense, and Ms. Elizabeth Field, Director of 
Defense Capabilities and Management for the Government 
Accountability Office.
    This panel will give us a background on the Military 
Housing Privatization Initiative, the partnerships between the 
providers and the government, and the now-implemented Tenant 
Bill of Rights. They will also provide details on their ongoing 
actions to remedy the inadequate oversight of the program and 
their long-term plans to make permanent positive changes to the 
program.
    We will begin with Ms. Coury and then move to Ms. Field.
    Ms. Coury, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize 
your opening statement.
    Ms. Coury. Thank you. Madam Chair Wasserman Schultz, 
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to discuss the 
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
    I would like to begin by acknowledging the subcommittee's 
support of the Department's efforts to improve the quality of 
life for military members and their families and your efforts 
to enhance the MHPI program. With this committee's support, the 
Department is resourced to provide safe, quality, well-
maintained housing where our military members and their 
families will want and choose to live.
    The military departments have used the available funding to 
increase their oversight by hiring more than 600 additional 
housing personnel to provide enhanced quality assurance, 
customer care services, and advocacy for residents.
    Under the overall leadership and direction of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment, the DOD official designated as the Department's 
chief housing officer, the Department has significantly 
enhanced the MHPI program and our oversight of the private-
sector companies that own, operate, and maintain privatized 
housing projects.
    Since the February 16, 2021, MHPI hearing before this 
subcommittee, the Department has remained focused on five key 
MHPI program oversight areas: senior leader engagement to 
collaborate internally and with MHPI companies on housing 
issues and necessary corrective actions; rebuilding trust with 
military members and their families; accountability at all 
levels within DOD and by MHPI companies to perform our 
oversight as originally intended at the outset of housing 
privatization; transparency and more frequent communication 
with MHPI tenants; and ensuring the long-term financial 
viability of the MHPI projects and the MHPI program.
    Central to our enhanced oversight, the Department issued a 
revised MHPI Tenant Bill of Rights on August 1, 2021, that now 
includes all 18 rights specified in section 2890 of Title 10, 
United States Code.
    Based on our work with the MHPI companies that own and 
operate privatized housing projects, they have voluntarily 
implemented these 18 rights at all but 5 of the nearly 200 
installations with privatized housing. While the Department 
continues to pursue agreements with the MHPI companies at the 5 
remaining installations, nearly 96 percent of the military 
families who reside in privatized housing have access to all 18 
rights.
    Our progress implementing the Tenant Bill of Rights 
represents a foundational step in DOD's ongoing efforts to 
improve the MHPI program and to rebuild trust and ensure a 
positive living experience for military members and their 
families.
    In addition to issuing the revised Tenant Bill of Rights, 
we have taken a number of other actions to improve our 
oversight, to include implementing Department-wide quarterly 
programmatic reviews of the performance of the MHPI portfolio 
and the individual projects, establishing a new DOD uniform 
housing standard and inspection requirements, and working with 
the private-sector MHPI companies to accelerate project 
investment to renovate or construct new housing units in MHPI 
projects where feasible and to improve the condition of 
existing privatized housing.
    Our priority going forward is to focus on implementing MHPI 
reforms intended to improve the safety, quality, and 
habitability of privatized housing while continuing our 
enhanced oversight of the MHPI program and projects. These 
reforms include establishing enhanced standards for the private 
MHPI companies that own, operate, and maintain privatized 
housing projects through increased monitoring of the individual 
MHPI project performance and ensuring the long-term financial 
viability of the MHPI projects and program.
    The Department of Defense is committed to working closely 
with this subcommittee and the committee's staff to ensure our 
military members and their families who choose to reside in 
MHPI housing have safe, quality homes and a positive living 
experience.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very 
important topic and for your continued support of the 
priorities of the Department to improve the quality of life for 
our military members and their family members who are called to 
sacrifice so much for us.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]  
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Coury.
    Ms. Field, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize 
your opening statement.
    Ms. Field. Madam Chair, Judge Carter, and members and staff 
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on 
GAO's work assessing the Defense Department's privatized 
military family housing program.
    This morning's hearing comes in the wake of announcements 
from the Justice Department regarding allegations of fraud by 
two of the private companies with the largest housing 
portfolios in the program. In one case, the company pled guilty 
to major fraud and is to pay over $65 million in civil and 
criminal fines and restitution. In the other case, the company 
agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve allegations of 
fraud, with no admission of fault.
    While different, both cases involve the performance 
incentive fee, or PIF, which, under the program, the companies 
receive if they meet certain criteria.
    In our March 2020 report, we identified significant 
weaknesses related to DOD's use of the PIF, including that the 
metrics and the underlying indicators used to determine whether 
it would be awarded were not closely tied to reliable measures 
of resident satisfaction. Instead, they emphasized things like 
responding quickly to work-order requests, regardless of 
whether the underlying problem had been fixed. Moreover, we 
found that the data in the systems used to track work orders 
were neither accurate nor reliable.
    We made a number of recommendations to address these 
problems, including that the military services review the PIF's 
metrics and indicators to ensure they provide an accurate 
reflection of the condition and quality of the home.
    I am pleased to report that DOD has taken steps to 
implement this recommendation, including proposing significant 
revisions to the PIF.
    However, while many of the private companies have agreed to 
these revisions, not all have. This demonstrates one of the 
fundamental challenges inherent in DOD's military family 
housing program. As is the case for all government contracts, 
the military cannot unilaterally make changes to the project's 
legal agreements. But, in this case, many of these agreements 
are in place for 50 years.
    We will undoubtedly have a robust discussion this morning 
about the limits of the government's power within this public-
private partnership and why DOD has remained committed to the 
program despite those limits.
    I look forward to that discussion, but I would also like to 
note three areas in which the Department can continue to 
strengthen the privatized family housing program without 
limitation.
    First, DOD could do more to report timely and transparent 
information on resident satisfaction with their privatized 
homes. Second, the Department could strengthen its process for 
setting the basic allowance for housing, a key source of 
revenue for privatized housing projects. Third, DOD could do 
more to validate work-order data.
    We look forward to seeing the Department fully implement 
these recommendations in the near future.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Coury, my opening question is, did you watch the first 
panel?
    Ms. Coury. Yes, I did.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I know your testimony was 
prepared in advance, but I am wondering if you noticed how 
discordant your opening statement was with what we heard from 
the first panel.
    I mean, for me, it doesn't feel like there has been any 
change at all in the 3 years since we had this oversight 
hearing with the same three panels.
    How has the layer of oversight--and in our previous 
hearing, we were told by Mr. Cramer that progress had been made 
to address the understaffing of offices charged with oversight 
of the housing program. DOD clearly told us that they dropped 
the ball, that they had left the oversight to the privatized 
military housing companies, but, when it comes to that 
oversight, there were still vacancies when we last asked.
    Have those offices now been fully staffed? How many 
positions are in these offices? And do you think that the 
oversight that has been installed that was not active or there 
before has done anything to improve the situation? Because the 
first panel really gave us the impression that things are 
exactly as they were before.
    Ms. Coury. Well, I am always concerned when I hear 
residents raise issues about the experience they have had with 
housing, so I certainly will go back and look more into the 
situations that they have raised.
    In terms of what the Department has done, we have now--the 
military departments have hired more than 600 additional 
housing personnel. Some of those are quality assurance and 
inspection-related; some are customer service and resident 
care. So we have done that. And----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But can I--you know what? You 
mentioned that. I want you to address some of the specific 
concerns--and that is why I wanted the resident panel to be 
first--some of the specific concerns they raised, where you 
have, you know, non-expert, untrained individuals, who don't 
know the State laws, who don't know, you know, how to guide a 
resident through the myriad of issues that they have to deal 
with when they are reporting particularly a serious problem 
with their home that is sickening their family.
    So, I mean, just putting a body in place isn't enough. So 
how are you addressing the need for expertise to be able to 
help a resident and really be an advocate for them to get their 
problem solved?
    Ms. Coury. So, for the housing staff and at all levels 
throughout the Department, there has been a significant 
increase in training. Obviously, some staff are new and they 
are still being trained.
    And there are probably locations, as was mentioned, where 
maybe the on-base housing staff don't understand fully that the 
State and local requirements do apply to privatized housing 
projects. These are privately owned projects, the housing is 
privately owned, and just operated on our installations.
    And so we have work to do in terms of training, and we will 
keep focusing on that. But we have implemented a number of 
measures that should be showing improvement for not just the 
responsiveness to residents but making sure the homes are in 
better condition when they receive them.
    For example, we have implemented inspection requirements 
at--each house, before it can be reoccupied by the next family, 
goes through a government inspection by qualified personnel to 
ensure that it meets life/health/safety requirements and is 
habitable. And it is holding up occupancy at locations where 
maybe the landlord did not completely meet every requirement, 
that they had to check another box. But we have done things 
like that.
    We have improved our installation commanders' understanding 
of their role and responsibilities in terms of the oversight at 
the installation level and having a stronger voice and 
incentives and other measures to hold the project companies 
accountable.
    But, you know, the Tenant Bill of Rights has been in place 
since August, and we know that there are places that there have 
been hiccups along the way, as the housing offices are learning 
how to follow new the policies and processes. And we are 
committed to working through that and making this program the 
best that it can be. And we think that we can do a great job 
providing housing to the residents through privatization.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It certainly doesn't seem like 
anywhere near enough progress has been made, and I am not sure 
that the structure that you put in place is working or enough.
    Ms. Field, can you answer the same question, essentially, 
in response to what Ms. Coury said? Do you think that the steps 
that the services, that DOD has taken to put in place, you 
know, oversight that has enough expertise and a system of 
responsiveness to advocate for these tenants is working 
effectively?
    Ms. Field. Well, it is a great question, and I have to say 
that, unfortunately, I continue to hear from residents by email 
or phone that they are having continued problems as well. We 
have an ongoing audit right now trying to assess whether these 
new steps are having their intended effect. That audit is not 
yet completed, but I will note two things.
    One is that, in the most recent report that the Department 
provided to Congress--I believe it was just released last 
week--showing some information on resident satisfaction, while 
it could have been more transparent, it showed the scores going 
down. So that is one indication that is a little bit troubling. 
Albeit, it is somewhat outdated because it is fiscal year 2019 
data, although it is the most recent data we could get.
    The other point I would make is that there are so many 
recommendations, actually requirements, from prior National 
Defense Authorization Acts that the Department has not yet 
fully implemented. And so that might be part of what is going 
on here as well, is that the Department is still in the process 
of taking those required steps.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Judge, I am going to just take an extra minute or so, 
because we have a shorter group of members that want to ask 
questions on this panel, and that will save maybe my second 
round, if that is okay.
    Ms. Coury, over the past few years, we have seen a plethora 
of really troubling press reports about all of the housing 
partners, but, as I mentioned in my opening statement, two 
particular providers have faced high-profile legal woes due to 
incentive fee fraud and whistleblower violations.
    I would like you to explain exactly what that means and how 
it happened. And in light of such egregious breaches in trust, 
why can't the Department simply terminate the partnerships? And 
what other options does the Department have in terms of 
providing consequences to the providers, short of terminating 
the partnerships?
    Because, you know, in the real world, if that kind of 
egregious, outrageous violations of the public trust would take 
place, they would lose their ability to continue to have the 
contract and continue to serve.
    So how did that happen? How did the Department miss this 
fraud? And what else can be done to ensure such fraud and 
corruption doesn't happen again?
    Ms. Coury. Well, that is an important question.
    We know that, between 2013 and 2019, Balfour Beatty 
Communities had employees that basically falsified information 
so that the company would meet objectives for its performance 
of maintenance and, therefore, meet requirements that would 
give it performance incentive fees that it had not earned.
    So, specifically, the employees altered or manipulated data 
in the property management system and falsified that data such 
that that would fraudulently induce the services to pay 
performance incentive fees that they hadn't earned, meaning 
actually the project companies themselves, but incentive fees 
approved by the services.
    BBC's corporate culture at the time and its internal 
controls weren't adequate to deter and detect that. And, 
frankly, the government at the time had also cut back our 
staff, and so we weren't really staffed well to provide the 
oversight that we should have, and we have acknowledged that.
    The actual situation that happened with BBC was first 
identified by the Air Force. So the Air Force was who 
identified it and then reported it to the Air Force Office of 
Special Investigations, and then it was referred to the 
Department of Justice.
    And so, once that was referred, we were aware of it and we 
were tracking that with the information that we could get from 
the Department of Justice. So we knew the investigation was 
ongoing for 2 years, but we didn't know until they had two 
employees that actually pled guilty in the summer timeframe of 
2021. And then Department of Justice let the Department of Air 
Force know in roughly mid-December that there was a pending 
plea agreement, and that was announced right before Christmas 
of 2021.
    We are also aware of--in that same rough timeframe, in 
early January, we learned that there was the whistleblower case 
that involved Hunt Military Communities. That was a civil 
settlement, civil situation, and was related to a whistleblower 
case. So it was sealed by the court, so we really did not know 
about that until about a week prior. The Air Force, I think, 
did learn something about it, but we didn't know details until 
it was announced in a press release.
    So these situations are obviously concerning, but we feel 
that--Balfour Beatty, for example, in their plea agreement, 
they not only acknowledged and fully cooperated during the 
investigation, but they also agreed to pay restitution--they 
had criminal fines and fees that were assessed against them, 
civil penalties assessed against them--and then have agreed to 
a very complex and thorough corporate compliance adjustment to 
improve their processes, policies, and procedures to deter and 
detect any kind of fraud against the government. And, also, 
they have to hire an independent corporate compliance monitor 
for 3 years to watch what they are doing.
    And so, for the Department, one of the things that we look 
at is: Well, how did they respond? And recognizing this 
involved allegations with a small number of employees from 2019 
and before, BBC had immediately, once they learned of these 
issues, taken action to start to change its own internal 
processes and management. And we watched them, as they were 
very transparent with us on that.
    And the Air Force, as our lead department on this, given 
that the situation started in the Air Force office, the Air 
Force has felt satisfied with that and is working with BBC to 
implement additional internal controls and performance 
improvement plans and requirements to ensure that they are 
doing the right thing and that they will not be in a situation 
where they would fraudulently be claiming anything regarding 
work orders in the future.
    But in terms of the question about why are we so committed, 
why wouldn't we replace BBC or a project company that would do 
this, part of that is because of the structure of the program, 
but--you know, I can talk more about that, but the big, 
overarching thing is that we are very committed to the success 
of this program. We have the potential that we could terminate 
a deal or terminate a relationship with one of these project 
companies, but that we don't feel is the right thing to do.
    We watched in these cases how these project companies have 
responded, how BBC and Hunt, which wasn't--they didn't plead 
guilty to something, but how they responded in terms of the 
whistleblower case. And we recognize that, you know, these are 
projects that the project company owns the housing, and for us 
to go through the process of trying to terminate the deal would 
be a very expensive and impactful thing that might not actually 
be as beneficial to the residents as it might seem, whereas we 
feel we can work with these companies and, you know, they are 
working in good faith. They are not trying to--we see their 
reactions, at least, in how they respond to this and the 
corporate compliance and things that they have agreed to, that 
we have confidence that we can continue to work forward with 
them.
    So I can talk more about the actual deal structures if you 
want to understand that, but some of that gets rather technical 
for the amount of time available for the questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. To simplify it, a company like BBC 
is able to simplify it, since it will take too much time.
    To simplify it, a company like BBC has made a cost-of-
doing-business decision. And so they know that they can 
withstand the penalties and layers of oversight and the cost 
added to their response and getting caught for defrauding the 
government. And their contractual arrangement and the fact that 
they own the housing and that these arrangements are so 
complex, where they basically can act with impunity and not 
really ever be held accountable and prevented from doing 
something like this again, because it is so difficult to 
unravel the complicated arrangement that has been made to 
establish the privatized military housing program.
    So that is really a terrible situation for the government 
to be in. And I just don't understand how accountability is 
even possible or preventing it from happening again is even 
possible, and that is what is disturbing to me.
    Okay. I apologize to my colleagues for taking so long.
    Judge, you are recognized for 5 minutes and however long 
you want to go after that.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. Coury, how many people work for you?
    Ms. Coury. My total team, if fully staffed, is 15, 
including contractor support.
    Mr. Carter. Fifty or 15?
    Ms. Coury. One-five, including contractor support.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    And you do oversight. I watch what was on the border 
between Israel and--I forget, someplace else. I was told that 
the U.N. observatory doesn't [inaudible]. Well, they do. They 
observe.
    Well, when we have occasion to do oversight, it seems to me 
we should be saying, not only look for the problem, but for 
$200 million, fix the problem. I don't understand that. I just 
don't.
    We are pouring, once again, money and just saying money 
will solve the problem. And 15 employees, you are understaffed. 
And we have $200 million in the program in the last 2 years? 
Something is wrong.
    Ms. Coury. So my staff is not funded out of the O&M budget 
that is supporting the military departments for the 600 
additional staff that they have, plus their prior staff. So my 
budget is very small. And----
    Mr. Carter. Who funds your budget?
    Ms. Coury. It is funded through the family housing/military 
construction--the military construction budget. It is under the 
Family Housing Improvement Fund. So the Family Housing 
Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2023, the request is a little 
over $6 million in support for my office. That does not fund 
salaries. That is for contract support.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    OMB, GAO--Ms. Field, you handle suing on their behalf, 
right?
    Ms. Field. I am sorry. Do you mind repeating the question?
    Mr. Carter. Your agency files lawsuits on behalf of these 
issues?
    Ms. Field. No. To clarify, we have not filed lawsuits 
against the companies. Those are cases outside of the GAO 
system. We are the legislative oversight agency for Congress.
    And so those lawsuits were brought by members of the 
public, whether they were servicemembers or others, employees 
of the companies.
    Mr. Carter. So where do the criminal fines go? Do you know?
    Ms. Field. That is a good question, and Ms. Coury might 
actually know where all of the fines go. I believe some of them 
go back to the reinvestment account for the privatized housing 
projects. But Ms. Coury might have more details on that than I 
do.
    Ms. Coury. Yes. I can answer that now if you want.
    The Department of Justice required BBC to pay over $65 
million in fines and restitution. And that included $18.89 
million in criminal restitution paid to Air Force privatized 
housing projects and to their restoration accounts, their long-
term sustainment accounts, to be spent as the Air Force 
determines. The Air Force decided which projects received the 
funds and how they will be spent. The total real damages to the 
Department was a little under $13 million. So, again, $65 
million in fines and restitution.
    And then, separately, BBC entered a False Claims Act 
settlement to resolve its civil liability for $35.2 million. 
And the amounts paid there are credited against the amounts BBC 
owes towards its criminal plea. BBC has already fully paid it 
restitution amounts to the Air Force. The rest of that money 
goes to the Treasury.
    Mr. Carter. Goes to the Treasury.
    Ms. Coury. It goes to the Treasury.
    Mr. Carter. Okay.
    My question is, I was looking at what we provided in the 
last two appropriation cycles, 2020 and 2021, $200 million--
$141 million in 2020 and $60 million in 2021--for the services 
to increase their ability to provide oversight.
    The problem I have with the word ``oversight'' is that 
means somebody is looking for problems. I am looking for the 
people who solve problems. Who would they be? The Air Force? 
The Army? The Navy? Are they supposed to take this money and 
solve the problem or just look at the problem? Because we are 
all looking at the problem, but when you send an idiot to fix a 
gas leak, you are not solving the problem. And that is the 
trouble for me.
    Any comment from either one of you?
    Ms. Coury. Elizabeth?
    Ms. Field. I mean, it is a really important point about 
oversight, that it is not just about understanding what 
happened but how to fix it.
    And I think, you know, that is why we have made over, I 
believe, 30 recommendations to the Department of Defense to 
strengthen privatized housing. Many of them have been 
implemented, but not all of them have. And we really focus our 
attention on recommendation implementation because that is 
where the problems get fixed.
    I think the bottom line here is that the Department did not 
get into this problem overnight and so it is not going to get 
out of this problem overnight.
    Ms. Coury. And if I may, then, as well, you know, that 
money right now is not just paying for staff but is paying for 
inspections, for example. So we have implemented a new DOD 
housing standard that requires an inspection of every home. We 
also have inspections, as I mentioned earlier, at each change 
of occupancy, for the government team to go and inspect and 
ensure that that home meets the life/health/safety and other 
requirements.
    And the Department also, just in the last couple of months, 
issued policy on managing environmental health hazards to make 
sure that our government team understands what the standards 
are, what they are supposed to be looking at, and whether 
something is an issue or not, including the oversight that 
needs to be provided to the privatized housing companies. So 
that applies to both government-owned housing and our 
privatized housing.
    But we have done a lot of things at the field to increase 
our oversight and ensure that we are doing better at monitoring 
the work orders and so forth.
    And, then, at the Secretariat level and at my level, we 
have implemented quarterly programmatic reviews where we are 
looking at data on all of these different things, various 
metrics, to assess not only how the projects are performing but 
the health of the projects from a financial standpoint, and 
working with the military departments to determine if there is 
a need for some kind of corrective action or some kind of a 
restructure.
    Over.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. If all those people are looking at the 
problem, I assume the housing ownership groups are supposed to 
be fixing the problems, correct?
    Ms. Coury. So some of those folks are helping to fix the 
problem, in that they are resident care advocates and they are 
the voice and the liaison between the resident who has an issue 
and the project company.
    We are aware--I mean, it is not--it has been a challenging 
past year and a half for all the landlords, not just our 
privatized housing landlords but all landlords, trying to find 
qualified maintenance personnel with COVID, with the 
competition in the job market right now. And we do know there 
are locations where the project company has gone out and 
contracted with a provider to ensure they had maintenance 
personnel.
    So the issues that were raised on the first panel as to 
whether that makes too cozy of a relationship or whether that 
contractor isn't necessarily working in the best interests of 
the resident, that is something we need to look at, and I 
appreciate that they highlighted that.
    But we have put in place a lot of additional oversight. And 
based on inspections that we have done--for example, at Fort 
Belvoir, the Army did a pilot study and inspected 90 percent of 
the nearly 2,000 homes at Fort Belvoir. They did not find a 
systemic issue with the quality of the housing. The vast 
majority was in good or excellent condition. And the issues 
that they found were things that would normally be caught in 
just routine maintenance and at the turnover of the homes.
    We have had situations this past year with COVID where 
residents have not wanted to report issues or have someone in 
their home doing maintenance because of their concerns about 
the health situation right now. So this has been a complicated 
time for our project companies to try to address and improve 
their performance and, you know, also for us in working with 
residents, given the impact that COVID has had on interaction 
face-to-face and being in the homes.
    Over.
    Mr. Carter. Well, still, you have to get an expert to fix 
the problem. If you have a plumbing problem, you send a 
plumber. If you have an electrician problem, you send an 
electrician. And if they are not doing that, we are not taking 
care of our people. That is real simple.
    We seem to have various numbers of catch-22s in this issue. 
We all read that book back in the 1960s about the Army. But, 
seriously, somebody has to get down to doing the work, and 
somebody has to be punished for not doing the work. It is just 
that simple.
    Ms. Coury. So, if I may, the military departments do make 
decisions about how much of the incentive fees for property 
management, for example, that the project companies earn. The 
installation commanders have that first voice in saying and 
monitoring what is really going on. And the issue of not having 
qualified personnel do the work, that is important. That is 
something to be considered. And there are projects where those 
incentive fees have been totally withheld and where projects 
have been put on performance improvement plans.
    And so there are means by which the services are taking 
action to hold the project companies accountable. And I, you 
know, again, take very seriously the concerns raised today. But 
out of the 205,000 or so family housing units, there are many 
of those, the vast majority of those, that are very well-
maintained and we think the residents are getting a very 
positive experience. But we certainly can do better.
    Mr. Carter. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    I just think that each of us should take the responsibility 
to think about our role in addressing this issue as if we and 
our families lived in privatized military housing. And I won't 
ask you, Ms. Coury, whether you would want your family to live 
in privatized military housing, but from what I have heard, I 
wouldn't want mine. And that is unacceptable.
    We should have a quality of military housing, no matter 
where it is in the country or the world, that we would be 
comfortable living in ourselves and having our own family 
members live in it. And that is certainly not the case right 
now. And the urgency to address this issue needs to be handled 
through the lens of, what if it was your family? And it isn't. 
It just isn't.
    Okay. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    Next up is Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Ms. Coury. You are in a tough spot here 
today, and I don't doubt your and your team's commitment to 
doing the right things here.
    I am trying to listen between the lines to your testimony 
and to your answers, and, frankly, I am just trying to 
reconcile it with what I heard in the first panel. And I am 
kind of back to the same questions I had for that panel, which 
is: Are the concerns isolated or systemic still? Are they 
focused on specific providers versus all providers? Are they 
specific to geographic areas or to older housing on base? How 
do you answer me on that?
    I listened to you, and you said that you would go back and 
look at these very, very specific, you know, concerns that were 
raised by the people in the first panel, as you should, but I 
didn't sense that you felt that the concern was broader than 
that.
    You mentioned metrics, and a sub-question would be, what 
metrics are you basing your conclusions on?
    Why don't I just get you to respond to that, and then I 
have one more after that.
    Ms. Coury. Okay. Sure.
    So, you know, it is a very large program. This is 
equivalent to the largest or second-largest portfolio of rental 
properties, if you consider program as a whole, of one big 
program, in the country.
    And so, when we look at what is going on, there are 
locations that have more problems than others, and there is a 
variety of reasons for that. Sometimes it is because--and I 
will remind you that the housing that these landlords now own, 
the projects they inherited, we conveyed to them the existing 
housing that had a $20 billion maintenance backlog.
    Many of those units were historic units. Some of those 
units are--you know, they were units you cannot replace, 
depending on what the State historic preservation office 
requirements are, and they pose challenges when you start 
putting air-conditioning and more modern systems in there. And 
over time, you know, the project companies have learned that 
sometimes the two don't mix, a historic home and air-
conditioning. There is a way to do it, but you have to step 
back and realize the building envelope is such that, if you 
don't have the right ventilation, you could have mold.
    But what I do with the military departments is actually 
have them provide an array of data on each project, and then I 
am looking at that. I am looking at, with my team, not just 
occupancy but occupancy by military families; how many units 
are offline for maintenance. Because the units that have the 
most severe problems are either offline because they have 
scheduled maintenance, because they were already planning to 
replace the homes, or maybe they are offline because they are 
trying to remediate mold or an issue that has been identified 
in the last little while.
    So we watch that and other measures of resident 
satisfaction, work-order satisfaction. Residents now actually 
have to sign off on the work order to say whether or not it was 
completed and then to what satisfaction they had with that 
experience. So it is not nearly as easy for the project 
companies to manipulate that data and claim that that work 
order was completed when it was not, and, again, the resident 
has a voice about the quality of the work and can raise that 
concern.
    They also have other ways that they can raise concerns, 
through the resident--to not just their property manager but to 
the government housing office, and then the dispute process and 
so on. But, in terms of our oversight, that is one of the 
things we are doing.
    The other thing I mentioned was that we have recently 
issued the uniform DOD housing standard and the inspection 
requirement that goes along with that. And that is from section 
3051 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA.
    And the Army leaned forward and did a pilot inspection for 
us at Fort Belvoir, and so we have data there. Fort Belvoir has 
had a lot of press coverage. There have been residents that 
have raised a lot of concerns there. The Army was able to 
inspect about 90 percent of the homes. The other 10 percent, 
the residents didn't agree for them to have access. But the 
majority of the homes came back in good and excellent 
condition. And----
    Mr. Case. Okay. And----
    Ms. Coury [continuing]. So we are looking at that and 
saying, okay, there is a subset maybe of the homes, but it is 
not all of the homes.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, I think we would all concede that, 
but what is a majority? A majority can be 51 percent or 90-
some-odd percent.
    And, either way, there is still--I mean, people just stood 
in front of Congress, at great risk to themselves and to their 
careers, to tell us that they don't think it is going okay. And 
how widespread do you think that is? That is my question. And 
are we on the right track?
    Because I am hearing you say, in all honesty, that--or at 
least I am interpreting it that you think we are roughly on the 
right track, and that doesn't reconcile at least with the first 
panel. And so then the question is, well, what do we do about 
that?
    So that is the reason for the question. How widespread do 
you think the problems still are, and do you have a solution to 
it?
    And you say in your testimony that we are going to need 
time, and so did GAO. And we get that. You don't turn this on 
the dime. But is it the necessary level of focus, solution, 
expedition? Do you have the resources from Congress to pull 
this off? Those are some of the questions that I have.
    Ms. Coury. So the funding request for fiscal year 2023 
includes the funds that the military departments need to 
continue providing the oversight that they have committed to at 
the levels that they should and does support the inspections. 
Those won't all be completed in 1 year, but it is phased.
    As they complete their inspections--these one-time, very, 
very thorough inspections--they are still doing change-of-
maintenance inspections and other kinds of inspections that are 
required, but section 3051 had a very specific requirement.
    But if we say roughly there are 200,000 homes, you know, if 
I gave you a ballpark, I think the problem is 1 to 2 percent of 
the homes have an issue. And so, when you talk 200,000 homes, 
that is still a lot of homes, a lot of families. From the 
standpoint of a portfolio of homes, if you were a private-
sector landlord and you were looking at your homes--and me in 
my individual home, occasionally we have problems. It could be 
that you have a mouse infestation. It could be--I recently had 
a leak in basement plumbing. You know, things happen, and then 
how does that landlord respond and fix that problem?
    So I don't expect that 100 percent of the homes are going 
to be in perfect condition all the time. I do expect that those 
landlords take appropriate action, that they are maintaining 
them like they should, and that when something is brought to 
their attention, that they then address it and they do it 
right.
    We do need the help of the residents, just like the ones 
who spoke here. We do need residents to submit work orders. And 
so we do find that there are locations where the resident has 
first posted their problem on YouTube and, when the housing 
office looks, there has actually not been a work order 
submitted to it.
    That is probably rare; it is probably a minority. But I 
would just foot-stomp that we do need the residents' help to 
flag the issues and, if they see something that looks like it 
might be causing a problem, to let the landlord know early own 
and let the housing office--government housing office team know 
early on.
    But we need to hold them accountable, and we need to expect 
as close to perfection as we can get. But I don't think we are 
ever going to solve this 100 percent of the time, and I don't 
think we are going to keep 100 percent of the residents, you 
know, fully satisfied all the time. We just have to strive for 
that as our goal.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, my time is up, but thank you for 
expanding on that. Appreciate it.
    Ms. Coury. Thank you.
    Mr. Case. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate, 
again, this panel. This has been very informative.
    So the chair bought up an earlier issue about staffing. 
That is one that I was obviously very concerned with as well, 
and I am glad that she made points she did. I just wanted to 
make sure that you know that not just the chairwoman but all of 
us are really focused on making sure that the staff is there 
and properly trained.
    My office has an ongoing case with an enlisted family at 
NAS Lemoore who lives in base housing managed by Liberty 
Military Housing. This family's house has had repeated major 
leaks and mold, which has caused them to be displaced for days 
to weeks at a time for repairs. This has happened several times 
in the last 2 years.
    I think it is important--because you talked a lot about the 
resolution just now with Mr. Case's questions--that there are 
work orders, that they are signing off on it, but this specific 
case has been going on for 2 years. They are very unhappy. They 
have obviously been reaching out to us.
    And as I mentioned with the earlier panel, we do go and we 
always recommend that the constituent goes through the chain of 
command to try to address these to make sure that those 
processes are working. For them to come to us and to ask us for 
help, that is because, obviously, they are not working, things 
aren't happening, they are not being done the way they are 
supposed to be done, and this family is in jeopardy. We have 
been asking for help on different fronts. They have been 
responsive, but we have to do more.
    So can you speak as to what metrics, if any, are used to 
ensure that unsafe housing doesn't simply just receive 
temporary repairs over and over again, leaving servicemembers 
facing the same problem they did in the first place?
    Ms. Coury. Thank you for that question.
    So, for that level of review, I rely on my military 
department counterparts. They each have their own programs to 
be monitoring the actual work.
    I will use the Army as an example again, where I know they 
actually had their third-party inspections that they hired 
separate from any of the other ones you have heard about, where 
they went in and actually reviewed the work at installations to 
see, were they only doing a cosmetic repair or addressing the 
underlying problem? And when they found if there was an issue 
where they hadn't actually addressed the underlying problem, 
they flagged it and raised it as a concern to hold that project 
company accountable.
    So I have confidence that that type of review is happening 
and that the military departments and the installation teams 
better understand at the installation level their 
responsibility for holding the project companies and their 
property management accountable. And that is part of the reason 
that we sometimes have where they withhold incentive fees and 
put the projects on a performance improvement plan.
    Mr. Valadao. So I would hope that your confidence is shaken 
a little bit right now, because this is obviously an issue that 
hasn't been resolved. They continue to do small cosmetic fixes.
    And, again, the people that are living in these houses 
aren't the top of the food chain. They are not the ones making 
the top dollar. They don't have the resources to be able to 
just move into another house, pay things out of their own 
pocket. They are truly struggling and doing the best they can.
    And all we are asking is to make sure that houses are 
repaired in a timely manner, and repaired in a way that this 
isn't coming up time after time after time, and that they don't 
feel they need to come back to us.
    I mean, we have no problem working with them, but if 
Members of Congress have to step in in every single situation 
and resolve these types of issues, that means that thereare a 
lot of people within the different departments that just aren't 
doing their jobs. And maybe the things that you are hearing 
from some of your folks that work under you isn't accurate.
    Ms. Coury. So I will take back this information, and we 
will look into the situation at that particular installation.
    I will just say that, you know, across the portfolio, there 
are thousands and thousands of work orders entered every day. 
And so I am disappointed to hear about any concerns where a 
work order hasn't been handled appropriately, but I will stand 
by my assessment that it is a very, very small percentage of 
the time.
    When an issue like this gets raised to me--and I 
occasionally have people reach out directly to me that have a 
concern--I go directly to my counterpart to ensure that the 
military department leadership is aware and that they work to 
address the concern with that particular project company.
    Mr. Valadao. All right.
    Then just one quick question on the complaint database, Ms. 
Coury. When do you anticipate the Department-run complaint 
database to be operational? What metrics will the database 
collect? And do you need any additional funding for this 
database project?
    Ms. Coury. So the complaint database is very complex and 
will be very expensive for the Department to implement; I will 
just be honest.
    I have met personally with the Consumer Finance Protection 
Bureau. Senator Warren suggested we should meet with them to 
learn about their complaint database as a model. And they do 
have a wonderful database. But they have a very big budget for 
that and they have a large staff to do that, because you have 
to worry about Privacy Act issues and profanity that could be 
on there, but more so monitoring if there is a complaint or a 
request for service there, getting that to the right military 
department and the right installation for work and then 
tracking that.
    Right now, I will admit, we are primarily focused on the 
other reforms that we can do that will be impactful to the 
residents quickly, recognizing that we already have a number of 
ways that they can raise concerns and complaints, not just the 
dispute resolution process that is identified through the 
Tenant Bill of Rights, but for those five installations that 
aren't abiding by that, they do have a dispute resolution 
process defined in their lease. They can still go to the 
government housing office. Everybody can still go to the IG if 
they really feel unhappy, or the courts, not that that is 
ideal.
    Mr. Valadao. And I am running out of time; I just need to 
push a little bit more on the one specific part of that 
question. What metrics will the database collect? That is one 
that I really think is important.
    Ms. Coury. So, at this point, I don't know that I have 
thought through the detailed metrics, but I am sure we would be 
tracking how many concerns are raised at a given installation, 
the type of concern that is raised, the responsiveness, whether 
it was resolved to the satisfaction of the military department 
and then also to the satisfaction of the member.
    But that is something we are going to have to work through, 
in terms of the details. Again, I am concerned about it causing 
confusion to residents about where to file a complaint or how 
to raise a concern, when we already have processes and methods 
in place.
    Mr. Valadao. All right.
    Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    Okay. Next up is Mr. Rutherford.
    Are you ready for your 5 minutes of questions?
    I think he stepped away.
    So, if not, then, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for your 
5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I will get right into it. I have many questions. The 
first question is for Secretary Coury.
    Two of the companies represented on the third panel, Hunt 
Military Communities and Balfour Beatty Communities, have 
either been found guilty of fraud or settled out of court for 
alleged fraud within the last 3 years.
    Since the conviction and settlement, DOD has expanded its 
partnership with these companies to provide privatized military 
housing. DOD continues to partner with these companies that 
clearly put profits over servicemembers and their families.
    Earlier, you said it was too expensive to terminate these 
partnerships with these companies. Secretary, can you please 
give me an example of what does it take in order to terminate--
what would these companies have to do in order to cause enough 
damage in order for you to consider terminating their 
contracts?
    Ms. Coury. So termination for cause is different than 
termination for convenience, and I assume you are talking about 
termination for cause. I am not an attorney, so I am going to 
have to defer the real detailed response to that for the 
record.
    I would just say that the housing is owned by these 
private-sector entities, but their third-party financiers, 
their lenders and bondholders do have a role in play. So, if we 
were to try to remove the project company, there would be, you 
know, a process that we would have to go through with the 
lender and bondholder as well. And it is a very complicated 
process.
    It is not that it can't happen, but, again, we are not 
focused on that, as we feel that is an extreme measure in cases 
where we feel that we are comfortable moving ahead and holding 
these project companies accountable. We are watching how they 
respond, and we will be monitoring their performance and how 
they enter work-order data and anything else that would be 
indicative of a problem in terms of them having potential 
future fraud.
    Mr. Gonzales. Next question. Secretary, I retired as a 
master chief, and, as a master chief, it was my duty to take 
care of my sailors in all forms and fashion. Oftentimes, that 
would require oversight from me. And there is a difference 
between somebody else doing an inspection and when the master 
chief showed up to do an inspection. And I am sure it is the 
same in any organization.
    The question I have is, I would love to host you at 
Laughlin Air Force Base to do a joint walk-through where we 
have Congress and the Department come together. You mentioned, 
you know, a few of your different areas. You know, senior 
leadership engagement falls right in line with that. I would 
love for us to talk to families directly, to the trustability 
in families, the transparency piece.
    Would you commit to doing that, either hosting at Laughlin 
Air Force Base or Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio?
    Ms. Coury. Absolutely. I would love to join you there. And 
I would do that for any Member that has a concern about the 
housing at their local installations.
    Mr. Gonzales. Fantastic. I am sure there are many members 
on this committee that would also be interested in that.
    My next question is, you mentioned lawsuits earlier. And it 
seemed as if you were finding out after the fact. My question 
is, do we know how many pending lawsuits there are? And, if so, 
what installations are impacted?
    Ms. Coury. So DOD is aware of one current investigation 
involving one project company at one installation. I can't 
share that installation name right now. We don't have further 
information from DOJ about that ongoing investigation, but we 
can provide more information as we become aware of it.
    I will let you know that, actually, just Monday this week, 
the Department of the Air Force received an anonymous complaint 
regarding a separate company at a separate installation. So 
that has already been referred to the Air Force Office of 
Special Investigations, and we will be happy to provide an 
update on that after we learn more.
    But we don't always know about investigations if they are 
conducted by DOJ or they are under court seal. So that has been 
the complication for us trying to provide more information in 
the past.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay.
    My next question is question for Director Field.
    You know, DOD currently only has 14 privatized military 
providers. Are there barriers to entry for other companies to 
compete with these providers?
    Ms. Field. Thank you for that question.
    So my understanding is that, when the projects were first 
set up, they were competed like a normal contract would be, 
even these are not Federal Acquisition Regulation-based 
contracts. As I mentioned in my opening statement, these are 
50-year agreements, and so those are in place for many more 
decades to come.
    I think the interesting question is, what is the Department 
going to do if it wants to open new privatized housing 
projects? And that is not outside the realm of possibility with 
the Space Force having been stood up.
    We have had a lot of conversations with Ms. Coury and her 
colleagues about how they would think about structuring these 
arrangements moving forward. So far, we have heard that they 
wouldn't necessarily do anything different in terms of making 
arrangements with the companies and negotiating their 
contracts, but I think some clarity on that point would be 
helpful.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Great.
    I have other questions, but I am out of time, so I yield 
back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
    Next up is Mrs. Lee.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you so much.
    Thanks to the panelists for being here.
    I represent Las Vegas, Nevada. We have Creech and Nellis 
Air Force Base. And I am actually happy to report that, having 
just visited those bases, that their privatized housing--we are 
not hearing some of the stories like we heard earlier today. So 
I want to direct some, I guess, higher-level questions to you.
    In your testimony, Ms. Coury, you stated the importance of 
rebuilding the trust in the Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative, and I share that interest there. Can you expand on 
your efforts of what you are doing actively to engage military 
families about their concerns and also reenforcing the bill of 
rights?
    Ms. Coury. Sure. That is a great question.
    So I would say, each of the military departments and the 
services have done a lot to try to increase their engagement 
with the families. And, of course, again, COVID has made it a 
little more challenging for one-on-one engagement and in-person 
townhalls, but there have been a number of web-based townhalls 
and meetings where they can have an opportunity to talk to the 
families at large.
    But each of the military services have implemented a plain-
language briefing, which is one of the things required by the 
Tenant Bill of Rights, but the resident government team has 
somebody meet with each family when they are entering their 
lease and then to touch base with them again at usually 30, 60, 
and 90 days after lease-signing to answer any questions, make 
sure they understand if there was a lead-based-paint issue in 
the home that it has been remediated, and the family needs to 
be aware of that so they understand that and have a chance to 
ask questions.
    And, again, they have also--the military departments have 
identified resident advocates that are at every installation, 
except in a few cases where it is a very small site with very 
few homes and they might be sharing an advocate with another 
site, and then that person might be kind of part-time between 
two locations.
    But we are trying very hard to make sure that they have a 
voice and a way to get help and ask questions. The Army and the 
Air Force also still have 800 numbers that residents can call 
if they have questions. And that is separate from the property 
management for the actual projects themselves, which also 
operate 24/7 call centers and do have in-person maintenance and 
housing management leasing specialists there, but, you know, 
just focusing on the government side.
    For myself, I do go visit sites. I do meet with families 
when I go visit. Most recently, I was at Fort Meade. And I took 
the opportunity to step away from the government team and go 
meet, you know, a little more on the side with a spouse and 
hear what her thoughts were and what was going on there and any 
suggestions she had. And so that was very informative. And, you 
know, I will continue to do that, and, again, welcome the 
opportunity to go out with any of the Members to their 
installations.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    Just one other question: We have been hearing back long 
wait times for military families in some housing locations. 
What is the department doing to respond to those needs?
    Ms. Coury. So my counter-office, the Under Secretary of 
Defense, Personnel, and Readiness, they have, as you are 
probably aware, extended the temporary lodging allowances at 
some locations and then, through October through December of 
last year, gave temporary increases in housing allowances at 
some locations where there was truly an issue with finding 
affordable available housing, with all of the rental price 
increases.
    At the locations where we know there are issues, we are 
looking at ways to either, you know, work with the local 
community on trying to provide additional housing--I will 
remind everybody that the Department relies on off-base housing 
first. Seventy percent or so of our members are housed off-base 
in the U.S. But, in terms of on-base, we do a housing 
requirements assessment usually every 3 to 5 years. That is 
looking at the longer term.
    You know, I don't know whether what is happening right now 
with COVID, if that is going to be a long-term impact or not on 
housing availability, but that is the means by which we 
identify if there is a longer-term need that we need to address 
through MilCon or maybe additional housing at the installation.
    Many of the locations, though, right now, the military 
departments have been working with the project companies to see 
if there is a way that the project can accelerate investment in 
units and, if there are units offline, to accelerate repairs, 
replacement, mold remediation, whatever it is, to make those 
homes available again for families. And that is one of the 
things I am tracking in my quarterly programmatic reviews.
    Over.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    And I am finished. I will yield back, Madam Chair. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Great. Thank you so much, Mrs. 
Lee.
    I don't see Mr. Rutherford officially back, because that is 
not him on that screen.
    Okay. I think that we have gone through our list of 
members, but before we conclude this panel, I want to read a 
summary of the situation of how privatized military housing 
works and how complex and tied in knots the government is to 
try to extricate themselves and use the ultimate 
accountability, which is terminating a contract.
    So, in general, contracts are for 50 years each. The land 
is government-owned and leased to the provider for that 50-year 
time span. The provider builds and owns the houses placed on 
that land. Ownership of the buildings that were previously 
built and owned by the government are transferred to the 
provider.
    In order to fund these housing projects, the providers rely 
on lenders, accruing a significant amount of debt. According to 
DOD, if the government were to break or modify these contracts 
under one of the terminations clauses, it would, A, require the 
government to buy all of the buildings on said land; and, B, 
would not automatically terminate the partnership but, instead, 
replace the privatized housing company with the lenders, 
essentially making the lenders the partners of the government.
    Those lenders are obviously not property management 
entities. If the government wanted to terminate the contract 
and buy out the housing creditors, it would cost more than $40 
billion up front. That does not include creating a management 
office at DOD and hiring thousands of personnel to perform 
management and support duties. Additionally, that $40 billion 
does not include legal fees and paying the bondholders the 
agreed-upon premiums, which they get regardless of termination 
of contract.
    I mean, it goes on, but, as you can see, we are really--as 
good an idea as this may have seemed to be at the time, this is 
a real mess that no entity should want to find themselves in, 
where there is very little ability, in my view, to hold these 
privatized military housing companies accountable, because they 
have us backed into a corner with almost no ability to hold 
them accountable, terminate their contract. They know it. And 
they are, you know, multibillion-dollar companies who can 
afford to make cost-of-doing-business decisions.
    So this is a fine mess we find ourselves in. And I just--I 
am determined for us to help make sure that everyone 
responsible for taking care of these residents who are serving 
our country is putting their nose to the grindstone to make 
sure that any element of accountability that we can add and any 
consequences, both carrots and sticks, is absolutely critical.
    Judge, do you have anything else to add before we conclude 
this panel?
    Mr. Carter. It is very frustrating.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah.
    Mr. Carter. That is all I will say.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just wanted to read that 
description of the complexity of this because I was stunned 
when I learned how complex it was and how difficult it was for 
us to get ourselves out of this situation, if we got to the 
point where we wanted to.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, because I think we all need to know 
that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. You are welcome.
    Okay. Well, we certainly thank you both for your service 
and appreciate the difficulty of the challenge in front of you.
    Ms. Field, thank you for your assistance in helping us with 
the accountability piece of this and the job you and your 
colleagues do every day.
    And, Ms. Coury, we have a lot of work to do here. And I 
trust that you are committed to it, but we are going to need to 
continue to engage very closely so that we can get these 
problems addressed.
    With that, we will pause briefly to transfer over to the 
next panel.
    I thank the witnesses.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We will now welcome our third panel, 
who are in an unenviable position. I look forward to hearing 
their testimony and asking them questions: Mr. Al Aycock, 
military partnership executive for Corvias Military Living; Mr. 
Philip J. Rizzo, CEO and COO of Liberty Military Housing; Mr. 
Brian Stann, president and CEO of Hunt Military Communities; 
Mr. Rick Taylor, president of facility operations, renovation, 
and construction for Balfour Beatty Communities; and Ms. 
Carolyn Tregarthen, management director of Lendlease 
Communities.
    The witnesses will provide testimony on their efforts to 
improve the conditions in privatized military family housing. 
In addition, they will provide details on their ongoing actions 
to remedy the inadequate management of the program, 
improvements they have already instituted, challenges they 
face, and long-term plans for future progress.
    Witnesses will speak in alphabetical order, beginning with 
Mr. Aycock, followed by Mr. Rizzo, Mr. Stann, Mr. Taylor, and, 
finally, Ms. Tregarthen.
    Mr. Aycock, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize 
your opening statement.
    Mr. Aycock. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member 
Carter, and distinguished members of the committee, it is my 
privilege to appear before you to discuss the status of reforms 
for privatized military family housing and Corvias's role in 
advancing these reforms.
    As my written testimony is on the record, rather than read 
the verbal comments, I will simply speak from the heart, first, 
about why I am here and, second, about PFC Calderon.
    I am Major General Al Aycock, military partnership 
executive with Corvias, and I am personally familiar with 
military family housing, as my family lived in on-post housing 
managed by the Army in multiple homes managed by three 
different MHPI partners.
    Twelve of my last 13 years of service focused on leading 
and operating Army installations while taking care of Army 
families, from the garrison level to the Pentagon. I had two 
family members who qualified as EFMP and understand that 
program.
    I could read you a long list of our accomplishments in 
terms of implementing the Tenant Bill of Rights, customer 
service awards for work orders and energy programs. However, I 
think it is more important to say this: We believe every 
resident is important, and while we are hardly perfect, our 
people on the ground try hard to earn the trust of our 
residents.
    While we received the Army hygienist's report that PFC 
Calderon's home was cleared from our work, we are also 
concerned about the communication. I travel, and I intend to 
go, on the next trip, to the townhall at Fort Polk. I offer PFC 
Calderon my attention during that particular time. I would like 
to speak with him. I would like to learn his side. We are going 
to fully participate in the ongoing operation that the garrison 
has to ensure that the informal dispute resolution process 
completes itself as intended by Congress.
    Our company truly wants to be a leader in this particular 
area. I came to this job as a result of being a senior 
executive civilian working for the Special Operations Center, 
and when the crisis started, I was part of the Army's team as 
an SES to try to help fix this. And when the opportunity came 
to help fix the program back to the way I saw it, it was a 
golden opportunity to do something that would have a lasting 
effort. I fully intend to continue to keep that pledge to 
myself.
    And I will conclude my comments there.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Rizzo, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize 
your opening statement.
    Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking 
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
And thank you for the invitation today to testify on behalf of 
the employee-owners of Liberty Military Housing.
    Our team, many of whom are veterans and military spouses, 
understand, as mentioned by Judge Carter, that every mission 
begins at home. At the same time, we understand we still have 
work to do. We continue to listen to the voices of our 
families, and when we fall short of expectations, like the 
experiences shared this morning, we sincerely regret it and 
will take steps to get better. Our military families deserve 
exemplary service, and we are committed to delivering.
    We appreciate your commitment to improving the lives of our 
military families and, by extension, our national defense. 
While we had industry-leading satisfaction scores in 2018, it 
was evident from what families shared that the data did not 
tell the whole story. So we took a hard look in the mirror to 
analyze our processes.
    At the same time, at the last hearing, it was clear from 
you, Madam Chair, that we needed to move quickly from analysis 
to action. Since the first housing hearing, LMH has executed a 
reinvestment of $700 million, impacting thousands of homes and 
military families. In the next 5 years, we will reinvest 
another $700 million.
    Following the 2020 hearings, we took additional steps to 
increase our customer service training and added technology to 
allow families to submit and track their requests. We also had 
an environmental firm review our SOPs for addressing mold and 
adopted their recommendations. We launched a proactive campaign 
to reach out to all 36,000 families to see what more we could 
do to better meet their needs, something that we now do every 
year. We also fully implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights. And 
with the impact of COVID being especially hard on our families, 
we partnered to help close the food insecurity gap with grocery 
pick-up events.
    As a result of all these efforts to support and serve, our 
families have responded positively. Their feedback we are 
continuing to improve and rolled out new initiatives last year. 
We reviewed our team's training where most companies average 35 
hours annually; our team members now each complete over 150 
hours, increasing our total annual training hours from 10,000 a 
year to 160,000 in 2021.
    We also have assigned staff to complete the AMRT and WRT 
certifications to the IICRC PFC Calderon referenced. These 
elevated certifications now give our staff the highest level of 
understanding in addressing water intrusion and mold. Given the 
frequent moves we have heard of the struggle that spouses have 
had in finding careers, in response we have hired over 100 
military spouses who are now proud owners with Liberty.
    We renegotiated our business agreements as recommended by 
the GAO so the fee structure now better reflects the needs of 
our families. Lastly in 2021, LMH transitioned from being a 
privately held partnership to an employee-owned company where 
our newly revised incentives mean that our team members' 
financial security is directly tied to our military family 
satisfaction.
    Creating a win-win that will ensure our interests are 
aligned going forward at every level with exemplary service to 
our families at the center. While we have made significant 
strides in the last 2 years, we are not done. LMH continues to 
welcome the oversight and these hearings to evaluate our 
progress against your expectations.
    On behalf of our employee owners and the work they do every 
day, thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rizzo.
    Mr. Stann, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record. You are recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your 
opening statement.
    Mr. Stann. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member 
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, good 
afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be here.
    My name is Brian Stann, and I am the president and CEO of 
Hunt Military Communities. I have over 15 years of leadership 
experience leading military units in combat and private sector 
organizations after I left Active Duty. This includes building 
a veteran employment assistance company, board leaderships and 
advisement positions for several other veteran service 
organizations, and the building of private single-family 
housing companies.
    I was drawn to Hunt Military Communities. I was drawn here 
due to my love and admiration for servicemembers and their 
families. I know and understand the sacrifices they make on a 
daily basis.
    Upon taking this role, I set four strategic priorities, all 
intended to provide better service to our residents. First, we 
are making process improvements in greater investments in 
compliance across our portfolio. We brought on new leadership 
team that shares my vision of promoting consistent, great 
service to our military families. And we are focused on 
improving all of our operational processes to give a more 
efficient and consistent [inaudible].
    Second, we are investing in technology to enhance the 
living experience in our home, improve our communication with 
our residents. I am not afraid of change. I refuse to sit back 
and accept the status quo. I have personally developed and led 
change in the property and management industry before, and am 
excited about the opportunity to do so again.
    Third, implementing a performance [inaudible]. We set 
aggressive goals, accountability, and excellence. I will 
personally set the tone at the top, and I am focused on 
recruiting and retaining the best talent possible because that 
is what our residents deserve to run this company.
    My leadership team will personally walk our homes and do 
[inaudible] Partner with our residents, and have direct 
[inaudible], inspecting what we expect for our servicemembers.
    Lastly, we are analyzing financial performance and 
prioritizing reinvestment into our communities, along with the 
internal improvements necessary to enhance the living 
experience for our military families. In 2021 and 2022, we 
expect to invest approximately $243 million in capital 
improvement projects.
    Before I close, I would like to address the company's 
recent settlement with the Department of Justice, which I 
understand to be of interest to the subcommittee. From my 
perspective as someone who took over the leadership of this 
company, three things were critical to me. First, these issues 
were isolated to a single installation or not indicative of 
larger issues across our portfolio. Second, the resolution 
concerned legacy matters from 2013 to 2019 that pre-dated 
[inaudible] Changes that we made to our compliance program over 
the past 2-plus years.
    And third, there are no findings of intentional fraud and 
no admission of wrongdoing.
    The company ultimately decided to enter into a civil 
settlement with the Department for $500,000 in order to put the 
matter behind us, focus on the future with a fresh start. Hunt 
Military Communities is excited about the priorities in front 
of us and the innovation we are undergoing.
    Most of all, we are passionate about continuously improving 
in order to provide the best service possible to our residents. 
We take our role and force readiness seriously in providing 
communities that are great places for our military families to 
call home.
    I thank you for your invitation to testify today, and I 
look forward to answering questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Stann.
    Mr. Taylor, your full written testimony will be included in 
the record. You are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize your 
opening statement.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Wasserman 
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of 
the subcommittee. My name is Rick Taylor. I am co-president of 
Balfour Beatty Communities. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    I want to emphasize that Balfour Beatty Communities is 
committed to providing our Nation's servicemen and women and 
their families safe, quality homes and responsive, professional 
property management.
    I served in the United States Navy as a civil engineer, so 
I feel a personal affinity and strong sense of responsibility 
towards our military members and their families.
    The housing crisis was a wake-up call, and I truly believe 
that MHPI and our company is better because of the 
congressional actions that began 3 years ago. Before I get into 
the initiatives we have undertaken over the last 3 years, I 
want to address the DOJ criminal and civil investigations.
    As you know, the company recently concluded legal 
proceedings with DOJ related to specific performance incentive 
fees. We cooperated fully with the DOJ throughout its 
investigation and have been transparent on the matter with all 
stakeholders, including DOD, our military service partners, and 
the Congress.
    We have worked to understand the root cause of employee 
misconduct and undertook an in-depth review of our operations. 
As a result of our findings, we took significant steps to 
prevent this type of miscontact from ever recurring. We are 
focused on moving forward and are committed to continuing to 
improve the resident experience across our military housing 
portfolio.
    Over the past 3 years, Balfour Beatty Communities has fully 
implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights, including providing a 7-
year maintenance history to perspective tenants and current 
residents upon request. And since June 1st of 2021, we have 
provided maintenance histories to more than 15,000 perspective 
tenants, and have had just 19 decline the home they were being 
offered. It is less than .2 percent.
    Additionally, we fully participate in the Air Force, Army, 
and Navy dispute resolution process, which provides 
servicemember residents the ability to request rent withholding 
pending an independent review of their claims. To date, we have 
had just one resident complete a formal dispute resolution 
process out of our portfolio of more than 43,000 homes.
    We have improved our level of transparency and we are one 
team with our military partners. Our unified approach is 
powerful and ensures our military residents get the best 
experience possible. We are partnered up and down the chain of 
command with each of the military services from the 
installation level to the Pentagon. This means we are 
collaborating and solving problems together, and our metrics 
show the approach is working.
    Members of the committee, we ask you to help us explore 
innovative ways to enhance the long-term financial viability of 
the MHPI, including OMB scoring of new projects and project 
refinancing, leveraging reinvestment account deposits, and 
basic allowance for housing rate stabilization.
    As a company, we have learned a lot and we are committed to 
making things right. Our actions over the last 3 years are 
representative of our commitment. We acknowledge there is more 
work to do, and our teams are continuing to collaborate with 
all stakeholders to deliver ongoing improvements. Our residents 
deserve the best. We are determined to deliver for them.
    Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
    Lastly, Ms. Tregarthen, your full written testimony will be 
included in the record. You are recognized for 3 minutes to 
summarize your opening statement.
    Ms. Tregarthen. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking 
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
my name is Carolyn Tregarthen. I am the managing director of 
Lendlease Communities.
    Madam Chair, we last appeared before you in March 2020. 
Much has happened since then, including a global pandemic that 
challenged all of us in ways we could not have imagined.
    In March 2020, the fiscal year 2020 NDAA was recently 
enacted with its many reforms to MHPI. Additionally, the fiscal 
year 2020 appropriations bill from this very subcommittee was 
just enacted, which included an additional $140 million for DOD 
to hire more housing inspectors. Lendlease moved swiftly to 
implement the reforms in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, including 
the Tenant Bill of Rights. Lendlease was one of the first 
private sector partners to propose a dispute resolution process 
when Congress first began debating MHPI performance.
    We were the first private sector housing partner to provide 
the 7-year history of the home to all our residents, and we 
were one of the first private sector partners to introduce the 
universal lease across our entire portfolio. As you know, the 
MHPI program was enacted out of the critical need to modernize 
all military housing that had fallen into disrepair.
    Congress and DOD made the decision to partner with the 
private sector to bring private capital and private sector 
capability to help rebuild military family housing.
    Since 2001, we have invested more than $7.4 billion to 
build over 15,000 new homes, renovate more than 25,000 existing 
homes across our MHPI portfolio. We are continuing this 
historic private sector investment.
    Last year, we announced new private financing that will 
bring an additional $1.1 billion to make further housing 
improvements across several installations in our Army 
portfolio.
    This new capital, new private capital, will allow us to 
renovate more than 12,000 homes, build more than 1,200 new 
homes, and demolish over 2,000 legacy homes.
    Additionally, as part of our work in Hawaii, Lendlease is 
modernizing energy and water systems for more than 8,200 homes. 
That will reduce energy consumption by over 32 percent. While 
we improve the housing at our installations, we are also 
improving our own operations to better serve our customers. 
Currently we are undertaken several care initiatives that will 
make us an even more customer-focused organization.
    As you know, we have created our resident advisory board 
program, empowered our team members to address resident issues 
on the spot, and focus on data analysis to look for trending 
issues and quickly develop solutions. This is not to suggest 
privatization is without its challenges. At Lendlease, we dealt 
with a massive hurricane that hit Camp Lejeune in North 
Carolina, Winter Storm Uri that hit Fort Hood in Texas, 
remained on the job for our families through the COVID-19 
pandemic, and supported our residents through the Red Hill fuel 
leak that impacted the potable water in Hawaii.
    Each of these situations is unique, but one common 
denominator remains the same: Our families need our help and we 
rise to the occasion. We believe these changes have improved 
the quality of life for our residents and this is our top 
priority. After all, our residents are our customers, but more 
importantly, they are members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States, and they expect and deserve our very best.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Tregarthen. I 
appreciate the detail in your response.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Okay. So we will--thank you for all of your opening 
statements. We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, 
alternating sides, recognizing members in order of seniority as 
they were seated at the beginning of the hearing, and please be 
mindful of your time and allow the witnesses time to answer 
within your 5-minute turn.
    My first question is really of all of you, and if you could 
each answer somewhat briefly, but in detail. Except for Ms. 
Tregarthen, all of your opening statements feel like pablum. I 
don't feel like there was any substance, any effort to address 
the very real challenges that still exist.
    It doesn't feel like there has been any progress made since 
the last hearing we had on this subject and I realize that, you 
know, the changes that were made in the accountability that we 
put in place, you know, really only was implemented fully, but 
we shouldn't need any of these accountability measures.
    You should already be doing what it is we are trying to 
hold you accountable to be responsible for. That is what you 
agreed to when the government entered into these contracts with 
you to take over our military housing and privatizing from 
which you profit, richly.
    So I would like to know, without you suggesting that we 
have only just implemented these accountability measures, why 
this still is clearly a pervasive systemic problem with lack of 
responsiveness, with lack of expertise, with people still 
dealing with mold and other challenges in their homes that are 
causing health problems?
    Each of you, please, answer me why we haven't seen 
significant change since the last time we had this hearing? We 
can go in order of the way you gave your statements.
    Mr. Aycock. Thank you, ma'am, for the opportunity. I will 
start off with what has been done, and then what needs to be 
done. We took the Tenant Bill of Rights and implemented them on 
time. We made sure that we put money back into the program and 
we were the first company to do so.
    We ensured that we had a focus on customer service and all 
of our customer service ratings had been at the level----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. This is nonresponsive. I 
am asking you why hasn't there been more progress, because 
whatever you have done to this point, isn't enough. So why has 
there not been--why are our military tenants still experiencing 
horrific problems and not experiencing better responsiveness to 
address those problems since the last time we had this hearing 
with your housing?
    Mr. Aycock. So, ma'am, I believe that the answer to your 
question is going to rattle along these lines right here. We 
are working extremely through challenging conditions. We have 
had some hiring difficulties along the way as a result of some 
of the issues with getting good work folks in, but we have 
people on the ground who are doing that. It is not the quality 
of the people; it is with the numbers of the people that we are 
facing a challenge with.
    We are working through that as quickly as we possibly can. 
We are taking every effort we can to listen to our customers 
and we will continue to do a better job of each of those 
particular areas.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is nonresponsive also, but 
okay.
    Next.
    Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Chairwoman. I think one of the 
challenges that we had as an industry and partnership with the 
DOD was--and this came out in the 2019 hearings is looking at 
things on the aggregate, looking at survey scores that were 
high, looking at the annual resident satisfaction scores, and I 
think we all thought we had solved everything.
    And I think what highlighted for us at Liberty, then 
Lincoln, in 2019 was to look at the exceptions. And so one of 
the things that we put in place in the last 3 years was to 
really focus on the number of survey scores that come under 
three-five, under that unaccountable range, and have a 
proactive approach to reach out to those individuals to find 
out what happened and change our process.
    I want to thank Mrs. Wylie, not just for her testimony 
today, but for her husband's service, and, by extension, her 
service. But I also appreciate that she mentioned that her 
issues were addressed. I think she actually reached for me my 
first or second week in this seat, and I immediately got her to 
our regional vice president who contacted her, our senior vice 
president of construction went out and was transparent about 
our approach.
    We have actually made improved changes since then. I think 
we continue to find improvements and opportunities in finding 
those exceptions as opportunities to get better and, again, I 
appreciate the feedback and opportunity to do that going 
forward. And that is our approach.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Mr. Taylor. Madam Chairwoman, I would offer from my 
perspective, I think, notwithstanding the challenges that Mr. 
Aycock talked about over the last couple of years, the data 
that we are looking at and we look at a number of KPIs and we 
look at it not just through our own lens, but we are sharing it 
with our military partners.
    And I would offer that when you look at the statistics of 
how we have improved over the last couple of years, things are 
getting better, but I grant you things are not perfect. And it 
is incumbent upon all of us to identify, have the ability to 
identify quickly where things are not perfect and have 
actionable plans in place that we work together with our 
military housing partners.
    There is a very active engagement between our teams on the 
ground and our MHO partners all the way up to Pentagon level 
where we are----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. I am sorry. You are too 
far afield of answering my question. Why hasn't there been more 
improvement since our last hearing? Why are we still having 
lots and lots of people covered by Balfour Beatty, setting 
aside the fraud that you engaged in and that you pled guilty 
to, why are your tenants still having the massive problems that 
they are complaining of?
    Mr. Taylor. Ma'am, as I said, we are not perfect. We do 
make some mistakes, but I would offer that we are seeing 
improvement and we have got good anecdotal evidence to support 
that. That doesn't mean that, you know--I don't know how many 
of servicemembers are informing you where they are pleased, but 
when we look at our customer satisfaction rates, they are 
improving. But that--again, it is incumbent upon us to address 
those areas where we are falling short.
    We have got processes in place to be able to do just that 
and we have diagnosed those not just, again, through our own 
lens, we are engaged with our military housing partner to 
address those. But the statistics that we are looking at, our 
military housing partners are looking at are showing 
improvement.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If they are anecdotal, then they are 
not really useful.
    Okay. Mr. Stann.
    Mr. Stann. Chairwoman Schultz, I truly appreciate your 
concern here, and I appreciate your question. Upon coming to 
this company 9\1/2\ months ago, I injected a tremendous amount 
of change that we are currently undergoing from leadership 
changes to a focus on process improvement and compliance.
    In the trailing 12 months, when you look at the [inaudible] 
of this company, we have thousands and thousands of 
interactions with our residents. It is a company that is run by 
humans, and so we are going to be prone to human error. What we 
need to do is continuously find systematic, hard and soft 
controlled around our policies and procedures, so that when 
human error does occur, we react much faster to address it for 
our residents.
    We have fulfilled 351,000 work orders in the last 12 
months. Right around 90 percent of them were fulfilled on time 
with an average survey score in a survey that we do not control 
by our government partners, a satisfaction rate of 4.6 out of 
five. That is the starting point from where we are starting at 
Hunt Military Communities, and I will not rest and I will not 
take for granted where we are right now, and only focus on 
continuously improving that.
    Through the implementation of technology that could rapidly 
and instantaneously highlight when there is a miss, when a 
customer is unsatisfied, so that we can very quickly deploy a 
technician or someone to that home to address their issue. We 
cannot rely on archaic processes and procedures, phone calls, 
tracking through email inboxes, to address these issues.
    We are currently in pursuit of those systematic 
implementations utilizing technology and the best talent that 
we can recruit and retain the business.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So your answer is that, those 
deficiencies are the reasons--that have not been yet corrected 
are the reasons that you still are having problems?
    Mr. Stann. No. What I am saying is, when you listen to the 
other executives of these companies, we talk about what has 
been improved and as I showcased, that is not anecdotal. 
351,000 work orders is not anecdotal. A completion percentage 
on time around 90 percent and the resident satisfaction of 4.6, 
it is real, but that does not mean that any miss, anybody who 
is not satisfied, and when we have residents who testified 
earlier, it is unacceptable.
    We have to continuously improve our processes so when that 
happens and we have an issue like that PFC mentioned with his 
family, it is reacted to immediately, and the problem is solved 
quickly and in satisfaction with our military partners and our 
military residents.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And last but not least, Ms. 
Tregarthen.
    Ms. Tregarthen. So Chairman Wasserman Schultz, I would like 
to emphasize a number of things that we have done I feel we 
have improved over the last 2 years, and if I can just put 
things into categories. Firstly, we are engaging in significant 
development across our portfolio. As I mentioned, we have 
secured 1.1 in private sector--$1.1 billion in private sector 
financing, which we are investing across our Army portfolio.
    In addition to that, we have approximately $600 million 
worth of development going on across the broader portfolio, and 
that is really focused on renovating homes and, where possible, 
demolishing old neighborhoods and building new homes. We are 
extremely engaged with our customers with a number of levels of 
customer feedback starting from our resident advisory boards, 
which are made up of residents who are elected by their 
communities to serve on the advisory board and they meet with 
both our leadership and local command leadership on a monthly 
basis to talk through any issues. They also have direct lines 
into both, again, our property and asset management leadership 
and local Army, Air Force, or Marine leadership to talk about 
issues that come up in between.
    We have--we introduced in 2018 an app which can also be a 
portal called Military Cafe where residents can, if they choose 
to, load work orders. I would note that they can also call work 
orders in to our maintenance solution center, which is staffed 
by well-trained individuals----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Ms. Tregarthen, and I 
appreciate all the effort that you are--that is being made, but 
if you can just give me some window into why--is it just that 
it takes time to implement all these significant changes to 
improve? Why has there not been more progress?
    Ms. Tregarthen. So, Madam Chairman, I would respectfully 
argue that there has been progress, certainly on--I can only 
comment clearly on Lendlease projects, but I would argue that 
there has been progress. And I think we have much better 
connectivity with our residents to understand when there are 
issues and we are--we go about solving those issues as quickly 
as possible, and in as much of a resident-friendly way as 
possible to make sure that we are looking after our military 
families in a much better way than potentially was the case in 
the past.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I would like some 
evidence from each of you for the record to--that demonstrates 
what your complaints are, and, you know, how quickly response 
time is, how they are getting resolved, and make sure that, you 
know, we are not just taking your word for it.
    So if each of you could provide that information for the 
record, and I will have my staff make sure that they are very 
specific about what we are looking for.
    I thank the committee's indulgence.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions 
or, you know, longer if you need it.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Okay. Why did this happen in the first place? From you and 
your corporate entity viewpoint, why did we get behind the 
eight ball on maintenance? Who are you laying the blame on? I 
would like to hear it from each of you.
    I guess they couldn't hear me.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Why don't you proceed in the same 
alphabetical order, Mr. Aycock.
    Mr. Carter. Okay, Rizzo.
    Mr. Aycock. Ma'am, it was difficult to hear the question. 
Could it please be repeated?
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Why did this happen in the first place? 
Did you get that?
    Mr. Aycock. Yes, sir, I did. Sir, I would tell you that I 
agreed with the other CEOs here. We have made a lot of progress 
and when things along these lines happen, we believe they are 
anomalies and we take action on the anomalies as quickly as we 
possibly can.
    In this particular case, we know that we did some of the 
things right that needed to be done. However, at the end 
result, we need to take and make sure that that communication 
goes down to that particular level and so those are some of the 
things that we can do to make sure this goes right.
    Mr. Carter. I know what you are doing, or claiming you are 
doing. I am asking you, why did it happen in the first place? 
You have to have a discussion with your board somewhere saying, 
Hey, did you read these reports? Why is this happening? If you 
are concerned about the ordinary soldier.
    Mr. Rizzo, what do you think?
    Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Judge Carter. I think, as I mentioned 
to chairwoman, it really was a factor of where we were and I 
grew up in military housing, the son of an Air Force officer, I 
was Active Duty, and where we were 30 years ago to where we 
were 20 years ago was a massive change. And I think what 
happened was a lot of education around the initial time that we 
privatized and I think we--it was a big gap between where we 
were when it was completely government-owned and the work that 
was done in the first couple years, and I think, honestly, we 
believed our own press.
    I think we own that as the managing member. We own that we 
looked at the aggregate scores being 20 points higher than they 
were in the 1990s and we thought, well, we have arrived. And I 
think we didn't take, as I mentioned to the chairwoman, enough 
attention to the individual issues that were coming up 
repeatedly. And as Pat Coury mentioned earlier this morning, 
that--that really can get masked when you are talking about 
200,000 homes.
    You know, if 10,000 people are unhappy, you say, Well, 5 
percent of the people, isn't that okay? It is not okay. As Mr. 
Stann mentioned, 1 percent isn't okay and one person isn't 
okay. These are people who sacrificed and served, and we need 
to deliver the service that they deserve every day. And so, I 
think looking in the mirror 4 years ago, 3 years ago and 
saying, Okay, let's look at the exceptions instead of looking 
at the aggregate score. And I think going forward that will be 
the solution, is not turning a deaf ear to these one-off 
issues, but digging in and finding out where the gaps are in 
our processes, so no one falls through them.
    Mr. Carter. To save a little time, does everybody more or 
less agree with Mr. Rizzo?
    Mr. Stann. Ranking Member Carter, I appreciate the concern, 
and if I might add some perspective being the newest member on 
this panel, the institutionalization of single-family detached 
real estate did not exist at scale prior to privatized military 
housing. This program was the first attempt at doing something. 
It did also did not exist in the private sector until post the 
Great Recession in 2013 and 2014.
    So, I think this industry has had to take the lumps of 
being a first mover in a brand-new industry from the deal 
conception and how these deals were constructed to how they 
actually went about operating the business. Over the last 3 
years, tremendous amounts of new companies have been borne, 
specifically for property technology. Meant to help companies 
like ours better manage single-family detached real estate 
specifically in the areas of resident experience and improving 
our service to our residents. How often we communicate with 
them, how quickly, and how much we can track that 
communication, how we can hold ourselves accountable, and how 
much we can improve the service to our homes?
    When we look at why this industry has had the stumbles that 
it has had, I think that is a big part of it. And I think what 
it is taking place in the Tenant Bill of Rights and the NDAA 
and the new regulations that are put in place, I think that 
these are working, they are improving things. The onset of 
COVID and us having to change everything we do, specifically in 
terms of maintenance. A lot of our residents of Hunt Military 
Communities were not comfortable with people coming into their 
homes to fix certain things. So there was a pause placed on 
routine work orders that can then build into larger problems 
that our residents may not know is available.
    So everybody is catching up there, right, right now to get 
these units back up online. And I would say that as right now, 
I feel that Hunt Military Communities has reduced that backlog 
of work orders that was borne from COVID, and as I used as an 
example before with the 350,000 work orders responded to with 
90 percent being on time completions that there is improvement, 
but we cannot get complacent and will continue to improve at 
all cost.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
    When my house got Stachybotrys mold, we were out of our 
house for 8 months and my wife was not a happy camper, and she 
kept asking me, why are they doing all this? Is it so it 
doesn't look dangerous? I said, I don't know, but my guess is 
that somebody just got a judgment against an insurance company 
for not taking care of the mold problem down in Travis County 
for $5 million, and they would rather spend $88,000 on our 
house than $5 million on a lawsuit.
    Are we going to turn the trial lawyers loose? Is that what 
it is going to take? You might want to answer.
    Mr. Taylor. I would just offer up that I think through the 
past several years, I am sure that I speak for many of my 
colleagues, all of them, to talk about, you know, the level of 
scrutiny that we undertake with environmental issues. It was 
alarming to us as well to see the number of issues that were 
present in a lot of our military housing, a lot of it tied to 
the challenging conditions that Ms. Coury talked about, aging 
infrastructure and, you know, introducing, you know, HVAC to an 
environment that has never been there. But we have taken a 
redoubling of effort to make sure that we have got, you know, 
much better processes, tighter processes, you know.
    We take a far more conservative view than what--even what 
49 of the 50 States require in terms of the way that we manage 
mold issues relative to the size of the issue. So, you know, we 
have, you know--we followed the guidance that government 
agencies provide in managing those issues, but we have learned 
that we need to be better than, you know, what the typical 
States require in making sure that we have got, you know, 
professional assistance along the way with mold assessors and 
professional mold remediation companies to ensure that we are 
addressing those issues as expeditiously as we can.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Madam Chair, I have run out of time, 
but I do have one more series of questions when we finish.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I do too. I do too. So we will do 
another round when we go through. Thank you, Judge.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking 
Member. This is such an important hearing to have today. When 
we talk about our national security assets, nothing is more 
important than our men and women who serve and their families 
and making sure that they all have quality housing and resident 
services. So I hope that we continue to work together to 
improve that experience.
    Mrs. Lee. I will say, I represent southern Nevada. We have 
Creech Air Force Base and Nellis. And I must say, I have heard 
from many families, that they shared some positive experiences 
with their privatized military housing, especially the 
widespread adoption of the bill of rights. So I just, you know, 
I want to lay that out there but also make sure that we are not 
complacent and we work so that we don't hear testimony like we 
heard from the first panel.
    To that end, I have a few questions to Mr. Stann, given 
your leadership of Hunt Military Communities, which oversees 
Nellis. You mentioned your efforts to invest in technology and 
communication platforms to enhance the living experience for 
Nellis families and also to improve communication. Can you just 
expand on what that effort entails, please?
    Mr. Stann. Absolutely, Congresswoman. And I appreciate very 
much your concern, and I appreciate the question. I am excited 
to talk about this.
    We have already begun to implement a unified communication 
platform across all of our installations, all of our community 
centers and their sites, so that we could have centralized data 
down to every single phone call and have that recorded so that 
we could review it for customer service satisfaction levels and 
for follow-on training with our employees.
    This will give us an insight into data in terms of how many 
phone calls we get at every office; how long people have to 
wait until the phone is answered; if they left a voicemail, how 
quickly we have gotten back to them. This is an investment in 
an ability [inaudible].
    In addition to that, we have built a new data architecture 
that could allow us to centralize all of our KPIs and utilize 
advanced forms of machine learning to automate exception 
reporting to let us know when we are doing incorrect things or 
if we miss--or we perform a work order and somebody is not 
satisfied.
    Having technology infrastructure that is also aligned to 
the process and procedures that we conduct to serve our 
residents, communicate to our residents, is instrumental in 
scaling this across the board and alerting leaders to making 
sure we can hold people accountable and, most importantly, so 
that we can improve, so that we can measure ourselves and say, 
okay, we are at a 4.6 out of 5 in terms of our work orders now; 
how do we get that to 4.8? Because there is no stop, there is 
no complacency. This team needs to remain vigilant in all that 
we do.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Is that information available? Like, 
will we be able to see that data?
    Mr. Stann. Representative, I can make that available, and I 
will follow up with your office to send it to you.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. That would be helpful.
    Finally, I just want to focus on the housing allowance 
that, you know, enables you to meet your needs. Does the 
current BAH, is it sufficient for your housing needs and for 
home repairs and construction?
    Mr. Stann. Congresswoman, that is a phenomenal question, 
and the answer is no.
    More importantly than our ability to conduct maintenance 
and reinvest in these homes, it is our servicemembers. As Ms. 
Coury discussed, over 70 percent of our servicemembers live 
off-base. And especially in southern Nevada and Las Vegas, 
where rents have increased in double-digit numbers year over 
year the last 2 years, that BAH has not been suitable for them 
to find adequate housing when we have extremely high occupancy 
rates and a long-term waitlist.
    That being said, as it pertains to privatized military 
housing, our expenses have all gone up in the current supply-
chain crisis, everything that we buy to maintain these homes, 
the price we have to pay contractors--and the labor market. The 
cost of a qualified maintenance technician with the appropriate 
certifications to fix what is necessary in these homes now has 
to be paid more than they used to. And those rates, along with 
inflation, have increased a lot more than the basic housing 
allowance.
    If you look back at the modeling of this business at the 
inception of the program, it was estimated that BAH would grow 
at 3 percent a year when they designed this business. It has 
been drastically under that annual increase.
    But what concerns me most isn't our business. What concerns 
me most is our force readiness and the fact that I have friends 
who are still wearing uniforms, still serving, who can't rent a 
home because they can't afford it, so they are coming out of 
pocket to rent their homes, or they are getting boxed out 
because the VA loan is no longer taken because our housing 
market is so hot that sellers don't want to deal with the 
process of the VA loan and those inspections.
    Mrs. Lee. I had another question, but I am out of time. But 
thank you.
    I yield. Thank you.
    Mr. Stann. I will follow up, Congresswoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
    Next, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Appreciate the panel for being on here.
    I will start with Mr. Stann.
    I know you served in the military, and I know you watched 
the first panel with Private Calderon. My question is, do you 
believe him?
    Mr. Stann. I have--you know, first off, Congressman 
Gonzales, thank you for your service. Obviously, I read about 
your background. Anybody who does 20 years, obtains the rank of 
master chief, that is just a phenomenal career, so thank you.
    I appreciate that question. And yes. Anybody who has the 
courage to come on camera and sit in front of us in their 
uniform, I absolutely believe him. And we should believe him, 
right?
    The steps to solving that problem are sitting and 
investigating it thoroughly, which, in my experience in the 
9\1/2\ months that I have been here, the dispute resolution 
process has worked very well to do that. As designed, we have 
had a number of those cases come through, and they have been 
successful.
    Mr. Gonzales. Right.
    We saw in the second panel Secretary Coury mention that 
about 2 percent of the overall inventory is having issues. Do 
you believe her?
    Mr. Stann. I do believe her. That being said, in 9\1/2\ 
months, I want to see it with my own eyes. I think Pat Coury is 
a phenomenal partner and champion in this industry and she does 
a really nice job holding us accountable. But, as I stated in 
my opening comments, I want to be on the ground.
    Next week, I will be in your district. I will be in San 
Antonio. I will be walking at Randolph and Laughlin to inspect 
what I expect as a leader, walking these units and visually 
making sure that the data I see through our technology systems 
is actually what is taking place on the ground and in these 
homes. And I will communicate with our residents. I will talk 
directly to them.
    Mr. Gonzales. So 2 percent of the overall inventory is 
4,000 homes. That is a lot of people.
    Last month, in Hawaii, there was an article that came out, 
and I am going to read part of it:
    ``Single mom Christine Roberts rents a home at Radford 
Terrace owned by Hunt Military Community. But the last three 
months she and her three kids have been living in a Waikiki 
hotel room. On Tuesday, she found out she still can't return 
home because testing turned up a contaminant unrelated to the 
Red Hill incident.''
    From her: `` `They have taken so much from us,' said 
Roberts, `but the worst thing they have taken from us is our 
sense of safety.' ''
    Do you believe her?
    Mr. Stann. I absolutely believe her, and I think that this 
incident took place is awful.
    And some of the things that we have done to better serve 
our residents out there is we employ a [inaudible] Like that on 
our team--in fact, that live in our housing in Hawaii. And we 
are also [inaudible] was within our control and work with our 
military partners to get clean, potable water to our residents, 
worked with them to make sure that they were aware of the 
information, TLA, temporary living assistance, for them, and do 
what we can to get them back in their homes, long term, safely, 
and assisting our government partners in deploying all of the 
operations they had to to clean and certify every single home 
and their water sources prior to them moving back in.
    Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
    The article goes on to say--and I will stop here and 
continuing the questioning. The article goes on to say, ``All 
this time, Roberts said she has continued to pay her rent. And 
now she's told if she signs a new lease to stay at Radford 
Terrace past March, her rent will go up by $175.''
    My question is, did that happen? Did you all increase the 
rent on this woman's home while she wasn't in her home due to 
contaminants that were found?
    Mr. Stann. So, Congressman, I will have to take a look to 
confirm what she said, but, at face value, I don't have reason 
to not believe her.
    We have afforded (ph) every resident with a home at Joint 
Base Pearl Harbor to break their lease free of charge. If they 
wanted to move out and find different housing, we absolutely 
allowed that, and we helped them to do that, only if the 
resident chose to do so.
    In terms of the allotment to pay for [inaudible], that 
money, the lion's share of that money, goes towards the 
sustainment and reinvestment in these housing projects. And as 
I mentioned before----
    Mr. Gonzales. I will stop right there. These are the type 
of situations that I get talked to about every day. Every day 
somebody, in some form or fashion, will relay a story like 
that, all across the United States. And, to me, it is wrong to 
raise rent on a single parent when she is not even in her home; 
you know, she is in a hotel due to no fault of her own.
    I have many more questions. I would just say, like, these 
are the type of things that are an issue. And it is a reason 
why we are seeing, you know, military folks like Private 
Calderon say, I am not going to re-up, you know? And it should 
not be that way. It is so critical to our manning, it is so 
critical to our national security.
    Madam Chair, I have many more questions, but I want to be 
respectful of the time, so I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
    Okay, members, votes have been called. This first vote is 
15 minutes, so we have some time, but if we can--Mr. 
Rutherford, you are the last one to ask questions, and then I 
know Judge Carter and I have another question. So I want to try 
to get all of us in before we have to leave.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will keep 
this brief.
    So I thought, Mr. Stann, you made an interesting point when 
you talked about, you know, this was a new effort that you all 
were moving into. But my question is: Surely, before you went 
into these negotiated contracts and all, did you all not make 
stock evaluations of what these properties looked like before 
you agreed to take this on?
    Mr. Stann. Congressman, I think that is a great question. 
Unfortunately, I wasn't here at the inception of this program.
    What I can say is, to my knowledge, yes. That being said, 
it is not just the financial modeling and the underwriting of 
this, right? It is the operationalizing and institutionalizing 
of detached single-family homes, which simply didn't, right? It 
existed in multifamily and student housing, but it did not 
exist in [inaudible], where it creates and takes a greater 
level of expertise from a maintenance perspective to take care 
of these homes.
    Because of the variety of housing stock and some of the 
historic housing, these homes each require a different level of 
maintenance and reinvestment to keep them suitable for our 
military families.
    Mr. Rutherford. So let me interrupt you, because I am 
trying to save some time here.
    So do you have a window where you think that issue will go 
away and you will know what your stock is?
    And then kind of a followup to that--and I will yield back 
after this. The basic allowance for housing is obviously an 
integral part of this whole process. Do you believe that there 
is a sufficient amount of capital to complete the DOD's 
requested improvements to communities in a timely manner?
    Mr. Stann. So, great question. What I would say is, we do 
know our stock now. I was answering at the inception of the 
program, where I couldn't answer that since I wasn't here.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    Mr. Stann. In terms of the housing allowance, I would tell 
you that certain locations--we don't know how it is calculated, 
but we have certain locations, to include Hawaii, which has 
some of the fastest-growing real estate prices in the country, 
that the BAH has been reduced, and we don't know why. So there 
are certain locations and markets where, no, it is not 
sufficient.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    And this will be my last question, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Rizzo, I have to ask, Ms. Christian in the first panel, 
from the advocacy group, mentioned one of your facilities in 
San Diego having nine children having fallen out of windows. 
And I apologize if this has already been gone over. I had to 
step out briefly.
    But, number one, can you tell me, is that truly happening? 
And, number two, if it is true, what the heck are you guys 
doing about it?
    Mr. Rizzo. Yes. Thank you for that question, 
Representative.
    First of all, I want to thank the English family and their 
advocacy in ensuring that Evan's legacy lives on with Evan's 
Law. We have actually worked very closely with them to help 
educate our families.
    LMH takes window safety very seriously, and one child is 
too many. And we have worked closely with the DOD and our Navy 
partners since 2011 to promote window safety. The education at 
move-in, the Navy added that to their in-brief, as well as the 
Army and the Marine Corps.
    And what Liberty has done in the last--actually, since the 
2018 NDAA--there was language in there about window-opening 
control devices being on new construction and new renovations. 
Liberty actually took the steps of retrofitting 58,000 windows 
in the last 3 years with the window-opening control devices 
that help limit the opening of windows.
    Mr. Rutherford. So all those events occurred before your 
remodeling?
    Mr. Rizzo. Regrettably, Representative, we have actually 
had two incidents that have happened with windows that had 
opening control devices on them. And the reason is, these 
devices meet ASTM F2090, which allows them to be opened in the 
case of a fire for egress, right? So we have far more fires 
than we have these incidents. And I was surprised to hear that 
there are, you know, 5,000 to 15,000 ER visits across the 
country a year, which shocked me to see that number, not in PPV 
but outside of it.
    So I think, with the education, we have improved where we 
are relative to the economy. We have a lot of work to do, I 
think, in educating. The Navy has done a great job in helping 
get out a campaign. We do window safety, which is actually next 
week, so you will see promotions on that.
    But that won't solve it. I will tell you that, if we put 
window-opening control devices--which, you know, we are 
trending towards--on every window, the fact that a child can 
still open it--we had a 4-year-old open one of them, because--
--
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
    Mr. Rizzo [continuing]. They have to be open in the event 
of a fire. It is really about education and how can we better 
communicate that to our families.
    I appreciate the question.
    Mr. Rutherford. You need to find a better remodeling, I 
think.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. We are 
going to deal with this issue of children falling out of 
windows as we develop the chair's mark, so----
    Mr. Rutherford. Amen.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. That I can assure you.
    Okay. I am going to ask my questions and then go to Judge 
Carter. Because, lest we think that we are not going to address 
the issue of the massive fraud that at least two of these 
companies engaged in--one of which pled guilty; the other paid 
massive fines--you would be mistaken.
    And I am going to start with Balfour Beatty.
    Can you please explain, Mr. Taylor, to the subcommittee 
what happened that led to Balfour Beatty pleading guilty to 
major fraud against the United States and being sentenced to 
pay over $33.6 million in criminal fines and over $31.8 million 
in restitution to the U.S. military, serve 3 years of 
probation, and be required to engage in an independent 
compliance monitor for a period of 3 years? And how deeply did 
this fraud go? And do you really think that the few staff you 
fired really encompassed the entire scheme?
    And, then, Mr. Stann with Hunt, in November of last year, 
Hunt Military Communities received a letter from the Air Force 
expressing concern over continued challenges that they saw with 
Hunt Military Communities' performance under the Military 
Housing Privatization Initiative and your company's failure to 
implement remedying mechanisms proposed in a 2017 Air Force 
get-well plan.
    The Air Force went on to say that, unless they saw prompt 
improvements in performance at all of Hunt's 26 privatized 
housing locations, that they intended to initiate formal 
action. And that is to say nothing of the $500,000 fine that 
you had to pay.
    So can you explain to the subcommittee why you failed to 
correct inadequate performance even after receiving an Air 
Force get-well plan in 2017?
    We will start with Balfour Beatty.
    Mr. Taylor. Yeah, Madam Chairman, I fully expected you were 
going to want to delve deeper into this.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I knew you did.
    Mr. Taylor. Absolutely. And I think it is fair game, 
obviously.
    If you read the plea agreement--and I trust you did--it 
identified that the wrongdoing that took place within the 
company was between the years of 2013 and 2019. And that is 
when the--the DOJ investigation ensued shortly after that.
    As I have reported previously to this subcommittee, also 
with the House Armed Services Committee on their hearings, 
twice--we have been very transparent about what was 
transpiring. We have not shied away from sharing the 
information, as much as we could, about the investigation----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I really only have time for 
you to answer my actual question. How deep did this fraud go, 
and do you think that the few staff you fired really 
encompassed the entire scheme, and how did this happen?
    Mr. Taylor. As part of the plea, it identified the 
individuals that--DOJ conducted a very thorough investigation. 
We also employed third-party consultants to conduct our own 
investigation. We shared that information along the way with 
DOJ investigators.
    They identified--collectively, they identified the root 
cause of the issue, the individuals that were implicated in 
that scheme, as you call it. And we took appropriate action to 
either remove those individuals or, those that may have been on 
the periphery, ensure that disciplinary actions were taken 
against those individuals.
    That is information that we have shared transparently with 
the Congress. We have shared that with our DOD partners.
    Do I think that we have gotten to the root cause of that? 
As a consequence of all of the actions that--or the root causes 
that we have identified? We have put in place very aggressive 
remedial steps over the course of the last 3 years.
    Again, we haven't done it in isolation. We have shared with 
our partners along the way the things that we have done to 
prevent, you know, those sorts of actions occurring again in 
the future.
    As part of the plea agreement, as you point out, there will 
be a third-party compliance monitor that will be assigned upon 
selection by the DOJ. We trust that, you know, they are going 
to come in and look under every single stone at whether or not 
we have a good compliance regime in place to identify were any 
potential actions to occur in the future.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Mr. Taylor. We look forward to engaging in constructive 
dialogue with that third party.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Stann.
    Mr. Stann. Yes. I am going to address, I believe it was, 
your second question, about the Air Force dissatisfaction, 
first. I am not sure what your first question was. If you 
wouldn't mind repeating it. I apologize, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It was one question. Can you explain 
to the subcommittee why you failed to correct inadequate 
performance even after receiving an Air Force get-well plan in 
2017?
    Mr. Stann. Okay. Thank you very much, and appreciate that 
very much.
    I think one of the first steps towards improvement was 
obviously my arrival. I wasn't here during the last hearings, 
and I came on board in July of 2021.
    I have been working very closely with the leadership of the 
Air Force in putting together an improvement plan in 
conjunction with them where we have significant detail on lines 
of execution under every area of our operations. We actually 
meet in San Antonio next week to go over it again, one on one. 
And we have already satisfied several areas and lines of 
execution as our progress towards that.
    We have work to do. We are committed to doing it. And we 
are going to do it arm-in-arm as a partner with our Air Force 
leadership.
    And these improvements that were going to pertain to our 
Air Force portfolio, these aren't things that are just 
localized there. These are company-wide improvements that we 
want to undertake and change and innovate for all of our 
residents.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thatis not an answer. You 
haven't done it. They have had to threaten you that, you know, 
they would take formal action.
    Mr. Stann. So, based on that threat and if you look at the 
actions that were taken, a new CEO has been put in place in the 
company. I have changed leadership teams and reorganized the 
business in the short amount of time that I have been here, in 
9\1/2\ months, and we have finalized and put together that 
performance improvement plan.
    If you look at the operational metrics at our Air Force 
installation, you will see good progress towards improvement in 
change-of-occupancy management, the passing of their 
inspections, and work-order performance.
    So the changes are underway, the improvements are underway. 
And I can assure you that I will not take those for granted, 
and this company will remain vigilant in the progress in that 
improvement plan with our Air Force partners.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. It is very clear to me that we 
are going to need to have a much tighter oversight process than 
we have been engaging in. I am not going to wait another 3 
years, because we have to stay on top of this.
    Judge Carter, I am done. You are recognized for your 
questioning.
    Mr. Carter. I just have kind of one local thing.
    Ms. Tregarthen, Lendlease just announced significant 
investment in housing at Fort Hood. Are you familiar with that?
    Ms. Tregarthen. Yes, I am. Yes, I am, Congressman.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. How is it going? Is it on schedule? And 
could that investment plan be used for other locations?
    Ms. Tregarthen. So thank you for the question. I am very 
happy to talk about the--it is a total of $1.1 billion in 
investment across our Army portfolios, and, as you rightly 
point out, approximately half a billion of that is being spent 
at Fort Hood.
    And that work is underway. And if I could just walk through 
some data so we know what is happening.
    We are replacing nearly 1,500 HVAC or air-conditioning 
units, and, of that, 950 are complete.
    We are renovating 820 homes in terms of exterior renovation 
and painting; 140 of those are complete. We are replacing 2,600 
roofs, of which 600 are complete.
    We are completing 1,300 interior renovations, so kitchens, 
bathrooms, flooring, that kind of renovation, of which 50 are 
complete.
    We are installing nearly 200 new driveway aprons and 
accessible pedestrian infrastructure, and approximately 90 of 
those are complete.
    And we are removing and then building new, so we are 
demolishing 580 homes and building 580 new homes, of which we 
have started the civil work for the first portion of those, 
which is approximately 50 homes.
    So we are also engaging in community-wide work around 
infrastructure and tree trimming, because clearly the community 
that people live in is important as well as the actual home 
they live in.
    So we would welcome--I know, Congressman Carter, you have 
visited Fort Hood a number of times, and we would welcome you 
to visit again and have a look at the progress on that work.
    There is also work going on across our other Army 
installations, and that work is also underway, and I am very 
happy to share and update with the committee of progress across 
each piece of work.
    Judge Carter. I will do that. I will visit.
    Ms. Tregarthen. That would be great.
    Mr. Carter. Finally, all of you can tell me, what can this 
subcommittee do to help you serve military families?
    Make it quick. We have to go vote.
    Ms. Tregarthen. I am very happy to start.
    I think where it would be wonderful to have this 
committee's support would be around both the accurate 
calculation of basic allowance for housing across all the 
various parts of the United States--so both accurate 
calculation and also a return to 100 percent basic allowance 
for housing paid to the military members.
    As I think has been mentioned already, that will be 
extremely helpful in terms of providing reserves so we can 
continue developing homes and improving homes in the on-base 
housing, but it will also support the military families who 
choose to live on the economy and make sure that they actually 
have sufficient funding to be able to pay their rent and not be 
out of pocket for just paying rent and utilities if they choose 
to live outside the gate as opposed to inside the gate.
    Mr. Taylor. I will go next, Judge.
    I mean, Carolyn talked about the revenue side. You know, 
the expense side Brian Stann talked a little bit about. But, 
you know, the inflationary pressures on the project are 
certainly substantial. We know Congress can't do anything, 
necessarily, about inflation, but, you know, a big element of 
that is insurance.
    Global warming is real. We are seeing the effects of it 
with increases in, you know, challenging weather that has, you 
know, in one case, Tyndall Air Force Base, effectively 
destroyed the entire base. And so, you know, there is 
substantial pressure on our project finances just through the 
insurance products that we buy.
    So, you know, we have kicked around with our fellow 
partners, you know, the potential aggregation of that. And 
maybe, you know, some level of government involvement in what 
that insurance product looks like, I think, can go a long way.
    I also pointed out in my opening statement, along the lines 
of what Carolyn talked about, being able to raise additional 
debt. We have to make sure that, you know, the proper OMB 
scoring rules don't frustrate our ability to go out and raise 
additional capital that many of our projects need.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Anybody else?
    Mr. Rizzo. Thank you for the question.
    I will foot-stomp that on the BAH. I think one piece on the 
expense side of BAH that gets left out is, the calculation 
involves evaluating the utility costs in town, and then we pay 
the utility costs from the installation. And, in many cases, we 
are supplementing the Department of Defense and the Navy and 
the Marine Corps in their actual expenses with BAH.
    And so money that should be going to these sustainment 
accounts is going to pay for fire and police rates at $1,000 a 
door, as an example, or utility rates in the mid-Atlantic 
region that are 50 to 100 percent higher than the market where 
BAH is being based on. So the project companies and, by 
extension, the families are paying an undue burden of the 
government's operating costs.
    Mr. Aycock. Judge Carter, I will add one point. This Al 
Aycock from Corvias.
    The system by which we calculate BAH is oftentimes an 
onerous piece on the servicemember themselves. They have to 
fill out a form that has all this information on it, and it is 
manual. We need to go to a digital world. In a world where we 
have real estate sites that can tell you how much a house costs 
and rental costs, we ought to be able to do this digitally.
    And we also ought to amend the system so that you have a 
rolling average of the rentals in that area. Usually, when they 
come down to do a rental survey, they are looking at the worst 
houses that are left over from when all the good houses are 
taken. That is a fault in the system, and we can fix it.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    I will just do this as a matter of course. Without 
objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit 
additional questions for the record so that our witnesses can 
answer.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We appreciate the witnesses' candor 
and look forward to continuing this very important dialogue.
    That concludes today's hearing.
    I want to remind members that our next hearing is on 
Wednesday, April 6, with Secretary Denis McDonough for the 
fiscal year 2023 Department of Veterans Affairs budget hearing. 
That hearing will be hybrid, with our witness participating in 
person and an in-person or virtual option for members.
    With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                          Wednesday, April 6, 2022.

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                               WITNESSES

HON. DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing on the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee is called to order. This is a fully virtual 
hearing, and I appreciate everyone accommodating the last-
minute change, and so we'll need to address a few housekeeping 
matters.
    For today's meeting, the Chair or staff designated by the 
Chair may mute participant's microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I noticed when you are recognized that 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you 
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request 
so you are no longer muted.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the five-minute 
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will 
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you 
will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock 
on your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 
one minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. When your 
time is expired, the clock will turn to red, and I will begin 
to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order as 
set forth in the House Rules beginning with the Chair and 
Ranking Member. Then members present at the time the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, 
alternating between majority and minority, and finally members 
not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House Rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Today I'm pleased to welcome back the Honorable Denis 
McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. We are glad to have 
you here with us today to discuss the Department's budget 
request for fiscal year 2023 and how we can best serve our 
nation's veterans.
    Let me start by saying how encouraged I was to see that 
this budget continues investments in some of the areas this 
Subcommittee has been extremely interested in, such as medical 
research, mental health, and women's health. I'm also pleased 
to see the VA is requesting more funding to support veterans 
exposed to toxic substances during their service by increasing 
research, evaluating available data, and allocating more 
resources to address veteran claims for health conditions 
resulting from toxic exposures.
    At the same time, VA is undertaking--forgive me, I'm having 
some technical difficulty here. At the same time, VA is 
undertaking a number of significant department-wide initiatives 
to help improve the delivery of care such as significant 
investments in VA physical infrastructure, to build and 
maintain modern facilities, and the continued implementation of 
a new electronic health records system. It is incumbent upon us 
to make sure that our appropriations to the Department and our 
oversight activities address these efforts in a thoughtful, 
reasonable way.
    While VA's budget request includes large increases across 
the Department, certainly the most significant piece of this 
request is the skyrocketing costs of veterans' medical care. We 
all agree on the importance of providing care for our veterans, 
but this ever increasing number is crowding out other programs 
that benefit veterans, both at VA and across the federal 
government.
    So, I look forward to discussing how we can account for 
this funding in order to give VA the tools to continue to 
provide world-class medical care to our veteran population. 
This is without question a critical time for the Department as 
we continue to recover from the pandemic and address the 
backlogs of veteran claims, services, and medical care that 
have built up over the past two years.
    The additional funding that Congress provided last year in 
the American Rescue Plan Act enabled VA to respond to the 
pandemic and its ripple effects. For example, VA was able to 
process a historic number of claims using American Rescue Plan 
funding. And I'm proud to say that in fiscal year 2022, 
Congress provided a record amount of funding for VA to help 
ensure the prompt processing of veteran claims and to continue 
reducing the claims backlog. That investment will help VA 
continue its progress, and we hope to see similarly impressive 
results.
    There are a number of areas where I am eager to discuss how 
the funding requested in this budget will help VA provide 
quality, efficient, timely healthcare and benefits to veterans 
and their families. I look forward to hearing from the 
Secretary about the Department's priorities.
    And I'm now pleased to yield to our Ranking Member, Judge 
Carter, for his opening statement. Judge?
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman (sic). Last night I 
talked to my wife, and she wanted me to tell you she's wishing 
you a quick recovery from your illness. So am I. And we're 
praying for you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. Get well soon.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. You're a real trooper, but you always are.
    Welcome, Secretary McDonough, we're glad to have you with 
us. When we met last April, I believe it was, to discuss the 
VA's fiscal year 22 budget request, I remarked that its 82 
percent increase was not the largest I had seen but still quite 
large. This year, 20.4 percent increase for discretionary 
programs, along with $7.5 billion for the second bite is 
another eye-popping request.
    While the--year after year you've given increases that may 
have been substantial, we need to look at the big picture. In 
fiscal year 2018, VA's overall budget has increased--since that 
time, it has increased 53 percent. This is an increase of $104 
billion from 197.4 to $301.4 billion, not counting emergency 
funding. If expansive environmental exposure legislation is 
enacted, this will add an additional $400 billion to the VA's 
budget over 10 years.
    For some time, Congress and the administration have 
discussed how to appropriate appropriately the budget for 
veteran's programs. This year, the President has proposed to 
treat veterans' healthcare as a separate category for spending. 
What exactly this means needs to be fully fleshed out. At a 
time when we're spending trillions on other domestic programs 
outside of the appropriations process, we should be more able 
to take care of our nation's veterans than the normal top-line 
allocations.
    I am not yet convinced the new spending category is 
necessary or advisable. I'll look forward to hearing the 
administration's rationale.
    I'm honored to serve the veterans and my tax-paying 
constituents. Together we need to ensure VA uses its funding to 
deliver quality healthcare, efficiency in processing claims, 
and provide for burials to respectfully--as respectful resting 
places, while meeting our other domestic and defense needs.
    I want to encourage you to--at the VA to continue the 
Congressional Fellowship Program. The VA Fellow provides 
critical insight to congressional offices and quickly becomes a 
valued addition to our staffs. Shareia Oliver is our VA Fellow 
this year, and she's a real asset for my constituents and an 
essential member of Team Carter, and I'm very happy to have 
her.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here.
    Madam Chair, I appreciate the time, and I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. And thank 
you for your get well wishes, I really appreciate it. And from 
your wife as well.
    Secretary McDonough--well, I don't think we have Ranking 
Member Granger here, and I know we'll be joined in a few 
minutes by Ranking--by Chair DeLauro, who I'll recognize after 
whatever member is speaking at the moment.
    Secretary McDonough, your full written testimony will be 
included in the record, and you are recognized for five minutes 
to summarize your opening statement.
    Secretary McDonough. Chairwoman Wasserman-Schultz, Ranking 
Member Carter and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    Chairwoman, add, please, the McDonoughs' prayers to the 
judge's and his wife's for your rapid recovery.
    I want to say to the subcommittee thank you very much for 
your leadership in passing the omnibus, and for including in it 
the RAISE Act, which will be instrumental in keeping VA's 
fantastic nurses and physician assistants at VA, caring for 
vets where they belong.
    I would like to begin with a story about one of those 
nurses, Paula Solaire. Early in the pandemic, Paula became the 
lead nurse for a young veteran diagnosed with COVID-19. This 
vet's case was bad. He could not breathe on his own, so he was 
immediately put on a respirator when he arrived at the 
hospital. Unfortunately, due to safety restrictions, this young 
vet's family could not visit him in person. So from that moment 
on, Paula took it upon herself to not only care for him but to 
keep him in contact with his wife and one-year-old child. Every 
morning and evening, no matter what, Paula sat with this 
veteran and FaceTimed his family. Then one day, when the 
veteran was really struggling, all of Paula's work culminated 
in a moment she will never forget. During one of their 
FaceTimes, this veteran's wife said to her husband, if you hear 
me and love me, squeeze Paula's hand. Despite his dire 
condition, this young vet did exactly that, with tears 
streaming down his face.
    Largely thanks to Paula, that vet eventually pulled 
through. He became that hospital's first successful COVID 
extubation and discharge, and now he is home with his family, 
the family that Paula kept him connected to when it seemed like 
he might not make it.
    That is what fighting like hell for vets looks like, and 
that is what VA employees like Paula do every day and have done 
throughout this more than two years of pandemic. Their great 
work has led VBA to process more than 825 veteran claims 
already this fiscal year, the fastest pace in history. It has 
led NCA to a point where we are approaching our goal of 
providing 90 percent, 95 percent of vets with access to burial 
sites within 75 miles of their homes. And it has led VHA to a 
point where outpatient trust scores are above 90 percent, and 
where studies show that we are delivering better outcomes than 
the private sector. All told, we are providing more care and 
more benefits to more veterans than ever before.
    But make no mistake, employees like Paula cannot do that 
work unless they have the resources they need to do it. And 
that is why this budget is so important. It will not only help 
us continue down this path but empower us to do even better for 
vets, families, caregivers and survivors. Specifically, this 
budget will help us get 38,000 homeless veterans into permanent 
housing by the end of this calendar year. It will help us 
deliver the toxic exposure benefits that veterans deserve as 
fast as possible by researching military exposures, hiring 
claims processors, and investing in claims automation. It will 
help us save veterans from dying by suicide by expanding the 
Veteran Crisis Line, getting ready to deploy the 988 line, 
investing in Lethal Means Safety and funding local intervention 
programs. It will help us deliver for all vets, including women 
veterans, our fastest growing demographic, by investing the 
highest amount ever in our women's health program which 
delivers tailored, world-class health care to women vets and 
works to ensure that all women vets feel welcome, safe, and 
respected at VA. It will help us save lives by investing nearly 
a billion dollars in VA's groundbreaking research, including 
long COVID and cancer research. And it will help us invest in 
our workforce, providing the money we need to recruit and 
retain VA's great employees.
    I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this. The 
number you see when you look at this budget request is $301.4 
billion. But what this budget really means is health care for 
an estimated 9.2 million vets, disability and survivor benefits 
for an estimated 6 million vets and their families, and lasting 
resting places for an estimated 135,000 heroes and family 
members. What this budget really means is veterans' lives saved 
or improved by the work this funding makes possible.
    The President often repeats a quote from his dad saying, 
show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. Well, 
this budget shows how deeply this President and our country 
values veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors. 
These heroes are the backbone of America. They deserve our very 
best. And with this budget, that's exactly what we will give 
them.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your 
steadfast, steadfast support of veterans and VA. I look very 
much forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:] 
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
       
 
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, 
and thank you for your well wishes. We appreciate your remarks.
    We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, 
recognizing members in order of seniority, as they were seated 
at the beginning of the hearing, alternating between Majority 
and Minority. Please be mindful of your time and allow the 
witnesses time to answer within your five-minute turn.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your overview and I just want 
to say that there really are a lot--there is a lot of good news 
in this budget. But we cannot ignore really what is the 
elephant in the room, and I know you know this, and that is the 
ever-growing cost of veterans' medical care. This year's budget 
requests $118.7 billion for VA medical care, which is a 22 
percent increase over last year's massive level. And of that 
funding, a whopping seven and a half billion is a second bite 
on top of what was already provided through advance funding. 
And you are requesting $128 billion in advance funding for 
fiscal year 2024, which is another $9.4 billion increase.
    Mr. Secretary, I know we have talked about this in the 
past, but it is important to sort of hash this out here 
publicly. What is the long-term plan here? I mean, clearly, we 
must provide for our veterans' health care. And we all are 
passionate about that. That is part of serving on this 
committee. But if we are going to keep seeing these exponential 
increases year after year, we need to build a consensus on an 
allocation adjustment, so that other discretionary priorities 
are not affected, including the non-health care priorities 
within VA.
    So, in light of the administration's new top line display, 
which I hope was a sign of Defense, non-Defense and VA medical 
care programs, breaking those out, is that a signal that the 
administration would support an allocation adjustment? And what 
is your sense of how we are going to deal with this burgeoning 
problem?
    Secretary McDonough. Chairwoman, thanks very much for the 
question. Let me work backwards on those.
    One, yes, it is very much a signal that we would support a 
separate allocation. I think it makes a lot of sense. VA, 
frankly, is nested within the interagency budget, and for us to 
continue to grow at the rates that we are growing, and that 
coming at the expense of the rest of the non-Defense 
discretionary makes us less effective overall than we might 
otherwise be. So, I thought it was a very important innovation 
from the White House, from the OMB, to separate veterans' 
health care. I think it does lift it up, as we do the Defense 
budget as a stand-alone piece of investment, but it also 
recognizes that we are nested within the broader interagency. 
That is point one.
    Point two, the second bite, I know this is a source of 
great frustration. I have to tell you that the two-year advance 
appropriation for was an extraordinarily helpful innovation, so 
we are grateful for that. And I also recognize that it causes 
challenges for you and for your teams.
    That said, because it is a 2-year assessment, estimation, 
there is inevitably going to be variation like the type that we 
are seeing. I want us to continue to work through to get better 
at that. We are looking at the model, we are talking to you and 
your teams about the model to see where we can get it better. 
We are talking to OMB as well, and we will continue that.
    Lastly, on the overall increases in the budget, especially 
in the medical care account, this is a function of three 
things. One is health inflation across the country, which is 
a--has been now for years a real challenge. Two, the fact that 
our veterans are increasingly reliant on and coming to us for 
more complex care. And three, this is a vote of confidence in 
VA. We are seeing that in a lot of different ways. But this is 
a sign of demand at VA. And that is because I think VA does 
better for veterans when they are in our care than they do--
than they fare outside of our care.
    So, I know it is a source of frustration. We will continue 
to be very transparent with you. And, you know, through things 
like preventative services, through things like making sure 
that we keep and maintain the experts that we have, I think we 
can bring that number down over time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    You know, I don't want to even cast this whole issue of the 
need for increased spending on veterans' health care as a 
negative. I mean, we know we need and want to take care of our 
veterans. It just--the frustration is really over the 
challenge. And the challenge is something that, you know, is 
just part of our responsibility, and so working together is 
really important.
    Members, we are going to have a second round because I know 
usually at this hearing, we all have questions we cannot get 
to. But I do want to ask the secretary about the second bite, 
because it is seven and a half billion dollars, and it is a 
pretty significant increase over what was provided in advance 
for this year, particularly compared to the second bites we 
have seen requested in previous years.
    What would these funds be put toward and why would these 
activities be funded out of fiscal year 2023's second bite 
instead of fiscal year 2024's advance? And, you know, if I put 
it another way, is any of the second bite for new initiatives 
versus needed adjustments to estimates? And do you anticipate 
that fiscal year 2024 will have as high a second bite, or is 
this an aberration?
    Secretary McDonough. Thanks. Look, I hope it is an 
aberration, but we will continue to work very closely with you, 
as I said, both on our assessments but also on any changes that 
come along. That is one. Two, we are having to move certain 
investments that we have made with CARES Act money, for 
example, into base budget. So, hires that we were able to make 
early in the pandemic, investment in new technology that needs 
to be maintained over time. So that is part of what you see in 
here.
    And again, recognizing that these are two-year-out 
assessments, it does present a certain degree of variability 
that unfortunately, especially with health care inflation being 
what it has been now over the course of the last 15 years, 
creates new challenges for us.
    But again, I agree with you, the answer here, I see this as 
a vote of confidence from veterans in our care. But we just 
have to continue to maintain our transparency with you as these 
changes come along.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And just to finish my 
second bite focus here, the medical facilities second bite is a 
billion and a half dollars. And that is significantly higher 
than we have seen in prior years. And so, unlike the second 
bite for medical services and community care, this is not an 
adjustment based on an actuarial model; it increases support 
for new maintenance projects.
    So, can you help us understand why the second bite request 
for medical facilities is critical and why the $7.1 billion 
that Congress provided in advance fiscal year 2023 is no longer 
adequate for that?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, so remember that during the 
course of the last two years, we have had to invest 
significantly in our facilities to make them more ready for the 
pandemic. So take, for example, zero-pressure rooms, which we 
did not have any of, but which are critical to maintaining the 
isolation required for a COVID-positive vet. So those 
investments need to be maintained. So that is why you see in 
the second bite that money in the facilities account.
    Again, this is directly responsive to the challenges 
presented to us by the pandemic. That is an example of it, as I 
say, the zero-pressure rooms. And if we see more of that, we 
will make sure we stay close to you on that. But that is the 
kind of thing that, if you, you know, to your earlier question, 
is this aberration or one-time, you know, slash, one-time 
funding, or is this something new that is going to come back 
again, I think this is a one-time increase necessary.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We just have to stay in close 
coordination, hopefully that this is pandemic related, and we 
get past this.
    Judge Carter, if you do not mind, we have been joined by 
Chair DeLauro, who I would like to recognize at this time, and 
then I will come back to you.
    Chair DeLauro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    The Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you 
very, very much, Judge Carter. I am chairing Labor HHS at the 
same time, so we are all running back and forth. I really 
appreciate this.
    And welcome, Secretary McDonough. Thank you so much for 
your testimony today.
    Just last week, I held a forum with veterans in my district 
to talk about information on the resources we included in the 
omnibus, in the legislation through this subcommittee. And the 
issue, and hearing from them the issues that they face on a 
daily basis, one of the topics was about backlog faced by the 
Veterans Benefits Administration. In the omnibus, we included 
three and a half billion dollars for operating expenses for the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, funding that will support the 
work to decrease the claims backlog.
    And as of January, it was reported that there were over 
260,000 claims in VA's backlog, up from 70,000 backlog cases 
prior to the pandemic. I understand the agency has made strides 
to reduce the backlog. You mentioned the technology that the VA 
will provide to support automating the disability compensation 
claims process. Can you describe in more detail how you plan to 
get the numbers down? Anyway, why don't I ask you to describe 
your plans about getting the backlog down.
    I think you're on mute, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary McDonough. Okay. I think I'm unmute--yeah. Okay. 
I'm live here. Do you have me now?
    The Chair. Yes, yes.
    Secretary McDonough. Great. So, Chairwoman, thank you very 
much. I thanked the subcommittee earlier for the omnibus, which 
is very generous to us, especially the inclusion of the RAISE 
Act, which is really, really important to our nurses and our 
nursing assistants and our--several other categories of our 
people. So, thank you very much for that.
    Right now, as of yesterday, the backlog is at 236,000 
claims. This year, fiscal year to date, we have processed 
830,000 claims. That's the fastest 830,000 in the history of 
VBA. The challenge is that we have received 840,000 claims this 
year. Those are claims that include several claims related to 
Agent Orange that Congress enacted year before last. It 
includes Blue Water Navy, and it includes President Biden's 
insistence that we begin to address toxic exposure claims, as 
the first President in 30 years of war in Southwest Asia to do 
that.
    So our plan to bring that number down includes three very 
significant steps.
    First, through the ARP funding that you gave us, we are 
still able to pay overtime for claims adjusters--claims 
examiners. So, we are working overtime to bring that number 
down. And in fact, that number is coming down especially for 
things like the Blue Water Navy, such that we think we might be 
able to beat the target of the end of this year that we had had 
on the books to complete those claims.
    The second thing we're doing is we are hiring additional 
personnel. Using last year's money, we began hiring nearly 
2,100 additional people. Seventy percent of them are hired, and 
90 percent of the people that we have hired--so 90 percent of 
the 70 percent--are in training or have completed training. 
There is a tail on claims personnel to get them to a productive 
level. We think it's between six and nine months. So, we're 
moving that on the new hires. So, over time, new hires.
    Third is automating--sorry. This budget for FY2023 gives us 
authority to hire another more than 300 additional claims 
processors. So we continue that process that we're under--
underway now into FY2023.
    Last, we want to modernize the process itself. We're 
looking very closely at whether there are things, steps in the 
process that we can consolidate or that we can remove 
altogether. For example, need we have additional examinations 
for every filing?
    The other modernization we're looking at is automation. We 
have not--we have a goal of this year to automate three new 
conditions each quarter. Our most recent addition is claims for 
asthma. We have only had a handful of those in, but some of 
those claims are resolved as quickly as in one day rather than 
over--rather than in over several weeks. So, if this technology 
bears out in the way that we hope it will and that it is 
beginning to show that it can, we think we can reduce the time 
per claim going forward.
    So those are the three steps, Madam Chairwoman.
    The Chair. Okay. I thank you very, very much, and I just 
would say this. It's very critically important to us, and as we 
look at opportunities in which we will look at those toxic 
chemicals, like burn pits, et cetera, we know that there is 
going to be an increased number of cases, of applications, et 
cetera. So, we need to keep close attention to this.
    And with that, I will yield back and again say thank you to 
the Chair for recognizing me, and I want to say thank you for 
your graciousness, Judge Carter. We really appreciate it. Thank 
you so much.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate 
it. The gentlelady yields back. You go get them at Labor H.
    The Chair. At Labor H. Right. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thanks so much.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for five minutes for such 
time as you may consume.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    The FY23 budget request proposes to separate veterans 
healthcare from non-defense discretionary spendings. We just 
talked about that. Exactly how will this work? Is there a 
specific legislative proposal? What is the President's 
rationale for the change? Won't this just increase the amount 
of funding available for other non-defense discretionary 
programs? Is that spending justified, especially given the 6.4 
percent increase provided in FY22?
    With trillions we spend on the mandatory side of the 
ledger, is it a good idea to allow more spending on the 
discretionary side?
    Series of questions.
    Secretary McDonough. Judge, thank you very much, Judge, and 
I appreciate your--all your partnership with the department, 
and I am very grateful for that.
    As to whether there is a specific legislative proposal, I 
believe there is but I will confess to you, Judge, I don't--I 
have not seen it. So I will get an answer to you on that and I 
will come to you--come back to you on that express question 
after consulting with the OMB Director.
    Second, why do it? Well, I think there are three reasons. 
One is, as I said before, I think it makes sense to separate 
this from the broader account to underscore, as we do with 
defense, the unique nature and the unique importance of 
investments in veteran health. That is the first reason.
    The second reason is I do think that it risks undercutting 
our ability if we keep it consolidated with the non-defense 
discretionary. It risks reducing the effectiveness of VA within 
the interagency on things like the pandemic, where we have 
worked very, very closely with our partners at HHS. And so 
making sure that it does not--the important investments in 
veterans do not come at the expense of other investments in the 
federal government non-defense discretionary on which we also 
rely for veterans health is a positive.
    Third, I also think that our investment in veteran 
healthcare does actually look and act a little bit like 
mandatory investments, reflected elsewhere in the government. 
Because this is something that veterans come to rely on. It is 
something that increasingly veterans are satisfied with. And we 
believe, especially if Congress continues with this important 
effort on toxic exposure legislation, it could end up being an 
important amount of additional enrollees coming into VA.
    Lastly, I hope and I welcome that when this is set aside as 
a standalone account that that engenders even greater scrutiny 
of our practices and how we invest that money.
    I endeavor to be very transparent with the Committee, with 
you, Judge Carter, with Chairman Wasserman Schultz. I would 
anticipate that as a standalone account, we would engender even 
greater scrutiny. I welcome that as a challenge for us to be 
even more transparent with the Committee.
    Mr. Carter. Well, mandatory spending right now is driving 
us over the cliff. If we don't do something about our current 
mandatory spending, the projection is sometime in the early 30s 
we are going to go over the financial cliff. It could change 
the very nature of life in the United States.
    So, to set up a situation where we may inadvertently be 
creating more mandatory spending, to me, is not a good idea.
    Everybody always treats VA like it is mandatory anyway. I 
think both sides of the aisle, we may not like it, but we do 
treat it that way. But it is not. And if we add it in as 
mandatory, it just means more things that are going to have the 
oversight of what we do in our Committee, and therefore, just 
moves us closer to that time when we can't pay our bills.
    So, if that is what we are trying to do, then that's a 
situation where VA spending is mandatory, all of it. Quite 
frankly, it's a bad program as far as I am concerned.
    I thank you for your answer.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you, Judge.
    Mr. Carter. This is worrying.
    I yield back.
    Chair Wasserman Schultz. Thanks, Judge.
    Yeah, I think we are just going to have to have a deeper 
dive conversation on how we are going to approach this in the 
future. We really just have some challenges that have to be 
addressed, and we can't just keep kicking the can down the 
road. So I appreciate the opportunity given the President's 
proposal to foster that discussion.
    Forgive me. Next up is Congresswoman Lee. You are 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Sorry, I was not expecting that. Thank 
you, Madam Chair. And I would like to thank the Secretary for 
being here.
    Secretary, I have been hearing some significant concerns 
from veterans in my district about recent recommendations from 
the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission for facility 
closures. And of specific concern is the recommendation of a 
closure for the Laughlin Rural Outreach Clinic.
    In southern Nevada this clinic has provided healthcare to 
thousands of veterans in what is really an under-resourced 
community. And while I appreciate the administration's efforts, 
I just wanted to make you aware that this community, just so 
you know--I want to paint a picture--it would ask veterans who 
now receive care within their community to take transportation 
across the bridge into Arizona to Bullhead City. And this is no 
small task for veterans who are seriously ill or disabled or 
lack the adequate transportation. And so I'm sure we can all 
agree that we don't want to create additional barriers for 
veterans to access care.
    With that in mind, I just have some questions about this 
proposal, which I sent a letter to you and the President on 
March 18th.
    In assessing these recommendations, how will the VA ensure 
that veterans in communities see continued improvements to 
healthcare access, especially if they lack transportation and 
the broadband connection for telehealth?
    You need to unmute, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary McDonough. I think I am--yeah, sorry. I am not 
managing the mute button here. Sorry.
    Thank you very much for that question and thank you for the 
letter, which I reviewed very closely, and obviously talking to 
our team about it.
    The fact is we are early in this process. These are 
recommendations. The commission, once the Senate acts, will 
get--take a hard look at it. I think there is--I think you 
raise a very interesting point that we are developing 
programming on, which is transportation. We had a legislative 
request--this kind of takes it from the future to the present--
we had a legislative request for last year on dramatically 
increasing the rural transportation program that we manage. We 
have the funding for that this year. We would like to get the 
authority for that. I think that will end up being important 
for a lot of rural communities.
    The third thing I would like to say is we--obviously we 
inherited, when we arrived, this data-collection effort going 
back to 2018 and 2019 when it started. Much of the data on 
which the decisions were made predates the pandemic. I think 
that is a mistake. However, the statute being what the statute 
is, there was not an option for me to stop this program.
    So, what we will do is we will update the data on which 
those recommendations are based and give that to the commission 
during the course of its proceedings. I would encourage you to 
do the same about what you are hearing from your veterans, and 
I would encourage you--I would encourage the commission also to 
make sure that they get to southern Nevada to hear from the 
veterans there.
    Lastly, the whole set of recommendations are designed to 
try to get more care in a more updated fashion and more modern 
facilities closer to our veterans. It sounds like that we did 
not hit the mark in southern Nevada with this proposal that 
vets travel to Bullhead City. I am happy to take a relook at 
this, and I think we ought to make sure that the commission 
itself takes a look at it, and then the President has a 
decision to make as well at the end of the day.
    Remember, these are my recommendations to the President. 
The President gets to take a fresh look at these after hearing 
from you and the commission and others about whether to proceed 
with them or not, and then ultimately you guys get the same--
the same decision.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased 
that you will take that into consideration. It has been 
something. As soon as you recommend a closure, you tend to 
start to hear just how important that place is.
    Secretary McDonough. I know.
    Mrs. Lee. But it has been a clinic that has been really a 
lifeline in that community, so I appreciate you taking another 
look at it.
    Thank you, and I yield.
    Secretary McDonough. I would just say one thing, Ms. Lee 
and Chairwoman and Judge Carter. What we see in reaction to the 
recommendations so far, good and bad, is a desire for more 
access to VA healthcare. That is a reassuring thing in my view. 
And I would be the first to admit that I may not have gotten 
every recommendation correct here, but I am gratified to see 
the demand for greater access from our veterans. I think that 
is a vote of confidence in our care providers, and I am proud 
of them as well.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Secretary 
and Ms. Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Secretary, Mr. Secretary, for being at this hearing. You have 
been a pleasure to work with. Your team has been great to work 
with.
    My first question is last year, this Committee appropriated 
$150 million to construct a new VA healthcare center in El 
Paso, Texas. This year I look forward to finalizing that 
project. Can we--can you provide an update on the next steps 
for this project?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Gonzales. Thanks 
very much, and thank you for your partnership. You are always 
available to us, and we have appreciated the ability to lean on 
your cyber expertise too as we wrestle with that challenge.
    We believe that El Paso is a groundbreaking new way for us 
to get construction done more quickly, speed to market. So the 
$150 million allowed us to do the initial site preparation for 
that building where we will provide additional services 
building on the existing VA healthcare center in El Paso, 
including mental health services.
    We anticipate in this budget another 550 million to 
complete the construction of that facility. From soup to nuts 
we anticipate this being a 51-month project. We want to 
continue to hold ourselves to those timelines, the next 
timeline being when the 150 million you gave us last year that 
we are currently investing over the course of this year, that 
550 million we anticipate beginning in April 2023, and then we 
anticipate finishing in 2026 with the new facility. That is 51 
months soup to nuts.
    We think that is much faster than we have done in the past, 
and we think that is kind of a pilot for us being able to 
speed-to-market the kind of care that we need, including in a 
growing community like El Paso where we are seeing significant 
demand from new vets.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yeah. No, thank you for that. Once again, 
appreciate you prioritizing it. As you know, veterans are 
growing in Texas; in particular west Texas is an area of need 
that has been long forgotten. So, I appreciate your leadership 
on that.
    My next question is in regards to the border. So, Mr. 
Secretary, as you know, my district spans more than 40 percent 
of the southern border. Throughout this migrant crisis, the 
communities I represent have been overwhelmed by a record 
number of apprehensions that continue to happen in my backyard.
    This response is only expected to accelerate. Just last 
week the Biden administration announced it will be ending Title 
42 on May 23rd. This change will multiply the number of 
migrants encountered that we see daily. As a result, there are 
reports that DHS has approached DOD with a request to assist in 
a contingency plan to deal with the fallout of Title 42 at the 
border and the record number of migrants that we expect to see.
    There are reports that the VA--that VA medical personnel 
will be dispatched to vaccinate migrants as they make their way 
into the U.S. Can you confirm these conversations and offer any 
further guidance on how the VA will be utilized in this border 
crisis?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, thanks very much, Mr. Gonzales. 
I am not aware of any such conversations. I have seen the news 
reports. There is no--I can't find any evidence of the 
conversations.
    I would say this. Over the course of the pandemic, at least 
since I have been here, we have deployed VA healthcare 
personnel to support other federal partners, including our 
federal law enforcement partners, where we administered vaccine 
to CBP and ICE personnel. And so maybe that is the--maybe that 
is the basis of some of the rumor that you are referring to, 
but I am not aware of any such conversations. I am proud of the 
role that we have played in supporting our federal partners: 
CBP, ICE, U.S. Capitol Police, Bureau of Prisons. I anticipate 
we will continue to do--transportation, TSA personnel. I 
anticipate we will continue to do that kind of work.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no. Thank you for that response. And I 
would just offer, if there is anything that comes up, like you 
said, there is all these reports that are always out there. If 
I could be included in----
    Secretary McDonough. Count on that.
    Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Finding a way to be--to help 
with this problem set, I want to be able to give the ground 
truth of what is happening.
    You started off this hearing giving a beautiful story about 
Paula and all the great work she does for the VA. I just don't 
want to see VA professionals pulled out of that role and get 
sucked up into a different role where we are seeing veterans 
kind of lose that quality of care.
    But like you mentioned, I think there is a way where you 
can absolutely be helpful to other agencies, just like you have 
been, but there has to be a plan in place if and so that 
happens.
    So I am out of time, but I will yield back.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. And just 
for the public's benefit, the VA does have a fourth mission 
mandate where they provide value added whenever it is 
potentially warranted. And so they have done an incredible job 
particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and I appreciate 
that you are recognizing the need to work with the department 
in the event that their fourth mission, for whatever potential 
reason, needs to be implemented.
    Secretary McDonough. Good point.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Crist, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and know that you are in 
my prayers, and I hope you have a very speedy recovery. 
Thinking about you always.
    Secretary McDonough, thank you so much for joining us 
today.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Mr. Crist. Appreciate your presence and your service.
    My office has a great relationship, and my district, with 
Bay Pines Hospital. However, elsewhere in the VA we have 
continuing issues of non-responsiveness to the point that 
sometimes it seems like almost deliberate attempts to make it 
more difficult to help my constituents.
    For example, I have been told no information will be 
provided over the phone or by email to caseworkers, including 
just regular updates, but that will require the use of physical 
mail, a process that can drag out for weeks or months when it 
could have been just a quick phone call or an email 
conversation.
    It is disturbing to me that in 2022, this is the way some 
VA offices would do business. Casework is something we all on 
this subcommittee do, and at the end of the day, it is about 
the veterans we represent, our bosses.
    Are there any restrictions placed on VA offices and how 
they are allowed to communicate information to congressional 
caseworkers, and are VA offices allowed to communicate 
information over the phone or email to congressional 
caseworkers regarding active cases?
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, thanks very much, Mr. Crist.
    So I reached out to the St. Pete Regional Office last night 
to make sure that I understood what was happening there. The 
Regional Office Director, who is one of our real high 
performers, and I both commit to you that if there is some--if 
there is a particular case, I hope you will--that you are 
having trouble with, that you will raise it, your team will 
raise it with me or with her directly. We will resolve that.
    As to the modalities by which we can communicate, we take 
incoming by phone, by letter, by email. We communicate same. 
When we are providing PII, personally identifiable information, 
we do provide that encrypted to--over email. And so, we are 
obviously able to work with you in that fashion as well and 
with your caseworkers.
    And so again, if there is a specific set of cases that we 
are hung up on, I hope we can just roll up our sleeves and get 
at them. But there should be no limitation on the way we 
communicate with your caseworkers. And surely, in the event we 
are dealing with personally identifiable information for a 
veteran, there we will need obviously a way to communicate that 
in an encrypted fashion, as I think you would expect, and I 
know we have ways to do that.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your 
response very much.
    Like many of my constituents, I was thrilled to see our 
Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans get access to the benefits 
they have earned. Unfortunately, we are still seeing their 
benefits being held up by some bureaucratic red tape.
    To the best of your ability, how many Blue Water Veterans 
have received their benefits since they became eligible, and 
how many claims have been denied?
    Secretary McDonough. That is a good--that is a reasonable 
question. I should know the answer to it, Mr. Crist. I don't 
have that information, even in my thick briefing book here. So, 
if I can take that one, I will get you an answer by the end of 
the day.
    Mr. Crist. Okay. I appreciate that very much, Mr. 
Secretary, and I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary McDonough. Great. I might just say one thing real 
quick, Madam Chair, to Mr. Crist. This is not specific data, 
which I will get you by the end of the day. But I actually 
believe that because of the progress we have been able to make 
over the course of the pandemic in getting digitized records, 
ship logs and those types of things from NPRC, and digitizing 
those records, I think we are--and our ability to invest in 
overtime, as we have been doing thanks to the American Rescue 
Plan and other investments from you all--I--we are ahead of 
schedule on completing the Blue Water Navy claims.
    As it relates to the specifics, I will get you those. And 
then my reaction to the first question stands, which is if 
there is a specific case you are worried about, I hope you will 
make sure that we get in touch with that vet and we will get to 
the bottom of it.
    Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Secretary. Appreciate it.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Crist. The gentleman 
yields back.
    Excuse me. Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank 
you very much for your time today. I have really enjoyed 
working with you and obviously getting to know you a little bit 
on the football field even this year. I am looking forward to 
our next game coming up.
    A couple of different issues I want to talk about, though, 
is a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Bakersfield, 
California, still hasn't been built. It has been 11 years since 
Congress authorized its construction, but my veteran 
constituents in the Central Valley still do not have an updated 
facility. I know this case has been riddled by bureaucracy and 
endless lawsuits, and I know that your department has been 
doing their best on this one, but this is one that thousands of 
veterans have been waiting--some have even passed away. And I 
know the VA has been doing everything they possible can to get 
this thing constructed.
    But I want to know if there is something that we need to do 
through Congress and legal changes, some regulatory changes, 
that both of us, one of us can do to make sure facilities like 
this get more--completed in a more timely manner. And our 
veterans just don't have another decade to wait for this.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Thanks very much. I look very 
much forward to the football game too, and I am going to 
stretch more so I don't hurt myself in the practices.
    I am excited about the Bakersfield CBOC. I have talked to 
you about this. I have talked to Mr. McCarthy about it. It does 
seem to me that what--as I understand it, the issue here is 
some legal wrangling locally there on the ground. We are doing 
our best to work through that.
    One thing, though, in response to your question that I 
would call your attention to is the way CBO requires--the way 
we are required to clear by legislated authorization every new 
lease we do, and then the way CBO scores those leases, means 
that right now we are sitting on 31 leases that we should be 
moving that we can't move because we don't have legislated 
authorization yet. Again, because of the way CBO scores these 
things.
    So, I talked to the Senate last week. Our hope is as we 
move something like toxic exposure legislation, which may 
result in as many as two million additional enrollees at VA for 
VA health care, we need to fix this lease authorization 
question.
    The Senate indicated some interest in including such a fix 
in their version of a toxic exposure bill. At least we need to 
get these 31 leases that are pending done, and if we could even 
get a more permanent fix so we can just get these leases from 
soup to nuts, so we can get vets into that kind of care, it 
would be really important.
    So that is a specific thing I would like to ask your help 
on.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. Well, we will be in touch so we can find 
a way to make that happen.
    Secretary McDonough. Great.
    Mr. Valadao. My next question, few weeks ago the VA 
announced a pause on any expulsions from the Caregivers Support 
Program. However, the VA has maintained the eligibility changes 
to the program are necessary to endure financial solvency.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget calls for a 30 percent increase 
to this budget to meet current needs. Will you walk this 
committee through the process you are utilizing to determine 
the new criteria?
    And will you be using the future Caregivers Support Program 
enrollees?
    Do you anticipate another significant increase in this 
budget for this program and in future budgets?
    Secretary McDonough. Great. Thank you.
    I am really glad you asked about this. I think this is one 
of the most innovative and exciting things we are doing. I 
think the Caregiver Program, which Congress conceived of, is a 
really good idea.
    You are right that we said we would not suspend anybody 
else from the program pending a relook at the screen through 
which we run the legacy participants, one.
    Two, in all cases, anybody who has been told that they will 
not qualify for the program will continue to get the stipend 
until April 2023, in any case. Okay?
    So, no one stops receiving the stipend until earliest, 
April 2023, so a full year from now. That is point three.
    Point four, we are looking at the second part of the two-
part test that somebody needs to go through. The first part of 
the test is did the injuries the veteran incurred, the 
condition the veteran is living with, did that happen in war, 
in defense of the Nation.
    That is in statute. That is a yes/no question.
    We use a proxy of whether a vet is 70 percent service 
connected to get through that test. We cannot change that. That 
is legislated.
    The second part of the test is the percentage of activities 
of daily living a veteran needs help from his caregiver or her 
caregiver to carry out. That is a regulatory hurdle.
    We are looking at now, in consultation with caregivers; in 
consultation with VSOs; in consultation with members of your 
staffs and staffs of the Appropriations and authorizations 
committees in the House and Senate. We are looking at whether 
there is a way, consistent with the statute, for us to be more 
inclusive in that second test.
    We have not made a determination as to whether we will 
issue a new regulation, but if we are going to change it, we 
would have to issue new regulation.
    So, we are working that through now. We are doing that, as 
I said, in consultation with VSOs and with you and your staffs.
    In all cases, once we establish the second part of this new 
test, whether we can do that with new regulation or need, can 
do that of our own accord, then we will run everybody back 
through that screen and make final determinations whether the 
legacy participants stay in the program or go.
    Even if they go, by the way, they continue to be eligible 
for important caregiver programming from us, but not the 
stipend.
    Last point; October 1, we are determined to expand the 
Caregiver Program to all era of vets. Heretofore it has been 
mostly in and around post-9/11 vets. Congress has given us 
authority to expand it to include vets going back to Korea.
    We will do that in October. We are insistent on doing that. 
So, we are going to get both pieces of this work done, getting 
the legacy cases reviewed in a more inclusive way and expanding 
the program back to the Korea War vets.
    I hope that answered the question, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you, and my time 
is up.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    First of all, thank you for your efforts in my part of the 
world, Hawaii and the broader Pacific. We, of course, share the 
same concerns as the rest of the country, the same goals, but 
it gets a little more complicated or at least a little bit more 
varied when you leave the West Coast of the continental United 
States at least and get out into the distance.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Case. And the question of how you handle island 
jurisdictions versus, you know, being able to drive down the 
road 100 miles.
    So anyway, I just wanted to say a thanks because we have 
many issues with you, and we have enjoyed the partnership.
    We are excited about a brand new out-patient clinic, the 
Aloha Project in Honolulu, and I just visited that about four 
weeks ago when I was back home, and it is exciting to 
physically see it coming out of the ground.
    By the way, to Mr. Valadao's comments, we can certainly 
lend some expertise at this point in terms of your leases 
throughout the country, having done battle on those issues.
    And so, thanks. We got that one done, but you are correct. 
The system itself needs to be corrected really to accommodate 
some of the unique qualities of VA leases.
    I wanted to go back kind of nationally to the cost of 
health care in the VA system as a driver of your budgets, and 
you rightly noted that this was a concern. Now, you attributed 
it to three factors. One was just general inflation in health 
care costs across the country; number two, the specialization 
of VA health care to a broader range of services, which comes 
in many cases at a higher unit cost, I guess you could say.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Case. And then finally, you talked about the vote of 
confidence and demand on that system from the perspective, and 
so I took by that that you meant just more people in the system 
because it is not a supply-demand equation in the sense of, you 
know, shortages equal higher cost per se.
    It is just--is that correct, first of all?
    Secretary McDonough. That is correct, yes.
    Mr. Case. Okay. So, do you know what your general 
assumption was in the overall assumption on health care 
inflation for the budget itself?
    Because I was trying to piece it together here to figure 
out exactly, you know, whether you are within the realm of 
reasonableness in terms of keeping up with health care 
inflation.
    I guess I would hate to be in a situation where your 
inflation calculation was somewhere down at three or four or 
even five percent versus what is actually happening.
    Secretary McDonough. I think it is a fair question, and it 
is a logical question. It is the second one that I should have 
actually been ready for that I am not.
    So let me take and find out. We have an actuarial table or 
actuarial model that we work these through. I do not know what 
the base assumption on health care inflation is in that, but I 
will get you that, and I will get it to you by the end of the 
day.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Yeah, I think it would benefit all of us 
because we obviously have to evaluate whether the budget is 
going to encompass those costs.
    And then related to that, you know, I do not think any of 
us would accept that we just have to kind of take it on health 
care costs, and so the real question is with the VA expanding 
not only its volume of services or volume of patients but range 
of services, you are really encompassing under one roof, one 
collective roof, a much larger portion of the overall health 
care provision in the country.
    And so you obviously have, you know, economies of scale, 
and you have negotiating power, and you have the ability, I 
think, within the VA umbrella to actually affect those health 
care costs yourself.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Case. I think of a standard model, and you know, it is 
an issue that we have been arguing over in Congress for a long 
time about whether Medicare should be able to negotiate for 
bulk purchases of drugs. That would be the clearest example, 
and the VA has abilities.
    But, I mean, what is the status of kind of the bigger 
picture effort to use your size and extent and weight to 
actually influence the inflation where that is not really a 
particularly thus far effective option beyond the VA?
    Secretary McDonough. I think it is a super interesting 
question.
    There are places where we can exercise some increased 
influence not entirely as a price maker, but the place where we 
are most influential is on our drug formulary, and because we 
can negotiate, we see significant drug savings.
    And veterans are sophisticated consumers of health care. 
Many veterans have several options. Some have TRICARE for Life. 
Some have VA some have Medicare, and some come to us for 
different pieces. Many come to us because of the very 
competitive pricing on our drug formulary.
    And I think that is a direct combination of our skill among 
our workforce in developing that formulary, and because we can 
negotiate.
    Another place where we are trying to exercise and increase 
our economies of scale is on the supply chain. We have a 
project called DMLLS where we are hopeful that we can generate 
some economies of scale by pooling purchasing power with the 
Department of Defense on things like PPE.
    There are complications there. We have requirements in 
statute that we give preferential access to veteran-owned small 
businesses.
    So we are working that through, but there are two places 
where we can test this new model. One is in North Chicago in a 
joint Navy-VA facility, and then one is in the Northwest of the 
United States in what we call VISN-20.
    It is not working nearly as well as I hoped it might, but 
we will by the end of this year have something to report to 
this committee and to the other committee up there, the 
authorizers, about where we stand on supply chain and getting 
economies of scale.
    Third, the last thing I would say here is we are a price-
taker in a couple of important ways. If we do not get more 
competitive on wages for providers, we are going to lose 
providers.
    So what you gave us in the omnibus for nurses is really 
important, but we need relief on medical center or hospital 
CEOs. We need relief on specialty doctors. We need relief even 
on things like what we can pay and how many housekeeping people 
we can hire.
    So, we would like to be able to be in a position to be more 
competitive there or we are going to lose people.
    The last thing is an increasing amount, going back to the 
MISSION Act in 2018, of our care is purchased in the community. 
That number the CBO anticipated to be quite large when they 
scored this back in 2018, as I understand the debate. I was not 
here at the time.
    We are outrunning those estimates for what we are paying 
for care in the community. This is a place where we are a price 
taker, too, and we are getting better at being a payer. Where 
we used to be late and not accurate in our payments, we are 
better now.
    And I would like to see us begin to use innovations like 
those available under the Affordable Care Act, like pay for 
performance, like bundling, now that we have established 
ourselves as a good payer in the community.
    We will see if we can get there because this is an 
increasingly large part of our budget, the amount of care that 
we are referring veterans into the community to get, which 
obviously we are going to have to get under control over time 
if we are hoping to get these kinds of health care inflation 
numbers under control.
    I hope that is responsive to your question, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. You absolutely did, but a lot more to go along 
these lines, a lot of good avenues.
    But I apologize for the time over, Madam Chair, and I 
provoked it, and I yield back.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is okay. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Rutherford, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is great to see you.
    Secretary McDonough. You, too.
    Mr. Rutherford. And I can tell you I am, being from the 
Jacksonville, Florida area and having seen the recommendations, 
we are very excited about the medical facility planned for our 
area.
    But it is a very diverse type of district. I have very 
urban poor there around Jacksonville, where we have----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. A massive number of veterans 
living. Then we also have some very rural areas, and I am 
curious not so much about my district but overall when the 
Commission starts to look at equal or better, within the 
context of things like telemedicine, which quite frankly I will 
tell you I was not a big fan of prior to COVID, but I think 
they have kind of won me over.
    So, in the context of equal or better, which is the goal, I 
understand, and so that is one element.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Mr. Rutherford. But the other is this community care that 
we were just talking about under the MISSION Act. Do they 
perceive VA facility care?
    You know, when they make those comparisons with the 
community providers, I think it is also important that we look 
at equal or better there.
    Some of the challenges that we are having in my district 
particularly, and you mentioned the large usage by veterans of 
the community care model, and that it is even exceeding the 
expectations. I can tell you it would be even bigger, I think, 
if we could get those referrals in on time because there are 
some real delays coming out of VA on getting these referrals 
into some of the community care.
    So, when we talk about equal or better, I think we ought to 
be looking at some of those challenges as well, not just the 
accounts receivable----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. Which was so bad in my 
district that, as you know, we actually had providers that 
refused to work with VA.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Mr. Rutherford. So, can you give me your opinion on those 
issues?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. Mr. Rutherford, thank you very 
much.
    And I think just one broad or two broad questions and then 
I will get to the timeliness of access. One is I think Florida, 
in general, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, North and South 
Carolina, what we saw as we looked at the trend lines for 
veterans over time in these market assessments is that vets are 
moving south and east, south and west, and due south.
    So that is one of the things that we are wrestling with as 
a system, but importantly, in the recommendations, we remain in 
every market as a central coordinator of and integrator of care 
for our veterans no matter if you are in Florida or you are in 
Minnesota. We are staying in every market. That is one.
    Two is the baseline, kind of the first cut of whether to 
maintain a facility or build a new facility or modernize a 
facility in a particular market was average daily census. How 
many veterans are in a facility on any given day for in-patient 
care, for example?
    And so we set a cutoff of 20 ADC, average daily census, and 
while I did not, with a team going back to 2019, set this 20-
person census, and under that we take a harder look. Over that 
we see this is a facility that needs to be modernized.
    However, I believe that there are certain communities 
underserved, some in urban settings--one in particular was in 
Alabama for me--some in rural settings--one was in Montana, one 
was in Kansas--where the recommendation came to close that 
facility. I thought that was a mistake because the availability 
of other providers there was low, and historically, there were 
not new providers coming in.
    Which brings me to my third point. How do we assess 
quality? We looked at Medicare and Medicaid ratings for 
hospitals to make a determination of, is it equal or better if 
somebody gets referred in the community?
    If there was not a good facility that our providers felt 
good about, we would not do it.
    Lastly on timeliness, if you look at our average wait times 
across the system, they are good. But it is a big system, and 
we are coming out of a pandemic. So I fear that there are 
outliers where people are waiting too long.
    So, we are constantly trying to get better at finding them 
and get them into referrals quickly.
    Secondly, how we measure the wait times, I think we have 
got to do a better job of that, and so we are working that 
through now, and we will talk with you and with the committee 
about that.
    The last point, and I know I am going over time, but we 
have to understand the impact of the pandemic on referrals as 
well. Because of the pandemic, almost now every veteran meets 
the standard to be referred into the community. Not every 
veteran wants to be referred into the community, and so we have 
to work that through on an individualized basis.
    But because of the pandemic where so many facilities for a 
period for safety reasons, you know, withheld care, we are in 
this place where managing that case work inevitably means more 
people go into the community.
    The question is, are they going to come back to their care 
system or are they going to stay in the community? That is a 
big question for us strategically.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Sorry for going over.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Secretary, I think you are right particularly about how 
we calculate wait time.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It has been a consistent problem.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And inconsistent across the board.
    Secretary McDonough. I hope we have some news for you in 
the next period on that. We are working really hard on it 
because I am frustrated with it myself, to be perfectly honest 
with you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just worry that we send too many 
veterans out of the system because the wait times are not 
calculated really accurately.
    Secretary McDonough. Yeah, and they cut both ways, too. So, 
we owe you that work, and we will get it to you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Okay. Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    And I will add my best wishes to you. Hope you recover 
quickly.
    Secretary McDonough, it is so nice to have you before us 
again.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you for being with us here today.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. I want to talk to you a little bit about the 
concerns I have around military sexual trauma, but before I 
jump into that I just want to say I had the great good fortune 
a month or so ago or a couple of months ago to visit in the 
Portland CBOC, as it was opening, and what a wonderful 
facility.
    You know, we spend a lot of time talking to the VA about, 
you know, how underserved our veterans are and how bad some of 
our facilities are, and to see this incredibly modern building 
with, you know, state-of-the-art care, all of the room you 
could possibly need, really thinking about every possible 
concern that a veteran could have to respect their privacy, to 
make it comfortable, you know, I commend any member of this 
committee who wants to see what a really great facility looks 
like to come and visit that facility, you know, and have 
lobster while you are there.
    But I just cannot even begin to describe it, and the fact 
that you could sit in the dentist chair in there and be looking 
out at the ocean and just sort of the idea of how calm that 
would make you feel and how valued that would make you feel.
    So, I am taking way too much of my time, but I just want to 
say that was great. It was a wonderful moment to see that.
    But let me jump into military sexual trauma because it is a 
long and complicated topic, and I know we have discussed it 
before, but I will try to summarize quickly.
    We discussed the 2018 OIG report which found that----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Pingree [continuing]. 49 percent of MST related 
disability claims were inaccurately processed, and 
unfortunately, in August, there was another report, and to 
summarize, it said 57 percent are not processed correctly.
    So the error rate is going up. I guess I want to know your 
reaction to that, what actions you are taking.
    And let me just throw in a couple of other things. I have a 
bill, Service Members and Veterans' Empowerment and Support 
Act, which would improve the claims adjudication process, and 
it basically deals with this notion that currently only 
veterans with a PTSD diagnosis are eligible for relaxed 
evidentiary standard.
    But a different diagnosis, which is common with MST, like 
anxiety or depression, those are not eligible.
    So, I have gotten some feedback from the VA on the bill, 
but I would really like to work with you to move this forward. 
You know, unless you have another plan for getting these 
numbers up, we just have to make sure that all of the veterans 
filing for compensation for mental health condition related to 
MST have access to the same relaxed evidentiary standard.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Pingree. I think that would help a lot.
    So, I will let you talk.
    Secretary McDonough. Good. Well, thanks very much, and I 
appreciate the attention you pay to this issue because it gets 
to something else I think you saw at the Portland CBOC, which 
is we also have to make sure that our facilities and our 
programming and our decision making are reflective of, 
hospitable to, and welcoming of the fastest growing 
demographic, which is women veterans.
    Now, it is not just women who are survivors of MST. It is 
women and men, but how we do on MST claims sends a really 
important signal to our women veterans who are survivors and to 
our men veterans who are survivors.
    So here is what we have done year to date. We have 
adjudicated 10,179 MST cases and we have granted in 78 percent 
of those cases.
    Now, it could still be that we are not granting rightly in 
the 22 percent whose claim is not being found in favor of, but 
the way we are trying to get better on that is we have 
consolidated MST claims into eight regional offices with 
specific teams with experience on these claims and, therefore, 
better understanding of understanding how to resolve these 
claims.
    So that has been since May 2021.
    Later this month, we are moving to a virtual regional 
office that handles all of these cases and just these cases, 
and that will be run out of San Juan.
    So I hope as we specialize in these cases, we get better on 
the error rate.
    The last point is we are constantly trying to get better. 
We are in the midst this month of a full training effort and 
updated effort of our claims providers. I think we are in touch 
with you. I know we are in touch with one of your colleagues on 
the authorizing side, Ms. Luria, about coming to help us as we 
are thinking about this.
    But as you say, we also have to be constantly updating our 
clinical practice. I just saw a big story about the fact that, 
by the way, standing to reason survivors of military sexual 
trauma are more likely to have hypertension.
    And so we ought to be factoring that new science and those 
new findings into our practice at VBA as well.
    So all of this is us trying to get better. All of this is 
us trying to incorporate more science and more understanding of 
the phenomenon into our practice, and your keeping the pressure 
on us by maintaining the attention on it helps us as well.
    We have just got to get this right.
    Ms. Pingree. Okay. I am out of time, but when we get a 
chance, I want to, you know, push you a little bit on the 
evidentiary standard as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Pingree. Because I greatly appreciate the training and 
the thought you are giving to this, but we will get a chance to 
work on that and talk to you about that as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Good.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Pingree, and thanks 
for your advocacy on this important issue.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    And thank you, Secretary McDonough, for appearing before 
the committee today to discuss your FY 2023 budget request.
    As a veteran who represents a sizable veteran population in 
middle and Southwest Georgia, I appreciate your service to our 
Nation and to veterans.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. I am looking forward to hosting you in 
Columbus, Georgia, for the opening of the new state-of-the-art 
Poydasheff clinic. The veterans in Columbus and the 
Chattahoochee Valley deserve the finest health care we can 
offer them. I am glad to know that they will be getting this 
new state-of-the-art clinic that they can use for decades to 
come.
    I supported the VA MISSION Act that required your 
department to provide recommendations to the AIR Commission, 
and I believe the department has made a good-faith effort in 
conducting market analyses that compared the current health 
capacity to the expected future needs.
    However, the Government Accountability Office recently 
published a report that identified several shortcomings in the 
data collection methods that were used because they were not 
done before the pandemic. I am sorry. They were not done since 
the pandemic.
    Secretary McDonough. Right.
    Mr. Bishop. So while we know that such decisions will need 
to be made, we can only properly do so if we know that the data 
is reliable and predictive.
    Can you commit to following through on the GAO's 
recommendations to improve the completeness of that community 
are data and communicate to the commission the information 
about that data's reliability and any updates used in the 
assessments?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bishop.
    I really look forward to the trip down to Georgia myself. I 
really appreciated the time we got to spend together last 
month.
    You know, I appreciate the GAO study. I had actually 
commissioned a red team to look at the market assessments a 
couple of months before the GAO study red team of health care 
experts, both VA health care experts as well as general health 
care experts, because my fear was that the market assessment 
data was dated, so much of it going back to 2019.
    That red team told me and told us, and I shared it with our 
committees, you all and the authorizers, that indeed as we 
feared, the data is dated.
    And so, without any other option, because there was no 
delay option in the statute, the statute is quite clear on what 
we needed to do. We have devised a program, going forward where 
we will update that market assessment information and provide 
it concurrently to the commission as it is meeting.
    I wish I could have ensured I had the benefit of better 
data on which to make my recommendations, but you know, the 
statute being what it is, you know, I do not get to choose 
which laws I follow and which I do not. I had to proceed as I 
did.
    So I hope that we can and we intend to get them updated, 
timely information on which they can assess our 
recommendations, and so you have my commitment on that.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Let me shift quickly to the Carl Vinson VA Clinic in 
Dublin, Georgia.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Which recently had a lapse in sterilization 
protocol and exposed several thousand veterans, potential 
exposure----
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop [continuing]. To blood-borne illnesses, such as 
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Can you provide us with an update on how the VA 
responded, corrective measures or alternative service provided, 
provision that was given, any testing results and whether any 
of the veterans contracted illnesses and whether or not the 
facility's use was discontinued, and if so, when will that use 
resume?
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
    Yes, this was obviously a very troubling development, but 
as a highly reliable organization, we at VA got to the bottom 
of it.
    You know, we became aware of the potential challenging 
situation where sterile processing equipment was not used 
appropriately or was not deployed appropriately to, you know, 
clean surgical and other equipment, colonoscopy equipment, for 
example.
    We contacted every vet who would have gotten care and been 
exposed to that equipment in the window of concern. We have had 
many vets--I do not have the specific numbers, but I will get 
you those before the end of the day--how many vets have come in 
to get tested for the blood-borne illnesses that you just 
listed, and others to make sure that they were not exposed.
    So far, we have no evidence of anyone having contracted any 
of those diseases.
    Programming at the facility was suspended, but I am 
embarrassed to admit to you, Mr. Bishop, that I do not know if 
it has restarted. I believe it has, but I will get you that 
concrete answer also before the end of the day.
    But the sterile processing service had been suspended for a 
period. I think it is back now running again, and anybody who 
needed to be referred to a different facility or into the 
community in the meantime was accommodated obviously consistent 
with clinical best practice.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I think my time has expired.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Trone, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and please feel 
better, please.
    Secretary McDonough, it is wonderful to see you. We are so 
fortunate to have you leading the VA. I tell all my 
constituents we just got a homerun there. The time we spend 
together, unbelievable.
    The CBOC Congresswoman Pingree talked about, we toured a 
CBOC together, state-of-the-art. Just great to have these 
throughout the country.
    The work of the AIR Commission, that is going to be 
fantastic. The changes you will make adjust things like 
Congresswoman Lee brought up, since COVID, but work overall, we 
have got to get behind it, support it, and you know, be there, 
not be political on it, but just do what is right for our vets.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Mr. Trone. That is the story.
    I know it is not going to surprise you, but my questions 
focus on mental health. The new 988 line is fantastic, 
activated in July. It is especially important, given the Army 
lost more active-duty members to suicide in 2021 than we have 
since 2001. So we really need this 988.
    And my first question is your budget request states the 988 
expansion is going to lead to one and a half million more 
calls. What help can we do to help you?
    You need help on recruiting, you know.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Trone. Retaining employees.
    America is faced with this great resignation that we have 
seen. It is hard to get psychologists, psychiatrists, 
therapists, hard as the dickens to get them.
    You feel good about that and then also if you have to shift 
people, we have so many other important things that you are 
working on: suicide prevention.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Trone. How are you going to get it all done?
    And can we help if needed?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Secretary, if you could just 
pause for one moment, I have to quickly go vote in the 
Oversight Committee.
    Mrs. Lee, if you could take over the chair for a moment, 
the next person to ask questions will be me when we go around 
again, but I will be right back.
    Mrs. Lee [presiding]. Okay.
    Secretary McDonough. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank 
you, Mrs. Lee.
    And, Mr. Trone, it is great to see you. I really enjoyed 
our visit in Montgomery County and up into Frederick County. I 
think it was great.
    I think that CBOC in Gaithersburg is a classic example of 
the kind of access that I think everybody has been talking 
about from Mrs. Lee to Mr. Rutherford to Ms. Pingree, including 
that we are providing gender-specific care in that facility.
    There is not a full-time gynecologist, but there is 
gynecologic access and expertise specialization on a regular 
basis there.
    That is what our fastest growing demographic of women vets 
expects. That is why the President's budget anticipates the 
largest ever investment in gender-specific care for women vets. 
That is why he has asked for that money in this request. And I 
am really looking forward to the opportunity.
    On 988, you are right that our budget anticipates fully 
implementing the 988 switch-over. You know, some providers have 
begun using it. We will be fully switched over as of July 16 of 
this year.
    As you said, we expect call volume to increase 122 to 154 
percent, meaning the Veterans' Crisis Line could see an 
additional 835,000 to 1,054,000 calls for a total of as many as 
1.7 million calls.
    I have got to tell you this Veterans' Crisis Line, the team 
there, I am so proud of them. I am so impressed by them. That 
is very difficult work. Many have been doing that from home, 
you know, working all day, going upstairs with no distance from 
work, going straight to dinner, the dinner table.
    I cannot tell you how proud I am of them, how inspired I am 
by them.
    We began hiring up for this effort last year, and we need 
to increase our full-time equivalents or our workforce by 460 
people. We anticipate needing 2,568 employees on the Veteran 
Crisis Line.
    The way you guys can help us is to give us this budget. We 
have the money and the billets and the authorities in the 
budget to get it done, period, full stop. Next paragraph.
    You are absolutely right that also all of those other 
specialists, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, our 
counselors in our Vet Centers, which a Vet Center is an 
absolute gem where we are providing constant quick access to 
mental health care for our veterans.
    We just need more mental health professionals, and we have 
talked about this in this committee before. I have talked about 
it with the authorizers as well.
    We envision partnerships with HHS and with DOD, including 
through USO's, which I think is also in your district, Mr. 
Trone, to make sure that we are turning out more mental health 
care providers.
    Until we do that, we will just keep moving Peter and Paul 
among different health care facilities. They will go from DOD 
to VA to colleges and universities, to community hospitals. We 
just need more mental health professionals, and that is going 
to cost us money, and we have just got to get on it.
    Mr. Trone. And congratulations on eliminating the three 
copays also. That is another great step to get our vets 
comfortable to come in and say, ``I need some help.''
    Secretary McDonough. Agreed.
    Mr. Trone. So same problem it presents though, 
unfortunately.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Mrs. Lee, thank you very 
much.
    Mrs. Lee. You are welcome.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am back.
    And the gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Secretary, I think a few of us might have another round 
of questions and we should wrap up by 12:30, our planned end 
time, if that works for you.
    I want to begin by asking you, because I know you know that 
the committee is focused very seriously on increasing 
investments in women's health, and that has been a priority for 
you as Secretary.
    We need to ensure that the VA is dedicating funding 
specifically for women's needs. I am pleased to see the budget 
requests $757 million for gender-specific care and another $134 
million for the programmatic office.
    Can you talk about how this funding will be used to 
incentivize women veterans to get their care at VA, to make 
them feel their needs are met, to address longstanding concerns 
that women veterans have raised about issues like harassment at 
VA facilities, never mind the military sexual trauma that some 
of them have been through, and also the lack of providers?
    And then are you proposing efforts to expand the care and 
services that VA offers to women veterans with these resources, 
or is your focus more on outreach to women about the services 
that are available?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. So I think there is like a 
combination of if we build it, they will come, like we just 
talked a minute ago about a visit that I took with Mr. Trone 
and Senator Van Hollen to a CBOC right here in Gaithersburg, 
suburban Maryland, where we are providing mental health, 
primary care, gynecology services, mammography.
    So, there is a certain amount of this, and this is 
underscored in the President's budget, that we need to provide 
the services that women veterans want and need.
    So, the women's health programming budget allows us to 
invest in the technology, equipment, that is, and the people, 
so specifically, gender-specific care providers, to ensure that 
in our facilities we provide the services that women veterans 
want, one.
    Two: the context and the atmosphere in which we provide it 
is critically important. So sadly, very often we have found it 
productive to provide a separate entrance to the Women's Health 
Pavilion or the Women's Health Clinic so that women do not risk 
being cat-called or approached in saying, ``Hey, are you here 
with your husband?'' or, ``Are you here because your dad is a 
vet?'' when, in fact, the fastest growing demographic of 
veterans in the VA system are women veterans themselves.
    So the context in the environment, the milieu is important. 
The budget also recognizes that, and you know, as we saw in 
Gaithersburg, as we see in the D.C. VAMC, we have innovations, 
including separate entrances for women vets.
    I hope we quickly get to the day when that is not 
necessary, but it is still necessary now.
    Lastly, specific programming is also really important. So, 
for example, the budget envisions eliminating copays for birth 
control. It is crazy that we--it is a missed opportunity for us 
to demonstrate how much we want women veterans in our care if 
we continue to charge a copay for birth control.
    Relatedly, we have an antiquated way of how we fund 
assistive reproductive technologies, including IVF. So our 
budget envisions and plans for changing the current statute and 
practice that ties VA to DoD practice, that limits us to only 
providing assistance to married heterosexual couples and limits 
our ability to provide services to veterans with certain 
conditions.
    So we just have to do a better job of this.
    The last thing is we also envisioned fixing this 
permanently as a new authority rather than continuing to fix it 
year by year, recognizing fixing it year by year on your bill, 
on an appropriations bill; recognizing that the reproductive 
cycle does not happen on the fiscal year.
    And so we just have to get beyond the situation we find 
ourselves in.
    We are also, incidentally, looking at the model because I 
know that this continues to be a source of frustration for many 
women veterans.
    I hope that is responsive to the question, Madam 
Chairwoman.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, a thorough response. I 
appreciate it, and I appreciate your proposal to finally 
decouple the VA's IVF policy because it is inequitable. It does 
not make any sense, and we really have to make sure that across 
the board there is equity when it comes to access to health 
care for our veterans.
    Apparently, there is another vote that I have to go back to 
or with.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for five minutes. I will 
be back before your five minutes is up.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Secretary, there are more than 22,000 
veterans in Texas enrolled in the VA's Burn Pit Registry. About 
4,200 of these live in my district.
    On their behalf, I appreciate your continued efforts to 
address the needs of the veterans exposed to toxic substances. 
The additional investment of $225 million for claims 
processing, health care services, and research will do a lot of 
good for those people.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. What does the research show about the long-term 
health effects related to these toxic exposures?
    Is there a direct link between exposures and rare cancers?
    Are there chemicals that we know cause cancer?
    Do the VA and DoD cooperate on the search and investigation 
of this issue?
    And what have you learned from the review conducted last 
year on the process VA used to determine a service-connected 
condition?
    Secretary McDonough. Judge, thanks very much.
    Let me start with the Burn Pit Registry itself, which I 
think has been a source of frustration for many vets. I know it 
is a source of frustration for me.
    We have to do a better job of making sure that vets who 
sign up for the Burn Pit Registry get an opportunity; that we 
get in touch with them, and that we start getting data from 
them.
    I think too many have lingered without hearing from 
anybody. Oftentimes then those who do get an opportunity to be 
seen do not actually get a full clinical exam.
    So, we have announced over the course of these last couple 
of weeks that people who are on the registry and come in for an 
exam and want a full clinical exam, we will ensure that they 
get that. That will be a challenge, but I think we owe that to 
them.
    We are, I think, making good progress on a new model for 
how we establish presumptions. I anticipate sharing that new 
model with the committee later this spring.
    The model, we have finished our work on it internally at 
VA. We have now shared it with the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy at the White House, where they will use their 
independent expertise to validate, or not, our model for how we 
consider new presumptions for service connection of certain 
conditions with toxic exposure.
    An important part of that as it relates to your question 
about whether we collaborate with DoD, an important part of 
that is an interagency process run by the White House that 
includes DOD, VA, HHS, Labor, and sub-agencies or subcomponents 
of each of those departments around the one table.
    We have now met seven times since I have been here to make 
sure that we are sharing best available science, and we are 
generating new science to answer unanswered questions.
    And it is based on that collaborative basis rather than 
just waiting for National Academies of Science, Engineering and 
Medicine to give us literature reviews.
    We are leaning on that interagency group to generate 
additional science, and it is based on that that we are able to 
make the three presumptive connections that we did last year; 
sinusitis, rhinitis, and asthma.
    And it is partly based on that process that we are in the 
process of rulemaking on nine rare respiratory cancers. We 
anticipate finishing rulemaking here sometime in the near 
future. I have got to be careful what I say about the 
rulemaking process, I think. So, I will not say much more than 
that.
    But over the course of this year, we will also then look at 
lung cancers, brain cancers, and constrictive bronchiolitis. 
You know, we are developing new technology, by the way, to 
identify that very ill-defined though, debilitating, condition.
    Later this month in the New England Journal of Medicine, 
there will be a report from two of our clinicians and 
researchers about constrictive bronchiolitis and how we 
diagnose it.
    So, we are full speed ahead on this, Judge. I feel like we 
are making good progress on it, but my guess is you still hear 
some frustration from your vets in Texas and Round Rock, I know 
that I still hear frustration, and we will not rest until we 
get to the bottom of all these claims.
    Mr. Carter. You know, having experience with Agent Orange 
with my brother-in-law who was a Vietnam vet, a pilot in the 
Air Force, went on to be a Delta pilot, and retired from Delta.
    Then he got a brain cancer. They call it a ``ghost 
cancer.'' You find it in one part of your brain, you treat it, 
it seemed to disappear, and then it would pop up someplace 
else. So it was a lot of treatment.
    I mentioned to Kurt, my brother-in-law, or actually my wife 
mentioned to Kurt, could all of that be caused by Agent Orange? 
and it was the typical, I think, response from an awful lot of 
veterans, ``Oh, they never sprayed where I was. Don't worry 
about it.''
    And Kurt went to a VA website, and he saw the map of where 
the spray was. Tuy Hoa Air Force Base in Vietnam was the second 
heaviest area to protect the aircraft.
    So, then he looked at your sheet that tells you all of the 
little cancers that were available, and sure enough, and I 
cannot tell you what the--all I know is ``ghost cancer.'' It 
has been called that, but it was there.
    The fact that the VA came in, stepped in, and took over the 
medicine part of the treatment he was getting at Sloan 
Kettering, New York. It was great godsend to my brother-in-
law's family.
    Secretary McDonough. Great.
    Mr. Carter. He was one of the greatest guys I ever knew.
    And so, I commend you highly for the great things you did 
for Kurt Brown, my brother-in-law, but he was a typical 
American warrior. He just assumed he was not anywhere where 
that happened. He just had bad luck.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. But you were there for him, and I pray that a 
lot of people are assuming these burn pits are going to be 
questionable, but I am not sure. So, we have got to be on top 
of this so the guys who have something really bad wrong can 
have a place to go look.
    Secretary McDonough. That is right. I could not agree more, 
Judge Carter.
    And I'll just say one thing. Too often I hear the same 
thing that I heard about Mr. Brown, which is the vet assuming 
that ``oh, it did not happen to me,'' or, ``I do not want to go 
on because I might take somebody else's care,'' or, you know, 
``Somebody is worse off than me.''
    I urge our vets to please come file a claim and let us work 
this out. It is not going to come at the expense of anybody 
else. We will get to the bottom of it.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you for that. It is very great, sir.
    And in New York City it is a big problem because it is a 
big city.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. And the big VA place is over in Brooklyn. Very 
quickly we got service, and I was real happy about that.
    Secretary McDonough. That is great.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    And, Judge Carter, I appreciate your sharing your story 
about your brother-in-law. A lot more of this is pretty cut and 
dry about the impact. It would be hard to comprehend how burn 
pits could not have a detrimental impact on veterans.
    And I know the Secretary firmly agrees with that as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Absolutely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If there are any words I know I can 
put in your mouth, Mr. Secretary, it is those.
    Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree, you are recognized if you have a second round 
of questions.
    Ms. Pingree. Yes, I do. Yes, thank you so much.
    And, again, thank you for your continuing attention to our 
questions.
    One last thing on the MST. I just wanted to mention that we 
hear a lot of veterans about the lack of quality and their 
discomfort. With the Compensation and Pension Exams, 
particularly those that are not done through the VA, about ten 
percent look like they are done through VA providers. I know in 
Togus, in Maine, 106 exams were done by contract providers 
while just 22 were performed in house.
    I am sure some of that happens because you are trying to, 
you know, move the process more swiftly, but we hear from a lot 
of people who would really prefer if they had the opportunity 
to ask for their exam to be done in house by a VHA provider.
    So I want to get to another question. So I am just going to 
put that out there on the list of things like evidentiary 
standards, and I hope we can follow up and just pursue that.
    Secretary McDonough. You can count on that.
    Ms. Pingree. One thing I really want to get to is PFAS. It 
is a major issue in Maine right now. We have got a lot of 
challenges going in our agricultural sector because, frankly, 
we have been forward-thinking about looking for PFAS, and so we 
have seen a lot more than we wish we had.
    But we also know that happens on military installations, 
and we have the Brunswick Naval Air Station in my district. So 
we are familiar with some of the issues that could happen 
regarding military installations.
    I know the DOD has identified hundreds of these around the 
country that potentially have hazardous PFAS, and I just have 
concerns that we are not doing enough to address the exposure 
with the veteran populations who have served in these 
installations.
    You touched on the idea of the VA's new pilot model in your 
testimony for dealing with military environmental exposure, and 
it specifically mentioned that you are increasing your veteran 
outreach.
    But we hear a lot from veterans about the installation that 
they have served, at where they may have lived with their 
families, and that they have tested the facility for higher 
levels of PFAS. So, they are concerned about their own health.
    But could you expand a little bit on what the VA's efforts 
are to improve outreach and whether they will include outreach 
to PFAS exposed veterans?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. As it related to toxic exposure 
generally, we are trying to increase outreach, and that is 
through all of our standard ways, to include making sure that, 
for example, as I said, when somebody takes the step of filing 
for the Burn Pit Registry, that they see some result therefrom.
    I think in too few cases that has happened heretofore.
    So why do I not take for submission to you kind of what our 
comms plan is with veterans around toxics and around PFAS? That 
is one.
    Two: this is a major priority for the President. And he 
stood up for the first time in the Interagency Working Group on 
PFAS, and you can imagine that obviously EPA is a key mover and 
shaker in that, but so is DOD and so is VA.
    And we are working very closely with the Council on 
Environmental Quality and OSTP, as well as, you know, the DPC 
at the White House to make sure that as a government we are 
looking at this holistically.
    So we share your concern about it. We are trying to get our 
hands around it as a government and an administration 
holistically, and VA has a fundamental role to play in that as 
well.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I will follow up with those 
questions that we had for you. I know there are a lot of people 
who want to ask questions and your time is limited.
    So I yield back, but thank you so much.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. And I look forward to working with you on 
these issues.
    So thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    So, I just held a town hall last night, and one of the top 
questions, and I mean it came up a lot, was homelessness and 
obviously issues that we are having around the country.
    And I know that you cannot address all of them, but I am 
encouraged to see that the President's budget includes a total 
request of $2.7 billion for veterans' homeless programs.
    Can you elaborate a little bit on how the program or what 
the VA plans to use this funding increase for and specifically 
for veterans in rural areas like my district?
    I am specifically interested in continued investment in 
mental health and the HUD VASH program.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    This is a major priority for us. I know it is a major 
challenge for California. I know it is a challenge in 
Bakersfield.
    We have set a goal this year to get 38,000 veterans, 
homeless veterans, into permanent housing this calendar year.
    After January and February, we are at about 4,500. At that 
rate we will not meet my goal. I am told, but I have not yet 
seen the March numbers, but I am told that those numbers are 
accelerating off of the January because of Omicron, February 
coming out of Omicron, relatively slower months.
    That is the goal. The question is how do we do it. We have 
a strategy that I think has been proven over time and, in fact, 
proved by the fact that we were able to, as a country, reduce 
homelessness among veterans by half from 2009 to 2016. And we 
call that strategy Housing First.
    So, we have to get a vet under a roof before we can expect 
the vet to begin to address the issues that may have led him to 
be homeless in the first instance. As you say, mental health 
disorder, substance use disorder, joblessness, being involved 
or justice system involved, being involved with the justice 
system.
    Our whole strategy is to get a vet into housing first and 
then make sure that we provide the wrap-around services that 
help him stay in housing.
    Sometimes that means getting a veteran into a transitional 
house. So maybe get him into residential treatment for 
substance use disorder or get him into a ``Tiny House,'' as for 
example on a Greater Los Angeles facility in L.A., in West 
L.A., before we get him or her actually into permanent housing.
    The long pole in the tent on permanent housing, I am told, 
is not just housing stock. It is case managers to ensure that 
landlords understand that when a vet has a HUD-VASH voucher, 
that they can have the full faith and confidence in Uncle Sam 
meeting the obligations of that voucher.
    And too often we have landlords who are suspicious or 
misunderstand how the voucher works. So it has got to be 
incumbent on us to ensure that we explain, and when we do 
explain that to landlords, including in low housing, high 
demand areas like Southern California, it actually works.
    So, we have set a goal, and this will kind of cross into 
rural communities, too, to reduce the time it takes to exercise 
a voucher to 90 days. We want to make sure that in half of all 
cases where we get a vet into permanent housing by using a HUD-
VASH voucher, we execute that within 90 days.
    Now, that may strike you as slow. It does strike me as 
slow, but frankly, in some places, including L.A., for example, 
because of the complicated nature of both our programming and 
the Housing Authority's overlapping authorities, 90 days is 
pretty fast, which takes me to my last point.
    We just need to make sure that we are using all of our 
authority to get case workers on the street, on individual 
vets' cases, and that is in Bakersfield or in rural 
communities, and in L.A. proper.
    There is an authority that is available to us that says if 
we are not filling those case manager jobs with government 
employees, then we need to go fill them with contractors. So we 
are exercising that contract authority now in the hopes that 
that gets us more peopled on the street and, therefore, getting 
more people using their vouchers in a more timely way.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that, especially the contractor 
perspective because that was something that we really struggled 
with. I know we talked about that in previous hearings.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Valadao. So I appreciate the answer.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Trone, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just had one more quick follow-up. I have got a second 
CBOC up in Western Maryland, really in Hagerstown, in the heart 
of an areas where there is so much addiction and opioids and a 
lot of mental health distress, and most of my deaths come from 
that rural area.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Trone. I have 42,000 vets, and what does it take 
timewise, just a best guess, from taking a CBOC that has been 
there, that is kind of antiquated and they made a decision to 
close it and then opening up a brand new CBOC, which they made 
a decision to do so.
    What is the time frame it takes to do that?
    Secretary McDonough. It is a good question. Why do I not 
get you a piece of paper, Mr. Trone, that kind of lays out like 
not how a bill becomes a law, but you know, how a building 
becomes a new CBOC? We must have that, and that would be 
better, more informative than what I can give you. So, I will 
get you that today.
    Let me just ask for your help on one thing, and I raised 
this earlier. A lot of times the CBOCs are in leased buildings, 
so not even new buildings that we built or new buildings that 
are built that we then leased back.
    You might have heard Mr. Case talk about this, and you 
would have also heard--I forget who else raised this earlier. 
Oh, Mr. Valadao in Bakersfield.
    It is so frustrating. Once we get through our internal 
project-by-project prioritization list, which we have to work, 
you know, geography-by-geography. A lot of factors go into 
that. It is called the ``SCIP Process.''
    Once you get through that and then you want to go lease a 
building. We start all brand new because of the way we have to 
get legislative authorizations for each individual lease, and 
then CBO scores it in some outrageous fashion that ends up 
meaning that we are now 31 leases behind, going back to 2015, 
2016.
    So there is this big tail at the end of that process in a 
place like Hagerstown because of the way we do our internal 
business. That delays these buildings, you know, in some cases. 
In Honolulu, it was almost a decade. In Bakersfield, it is 
approaching a decade.
    And so we just have to fix that, and I think we can fix it 
on the toxic exposure bill that the Senate is now considering 
that you all voted on a couple of weeks ago, and I hope when 
that gets to conference or wherever that goes, and we can make 
sure that this lease fix is included in it.
    Mr. Trone. That would be a huge win. You do not have a 
business background. I have done hundreds of leases all over 
the country. I know what it takes from when you find a site to 
get it open, and it is a slow, tough process, and then you add 
government, God bless you, on top of that.
    So my concern in Hagerstown is I spoke to the folks and, 
you know, we are connected together. They have got one year 
left on the existing lease, and they are highly confident they 
will be open and running in 12 months.
    And I was a bit skeptical, and so I just want to make sure 
we do not have a loss of care, you know, if they cannot get 
this 12-month turnaround done.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Trone. And then I can maybe get an extension on the old 
lease so I can take care of my constituents.
    Secretary McDonough. We will make sure that there is no 
slip from cup to lips there, Mr. Trone. I will look into this 
specifically.
    Once all the rigmarole is worked out, we are highly 
efficient at getting into the new building. So let me just 
check into it, and I will get back to you, but I am confident 
that I can give you assurance that we are not going to have a 
slip from cup to lips there. We will make sure that there is no 
loss of services.
    Mr. Trone. Awesome. That is all I have.
    I yield back. Thank you, sir.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Slip from cup to lips. Is that a 
Minnesota expression, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary McDonough. I think I got that from my mother who 
is from South Boston. So I think that might be Boston.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is not a Long Island 
expression. I will tell you that. [Laughter.]
    Thank you.
    Okay. Excuse me. Let me get may act back together here.
    Secretary McDonough. Too much talk about Long Island.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know. You can never talk about 
Long Island too much.
    Okay. Mr. Rutherford, we are not going to talk about Long 
Island. We will talk about Jacksonville now.
    Mr. Rutherford. All right.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are recognized.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And do you know what? I have to say I have always 
considered it a great pleasure to serve with Mr. Trone because 
he is so focused on mental health, and I can tell you as a 
former police officer, I too have had a great focus on mental 
health almost my entire adult life as a result of what I had to 
deal with.
    Secretary McDonough. I bet.
    Mr. Rutherford. So when I came to Washington, one of the 
main focuses that I had was actually helping our veterans with 
their mental health issues and get the PAWS Act passed so that 
these therapy dogs could help our veterans.
    We succeeded finally. Maybe it took Mr. Trone coming up 
here to get it done for us, but we got that passed, and I know, 
Mr. Secretary, that this is a concern of yours, too.
    And so I know February 21st was supposed to be kind of like 
the go live date for implementation of this program. It looks 
to me like we are running a little behind. Now, I know they 
said, well, they have selected some sites, but we do not have 
any agreements, contractual agreements, signed yet.
    And I know this is of interest to you as well.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. So, can you tell me how much longer do you 
think it will be before we can actually start these programs 
and start helping our veterans?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. You know, the President's budget 
envisions obviously fully funding the PAWS Act, fully funding 
the Sergeant Fox local grant program, I think, which is enacted 
in the John Scott Hannon mental health bill a couple years ago.
    These kinds of innovative, new, community-level programming 
options are really exciting opportunities for us. We see them 
as such, but we are also relatively new at grant making of this 
type in those communities. So we have been quite deliberate 
about it.
    We, I think, just announced a week before last the five 
pilot sites.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Secretary McDonough. I think you are right that we have not 
yet then landed the contracts from RFIs, or RFPs, in those five 
sites.
    I am embarrassed to say this now for the third time. I do 
not have the answer to this specific question for you, but I 
will get you that answer today as to when we can expect those 
awards to be made in those five pilot sites, and then 
importantly, when we can expect the programming to start.
    So, I will get you that answer by the end of the day today.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, because I have a lot of 
people, you know, in Jacksonville particularly because we have 
Canines for Warriors, which is in my district.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. And they are very active, and we are eager 
to go to start helping, you know, our veterans around the 
country.
    Secretary McDonough. Great.
    Mr. Rutherford. But thank you very much.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
    I think my own window is closing in a moment. I am trying 
to hold it together here.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Okay. Hopefully, this will not be the full five 
minutes.
    But thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    As former chairwoman of the Technology Modernization 
Subcommittee, I obviously felt very strongly about the rollout 
of the Electronic Health Records Modernization, and since your 
12-week review last year, we have seen the rollout in Spokane 
still has some continued difficulties.
    I know you inherited this problem, and we certainly do 
appreciate your team's regular updates on this issue, but some 
problems still remain, and we need to ensure that the VA 
addresses them quickly and effectively, especially with these 
Go Live from Walla Walla and Ohio coming on this spring.
    And so I just wanted to ask how does the FY 2023 request of 
$1.76 billion account for the ongoing issues we have seen in 
the rollout at Mann-Grandstaff in Walla Walla.
    Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thanks very much.
    So this is a slightly smaller request than I think was 
anticipated in the initial. So the first thing is it recognizes 
that the rollout is much slower because of how challenging 
Mann-Grandstaff has been.
    Let me just say publicly again how much I appreciate the 
work of our team on the ground in Mann-Grandstaff. They have 
done really important work in helping the rest of us understand 
the nature of this challenge.
    The second thing is we just had three more IG reports. We 
have closed those recommendations back to the IG in Mann-
Grandstaff, but we are still going to keep learning from that, 
and we are staying in touch with the Mann-Grandstaff team.
    I know they just testified in the House yesterday, many of 
them, along with Walla Walla professionals, and I know a Deputy 
will be going out there soon to meet with them, I think, later 
this month.
    Third, Walla Walla is only ten days in, but it is going 
actually on the higher end of expectations. That does not mean 
it has been flawless, but we are rolling, and that is because 
we learned the lessons from Spokane.
    And the same will be true in Columbus at the end of this 
month, and then as we go to new facilities after that.
    But what we are going to do is let the data and the 
expertise drive this. We are not going to try to force some 
timeline.
    We are going to try to learn lessons, and between, you 
know, Kurt DelBene as our Assistant Secretary for OI&T and Dr. 
Terry Adirim as our Program Lead, we are taking this very, very 
seriously.
    We are learning the right lessons, and we will stay on top 
of it.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    And then, you know, back in my facilities in the district, 
I have been hearing a lot of concerns and struggles with 
outdated IT infrastructure. This has resulted in difficulty 
being able to deliver services to veterans, but also has opened 
up the VA to cyber vulnerabilities.
    In fact, I recently just introduced a bill to improve VA 
cybersecurity.
    How does your budget request aim to secure these much 
needed technological upgrades at the VA in advance of these 
further rollouts?
    Secretary McDonough. Yes, thanks very much.
    So, we are asking for $400 million for cyber. It is an $80 
million increase over last year. So, this is a very serious 
priority for us.
    We are obviously instituting the President's plan for us to 
get to Zero Trust architecture. We will not do that all in this 
budget, but we will get a good way down that chain.
    And, you know, we have had important but modest increases 
in IT infrastructure over the course of the last couple of 
years. This includes important upgrades of the kind of material 
that you have had frustrations within your district.
    And importantly, the Infrastructure Modernization Program 
is funded by this request as well. So it is a big priority for 
us.
    We, frankly, need to continue those increases in the out-
years, but we feel good about this request.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    And that is all I have. Thank you for your time.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mrs. Lee.
    Mr. Secretary, that concludes our budget hearing, and we 
just really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
    I have to commend you on how thorough your responses have 
been, how responsive your responses have been. That is not 
always the case in this budget hearing.
    And sometimes these hearings are a wrestling match, and 
instead this one was collaborative like it should always be.
    Secretary McDonough. Great.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, on behalf of the committee, we 
appreciate it. I am sure that we will have more questions in 
the future and look forward to working with you as we move the 
MilCon VA chair's mark through the process.
    Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. With that, you are welcome.
    And I thank all the members for their well wishes and 
understanding my spluttering.
    So with that, the hearing stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                         Wednesday, April 27, 2022.

MEETING VETERANS' FULL NEEDS: UPDATE ON WOMEN'S HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH, 
                    HOMELESSNESS, AND OTHER PROGRAMS

                               WITNESSES

ERICA SCAVELLA, M.D., ASSISTANT UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR CLINICAL 
    SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DAVID CARROLL, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND 
    SUICIDE PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
PATRICIA HAYES, PH.D., CHIEF OFFICER, OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH, 
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
BENJAMIN KLIGLER, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PATIENT CENTERED 
    CARE AND CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee is called to order.
    This is a hybrid hearing, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For the members joining virtually, once you start speaking, 
there is a slight delay before you are displayed on the main 
screen. Speaking into the microphone activates the camera, 
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your 
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch; 
however, if the screen does not change after several seconds, 
please make sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being displayed, we ask that you remain on mute unless you 
have sought recognition. Myself, or staff I designate, may mute 
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition 
to eliminate inadvertent background noise.
    Members who are virtual are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you 
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request 
so you are no longer muted.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    I am really thrilled to actually be here together in person 
and to see everyone's smiling faces. I really apologize for my 
tardiness. I was attending the funeral of Secretary Madeleine 
Albright, and I appreciate everybody's understanding, 
especially our witnesses.
    Today's hearing will give us a chance to hear from the 
experts leading some of VA's critical program offices.
    I am pleased to welcome for the first time before the 
subcommittee Dr. Erica Scavella, Assistant Under Secretary of 
Health for Clinical Services. She is accompanied by Dr. David 
Carroll, Executive Director of the Office of Mental Health and 
Suicide Prevention; Dr. Patricia Hayes, Chief Officer of the 
Office of Women's Health; and Dr. Benjamin Kligler, Executive 
Director of the Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural 
Transformation.
    We are glad to have you all here with us today to discuss 
the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2023 and how it 
affects these critical programs.
    As I said to the Secretary at our last hearing, it is 
really heartening to see this budget invests in so many key 
areas that make a difference in the lives of veterans. This 
hearing will give us a chance to dive deeper into those areas 
and discuss how the budget anticipates supporting further 
efforts to meet all of our veterans' needs, as well as how the 
committee's work in these areas has had an impact over the past 
several years.
    In fiscal year 2022, we provided $840 million for gender-
specific care and women's health programs, an increase of $111 
million over the comparable fiscal year 2021 number. We 
provided $13.2 billion for mental health programs, an increase 
of $2.9 billion above the prior year. And homelessness programs 
were increased by $246 million, for a total of $2.2 billion.
    I am so proud, as I think we all are, to have led the 
subcommittee in investing in these critical programs that have 
seen such a significant expansion of need. This is a 
subcommittee that has been very intentional about the 
investments that we have made in these important programs. I 
think many of us for many years observed traditional attempts 
to help improve the health and quality of life of our veterans 
to not nearly as much success as these programs most definitely 
do.
    So, for example, we have women who are the fastest-growing 
demographic of veterans seeking care at the VA. We absolutely 
must make sure that there are care teams in place to meet their 
needs, that facilities are safe and welcoming spaces, and that 
veterans feel truly welcome in a healthcare system that values 
them.
    We need to reach a point at which women's healthcare is not 
an afterthought but an intrinsic, well-planned part of the 
basic healthcare delivery system. And I have been encouraged by 
the progress that VA has made in this area in recent years, and 
I look forward to hearing more about what is to come.
    We have also seen increased need in mental health programs 
and homelessness programs, as veterans continue to be at too 
great a risk for unstable housing, suicide, and substance 
abuse. The pandemic exacerbated many of these issues, and while 
the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan Act gave VA needed 
resources to boost them through the darkest days of the 
pandemic, there will clearly be a lasting impact on our 
veterans in years to come.
    So I look forward to discussing how we can sustain those 
efforts and ensure that we continue to make progress in 
addressing these challenges.
    And I am also pleased to know that today's hearing will 
give us a chance to hear about some of VA's forward-looking 
initiatives, like the Whole Health program, which I know is of 
great interest to many of the members of this subcommittee.
    This subcommittee has sought to give VA resources to 
steadily expand the Whole Health program to additional sites so 
that more veterans can benefit from its approach to a model of 
care that goes beyond treating the physical symptoms of 
diseases and considers the physical, mental, emotional, 
spiritual, and environmental needs of veterans as well. This 
approach has been shown to have significant benefits for 
veterans and has the potential to reduce healthcare costs 
overall.
    So thank you all for being here today, for your service to 
our Nation's veterans. I am looking forward to a dynamic 
conversation.
    And I am now pleased, in person, to yield to our ranking 
member and my dear friend, Judge Carter, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it sure is nice to 
be recognized today when we aren't wearing masks. And, you 
know, we miss the smiles and everybody's smiles.
    Thank you for scheduling this hearing.
    We all hear from our veterans about their healthcare, about 
the facilities, about what they think is good, what they think 
is not good. It is time for us to dig in to some of those 
things. And I think we are doing a great job, though we can 
always do better. In fact, in any human endeavor, there are 
always things you can do better if you work at it.
    So thank you. You are our expert witnesses. We are very 
proud and happy to have each of you here to keep us informed. 
And let's work on issues that we might all make better.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    As I don't see Chair DeLauro or Ranking Member Granger, we 
will certainly go to them if they arrive at any point in the 
meeting.
    So, Dr. Scavella, your full written testimony will be 
included in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes to 
summarize your remarks.
    Dr. Scavella. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My 
colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how VA 
provides a unified approach to veteran care by leveraging all 
of our capabilities, including those in women's health, mental 
health, homelessness, and whole health.
    I am accompanied today by Dr. Benjamin Kligler, Executive 
Director, Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural 
Transformation; Dr. Patricia Hayes, Chief Officer, Women's 
Health; and Dr. David Carroll, Executive Director, Office of 
Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.
    Our commitment in VA is to protect, promote, and restore 
veterans' health and well-being, to empower and equip them to 
achieve their life goals, and to provide state-of-the-art 
treatments as needed.
    VA provides a continuum of forward-looking outpatient, 
residential, and in-patient services across the country. Our 
services are integrated in order to assure that a veteran is at 
the center of their care and that they receive those services 
when and where they need them. Both physical and mental health 
issues, including opioid and substance use disorders, require 
integrated and veteran-centric approaches to treatment.
    Our Nation's veterans are strong, capable, valuable members 
of society, and it is imperative that we ease their transition 
back into civilian life and provide them with continued support 
over their lifetime.
    VA is leading the Nation in transforming the healthcare 
system from a system designed around episodes of illness and 
disease management to one that is based on partnership between 
the veteran and VHA to ensure that they receive the benefits 
that they are entitled to. We are focused on whole health to 
ensure that the veteran receives the care that they deserve.
    We recognize that our Nation's veterans experience 
difficult times, and, since its launch in 2007, the Veterans 
Crisis Line has answered nearly 5.9 million calls, responded to 
over 704,000 text messages and chats, and has responded in time 
to ensure that we are rapidly and actively responding to 
veterans in need.
    We are simplifying access to the Veterans Crisis Line 
effective this July by limiting and reducing the numbers that 
need to be dialed to a 988 emergency phone number that can be 
reached for veterans who are in crisis. They reach out using 
the 988 line, and then they press ``1'' to receive the VA.
    We also launched the Keep It Secure national campaign, 
focused on lethal means safety related to the safe storage of 
firearms, targeting the majority of veterans who actually use 
firearms as the way to commit suicide. So we know that if we 
can put time between their access to their firearm by keeping 
it locked up, keeping the ammunition in a different location, 
and give them time between that thought and that action, that 
we can save lives.
    With your guidance and support, VA has worked diligently to 
address VA's most pressing social need, which is homelessness. 
Secretary McDonough has committed to housing 38,000 veterans in 
permanent housing this year, and we are working to make that a 
reality.
    We have some innovative programs, including the Supportive 
Services for Veteran Families, to provide emergency housing 
when needed and also to look at some nontraditional ways of 
encompassing those things that place veterans at risk for 
homelessness.
    We also provided housing in the form of individualized 
residential facilities, as opposed to congregate settings, to 
make sure that our veterans were protected against COVID-19. 
And we also vaccinated over 108,000 veterans during this time 
period while veterans were facing homelessness. So we were able 
to make impact both in ensuring their safety in the housing and 
also providing them vaccinations.
    VA remains committed to ending veteran homelessness by 
ensuring that every veteran has permanent, sustainable housing, 
with access to high-quality healthcare. And we have programs in 
place to address the other things that do affect our veterans 
when they are facing homelessness, such as employment, the 
ability to be contacted, and the ability to take care of their 
families.
    Our Whole Health program is also expanding. Our initial 
evaluation at 18 initial flagship facilities addresses the 
national epidemics of chronic pain and opioid use, and we have 
demonstrated that there has been a decrease in use through the 
use of our Whole Health techniques. Dr. Kligler will give more 
about that during his testimony.
    Finally, we know that women are choosing VA and that, since 
2001, we have increased our enrollment from just over 159,000 
veterans to over 600,000 veterans who are women. We know that 
we must continue to address the needs of this population as we 
provide care.
    VA has a goal to reach all veterans where they are to 
provide the care that they need at the place that they are in 
their lives. We are committed to providing the world-class care 
that they are entitled to. And we look forward to answering 
your questions during this hearing.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:] 
    
    
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    Mr. Trone [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Scavella, very much 
for that testimony.
    To lead off, Ranking Member Carter, would you like to go 
first?
    Mr. Carter. Go ahead.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
    Thanks to the witnesses for joining us today and to Chair 
Wasserman Schultz and Ranking Member Carter for holding this 
hearing intrinsic to women's health and well-being.
    As you all know, substance use disorder among our veterans 
is very high. The VA budget request notes that over half a 
million vets were seen last year in VA facilities for a 
substance use disorder. The request also notes that the number 
of VA providers who had the X waiver to prescribe medication 
for opioid use disorder has increased by almost 20 percent 
since 2020.
    Dr. Carroll, how does the number of providers in the VA 
health system who are waivered compare with the number that 
should be waivered in order to ensure we have enough providers 
to prescribe this medication?
    Mr. Carroll. Thank you for the question, sir. We would be 
happy to get back to you on the record with the specific 
numbers, in terms of waivers.
    But just to put it within context, we are continuing to 
move forward with our implementation of evidence-based, 
clinical-practice-guideline-concordant care, which includes, 
you know, prescribers, which includes moving out our care for 
substance use disorder and opioid use disorder out of specialty 
clinics into primary care clinics, and we have seen an increase 
in the amount of prescribing.
    Our opioid overdose education and naloxone prescribing 
program has been recognized nationally as a best practice by 
the Joint Commission and has received national awards.
    Mr. Trone. I think that is all good, but we have to get 
back--the X waivers, we have to get that going. I was just in 
Atlanta for an addiction conference all week last week. And so 
what barriers exist there in getting additional providers on 
the X waiver?
    Mr. Carroll. We are working with our other Federal partners 
across the system, all of the other Federal Cabinet-level 
agencies, to have appropriate regulation and licensing and so 
forth for that legislation as well.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. We would encourage you to continue to 
focus on the X waiver to eliminate that.
    It is critical also, as you mentioned, that primary care 
providers be able to provide medication for opioid use disorder 
so patients don't have to wait for an appointment with a 
specialist to get started. How is the VA integrating treatment 
for substance use disorder into primary care?
    Mr. Carroll. That has been our SCOUTT initiative, which is 
moving our opioid use treatment out of specialty care, as I 
said, into our primary care clinics. That program was started a 
number of years ago, and it continues to increase every year.
    We are also expanding our care for substance use disorder 
and opioid use disorder overall by hiring additional staff to 
focus on getting peer support available for veterans out in 
primary care clinics and our residential programs, working on 
our supported employment programs so we are treating the whole 
veteran, not just a particular condition, but also making sure 
that they can get back into or maintain stable employment 
during that time.
    Mr. Trone. That is great. Those peer supports are so 
important.
    The last question. The VA budget request notes that, last 
year, on average, 31 days passed between when a vet was 
determined to need residential treatment for substance use 
disorder and when they were admitted as an in-patient. I mean, 
I think we can do better than that.
    So talk to us about how we are going to do better than 31 
days. When someoneis ready to go, we have to be able to have a 
spot for them to go.
    Mr. Carroll. We agree, sir, and that is of great concern to 
us.
    There have been a number of challenges this year, or the 
last couple of years, with the COVID pandemic. It has affected 
our residential programs, in particular, in terms of making 
sure that they are safe for veterans and that we have the 
staff.
    And, also, the days between screening and admission, we 
focus on what the veteran needs and making sure that they have 
the time to get their life in order if they need time to come 
into our programs, but to make sure that we can do it safely 
and that we have the staff available to take care of them.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I yield to Judge Carter for your questions.
    Mr. Carter. I thank you.
    Just to do a quick follow-up, a curiosity, as I listen to 
what your testimony was. Do you have any indication, that 31-
day delay, how many people committed suicide?
    Mr. Carroll. We don't have that specific information, sir. 
We don't track that. We track all-cause mortality. But we would 
be happy to look at the data and see if we can break it down by 
cause of death. But our suicide death data tends to run--you 
know, it is not in real-time, necessarily. But we are tracking 
that very carefully.
    Mr. Carter. Just curious.
    Mr. Carroll. Yeah.
    Mr. Carter. You know, when you have an addiction and you 
are all messed up and then they tell you, ``Wait,'' that can be 
tough. But I realize you all have done a great job on wait time 
on an awful lot of things, and you are commended for that. 
Because I have been around for a while, and I remember.
    You know, in Texas, we have about 22,000 veterans enrolled 
in the Burn Pit Registry. I have 4,200 of them in my two-county 
district, in my current district. I appreciate the proposed 
increases for programs and research related to military 
environmental exposures within fiscal year 2023.
    Explain how the VA intends to do additional funding, or if 
this additional funding is provided, what are you going to do 
about research? Do you believe veterans are aware of the Burn 
Pit Registry, or is more outreach needed? And how does the VA's 
previous research inform the VA's decisions to expand 
presumptive conditions related to environmental exposure?
    Dr. Scavella. Thank you for that question.
    We are committed to ensuring that we are looking at these 
concerns, and our clinicians are trained to evaluate symptoms 
that would present and that patients may describe when they are 
seeing their providers at VA. So we are able to do both the 
diagnosis and determine what course of treatment they should 
proceed with.
    In addition to that, related to your second question about 
service connection specifically, we are looking at those 
presumptive disorders to determine how they should be 
evaluated, and we do have services in place to do those 
evaluations. That does take place under the benefits arm of 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
    I am going to pause and see if Dr. Hayes has anything to 
add to that.
    Ms. Hayes. Certainly.
    Thank you, Representative Carter.
    I think one of your questions is how we let veterans know. 
We have had a very active campaign, particularly for women 
veterans, to get the word out to their providers, to the VSOs, 
that we need to focus on trying to get that word out each 
time--for example, the first round of presumptives we brought 
out, we did a major campaign--posters, social media. We want 
the veterans to know.
    And we want them to understand the two parts of it: that 
the Burn Pit Air---what we call the Airborne Hazards Registry 
is an important part for them to sign up for and to get those 
tests and evaluations, and it contributes--they contribute to 
the overall research that will lead us to understanding what 
has happened to these veterans with the airborne hazards.
    But the other part is us training up the primary care 
providers to understand that these things are out there, that 
we need to get veterans tested, evaluated, and maybe they need 
pulmonary testing, lung tests.
    This is the training that we are doing for the veterans who 
are in our system. But we are doing a lot of outreach to let 
other veterans know to come in and get these services.
    Mr. Carter. A question I have been curious about: I have 
had some Marines and soldiers tell me that burning the sewage 
and the waste was a punishment tour.
    Ms. Hayes. Wow.
    Mr. Carter. Somebody got mad at you and made you go burn 
that stuff.
    What area does a burning burn pit affect people? Do you 
have any idea?
    Dr. Scavella. So we are doing a lot of research in this 
area, as you heard. We have some presumptive diagnoses at this 
point. However, there are some other concerns that we are 
looking into to ensure that we have a full understanding about 
all the risks of the different types of products that were 
being included in these burn pits. And we do have some 
presumptive diagnoses already in place, but we are continuing 
to partner with our research colleagues to continue to look at 
this.
    But the most important thing I think is that, while we are 
trying to determine some of the causality related to this, that 
we are providing the care that the veterans need, that they 
have earned, and that they have a right to by ensuring that our 
providers are both taking care of them in primary care, which 
is typically the area that they seek us initially, and then we 
refer out to specialists, sub-specialists, as necessary, to 
provide them the care that they have earned.
    Mr. Carter. And I am sure that a soldier knows more than I 
do, but the reason I ask that question is, if you are out in 
the field fighting a war and you are in a group camp someplace, 
there is waste disposal that takes place, and it is typically 
burn pit. Also, big areas have big burn pits. And so the 
question that is going to come up in a soldier's mind is, was I 
ever close to that burn pit?
    My brother-in-law just died from brain cancer, and he was 
convinced he had never had any Agent Orange until he finally 
looked at the map, and Tuy Hoa Air Force Base was treated every 
3 days. But he had no idea; he was flying. And his brain cancer 
was covered. And the VA came through like champs for him, so I 
commend you for it. But he just assumed, because he was flying, 
he wasn't affected by Agent Orange--and it wasn't true--because 
they were keeping people away from that Air Force base with 
that Agent Orange.
    So I guess we need to--the soldiers are generally going to 
make presumptions that they were either too close or not close 
enough, and you have to get them educated. Because these 
cancers are all serious cancers. And you can't count them after 
they get it; you have to count them before they get it so maybe 
you can do something about it.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you, Judge Carter. 
And I am sorry for your loss.
    So I want to focus on women's health. We have endeavored in 
this subcommittee to really lean in on making sure that, given 
that women are the fastest-growing group of veterans served by 
the VA, that it was really important. Because, a few years ago, 
the services provided by the VA were haphazard, woefully 
inadequate, and certainly not focused on gender-specific care. 
So that has changed significantly, and that is to the credit of 
the team of people here.
    In fiscal year 2022, we specifically provided $840 million 
for gender-specific care and programmatic efforts to enhance 
women's health. That was an increase of $30 million above the 
budget request. Again, I know we are all proud of that and it 
was very intentional.
    So, Dr. Hayes--if you don't mind if I ask Dr. Hayes 
questions directly--what are some of the efforts that this 
additional funding are enabling you to under take to improve 
women's healthcare?
    And I would also just like to know, sort of in subheading 
questions, given widespread healthcare provider shortages, have 
you had a problem staffing your gender-specific care programs--
you know, the women's health program managers and other 
administrative staff?
    Ms. Hayes. Madam Chair, thank you for your interest and for 
your questions about women's health and our women veterans as 
we serve.
    As was noted, we have this large increase in women, and we 
have been very excited to have the increase in the budget that 
has allowed us to launch some major programs addressed at the 
gaps in women's healthcare.
    So, in 2021 and 2022--and, as you mentioned, the 2022 
budget--over the last years, we have executed $150 million that 
went directly out based on the field's request for the funds. 
The primary focus of that money has been hiring providers, 
including primary care providers, gynecologists, also some 
mental health providers, nurses, and other support staff.
    The second wave of funding that we were able to get out was 
able to help us fix gaps in equipment. And by equipment for 
women, we are thinking about upgrading the mammography 
equipment to state-of-the-art, getting things like new DEXA 
scan equipment, but not only that. We are paying attention to 
things like women with low mobility, our spinal-cord-injured 
veterans, and making sure that the exam tables, the clinic 
appointment, et cetera, is fitting their needs.
    So we have continued this. Every sixth month, we roll out 
another program request, meaning you have to keep up if you are 
out there in the field. You have to be regularly assessing, 
what do you have? Where are your gaps? Because the number of 
women coming in is so high--about 3 in 10 of the folks who come 
in the door are women--and so we are regularly saying, 
``Assess, ask, assess, implement, you know, get the money, make 
sure you are continuing to go.''
    So we funded, as I said, 813 staff out of the last 2 years. 
We expect the funding budget for this particular part of the 
program--which we call WHISE, Women's Health Innovation and 
Staffing Enhancement. The funding for the WHISE program for 
next year is going to be about $107 million. And we are 
challenged to implement that fast enough, to execute it fast 
enough. So we are running as fast as we can in that area.
    You point out a very important issue, which is in primary 
care, which is the majority of these providers. There is an 
ongoing shortage in primary care providers. There is an ongoing 
retirement. There aren't enough people in medical school. You 
know all these things we are telling you in the healthcare in 
the U.S. So, yes, we are challenged.
    We have exercised every recruitment advantage that we can. 
We are not just sort of letting the places out there try and do 
it all on their own, but we are using the VA HR recruitment 
offices, which have a high level of effort going out there.
    We are basically enhancing the message that, if you would 
like to take care of women, there are women in the VA to take 
care of. I think part of the thing that we have had to try and 
overcome is the message that people have had for a long time 
and the idea that everyone who is in the VA as a patient is a 
male. And so just trying to convince people in medical 
schools--we go to medical conferences, we go to large-scale 
events to try and get that message out.
    We still have some gaps, and one of the ways that we 
continue to address the gaps is to train our primary care 
providers who are maybe not taking care of women through our 
mini-residency program. We give them intensive training to 
upgrade their skills to take care of women.
    So, yes, there are concerns. We are continuing to push the 
recruitment. But that is an ongoing challenge for all of us, so 
we are just going to continue to work on it.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Not that we don't love our male 
primary care providers, but, you know, it is important to be 
able to be treated by someone who maybe is living your 
experience personally as well as who has treated your patient 
type, you know, for a length of time.
    What I am going to do--I am just going to ask one other 
quick question. And then they are going to call votes at about 
3:30, and there are 10 of them. So I don't want to leave the 
witnesses waiting to have us come back for a second round. So 
we will try to quickly go through our first round, and then we 
will do tight second-round remarks until we have to go. Okay?
    All right. Thank you.
    So the other thing I just wanted to ask you about is the 
construction projects. VA is prioritizing maintenance and 
construction projects that expand access to gender-specific 
care for women veterans. But if you could both, Dr. Scavella 
and Dr. Hayes, give us an update on what VA is doing to ensure 
that facilities are designed to meet the needs of our women 
veterans.
    I mean, I know I have been in a lot of VA facilities where, 
you know, the population is combined, it is really 
uncomfortable. And it is getting better, but do you feel like 
facility improvements for gender-specific care are getting 
adequate prioritization?
    Dr. Scavella. Thank you for that question. I will answer 
briefly and then pass it off to Dr. Hayes.
    But one of the things we are doing with new construction is 
ensuring that we have waiting rooms that are specifically for 
gender-specific care so that women are waiting in an area with 
other women for that particular care. We have found that they 
have enjoyed that and like that opportunity.
    So they have essentially a women's health suite in all of 
our new construction. In our older facilities, we are doing as 
best as we can to make dedicated areas----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And forgive me for interrupting you, 
but what percentage would you say have evolved to that finite 
gender-specific area?
    Dr. Scavella. That is a great question. I will actually 
have to take that one for the record. I don't know the answer 
to that question, unless Dr. Hayes happens to know it.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Dr. Scavella. I will pass off.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Ms. Hayes. About 50 percent of our facilities have 
dedicated women's clinics. We think that, because a woman needs 
to go everywhere in the facility, though, that we have to 
upgrade everything across the board, that someone feels welcome 
when they walk in the front door and they feel welcome when 
they go to cardiology or some other specialty clinic.
    So it is both a culture change and a major sort of attitude 
in culture change and it is a development of specific things 
like lactation support spaces and making sure that there are 
the right bathrooms and the family bathrooms and the various 
services that we need.
    We have recently developed reports on this for Congress as 
to what we have done with the budget in the last 2 years in the 
$20 million assigned in the budget for what I call welcoming 
spaces. We want women to have the sense of ``I belong here'' 
when they walk in the front door.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And prioritization?
    Ms. Hayes. Prioritization is part of that----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In terms of prioritizing gender-
specific construction.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes. In the major construction, the SCIP 
projects, projects that address the needs of women and the 
needs of privacy are given extra scoring in the SCIP projects. 
So, not only do they get more scoring, my team is involved in 
actually reviewing the SCIP projects so that we can assure 
that, yes, this project is going to help develop these gender-
specific areas. And, together, that gets a higher scoring than 
it would without those projects being focused on women.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
    I thank the members for your indulgence.
    And, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing.
    You know, my wife gets her care through the VA. I get my 
care through the VA. My oldest daughter gets her care through 
the VA.
    I just want to reiterate what the chairwoman said. It is 
great that we are putting resources towards it, but it would be 
even more powerful for us to see exactly where those resources 
are going to ensure that, like you mentioned, every healthcare 
facility has the resources needed for women in particular.
    I want to ask, to all panelists: You know, I represent 42 
percent of the border. And there was an article that came out 
earlier today about the VA being involved in the border crisis. 
And the question is, are any VA employees from your respective 
departments being diverted to assist with vaccinating or other 
services for migrants at the southern border?
    Dr. Scavella. I will take that question initially.
    I would have to get you specifics on that. We have 
supported the fourth mission, which is supporting the American 
healthcare system. So I can't specifically speak to that 
particular initiative per se. However, if there is a need to 
take care of other initiatives outside of Department of 
Veterans Affairs, we do have mission assignments.
    But we can get back to you specifically--unless any of my 
colleagues have any data?
    Okay. I didn't think so.
    So we can get that back to you. We can take that for the 
record.
    Mr. Gonzales. It is a very frustrating part on my end. I 
hosted my 10th delegation at the southern border on Monday, and 
I asked this specific question. I have asked it before to the 
VA; I have asked it to the administration. And they told me 
that there was none, you know, there was no plan in place. And 
then 2 days later I read this.
    So I want to make sure that--I understand the fourth 
mission. I support the fourth mission. I think all that is 
fantastic. I just want it to be transparent in what we are 
doing, so we can make sure that resources aren't diverted from 
the areas that are important; veteran care isn't going to be 
watered down in response to it.
    So thank you. I look forward to seeing your response.
    Dr. Carroll, as stated in the testimony, the CARES Act 
provided funding that the VA used to procure and distribute 
over 50,000 disposable smartphones.
    The question is, has veteran access to these smartphones 
made an impact in the amount of contacts to the Veteran Crisis 
Line?
    Mr. Carroll. So we do not--a veteran can contact the 
Veterans Crisis Line anonymously, so we do not track whether or 
not the individual calling is a veteran. We invite their 
revelation of that, or an Active Duty servicemember. Or we 
would not necessarily know if it is a smartphone that we 
distributed.
    But the smartphones I think were distributed by the 
homeless program, and Dr. Scavella can perhaps speak to that.
    Dr. Scavella. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Carroll.
    So, yeah, we did distribute over 59,000 smartphones in 
connection with our homeless program services. We wanted to 
make sure that we were providing the opportunity for veterans 
to both be contacted related to healthcare or mental healthcare 
issues, employment issues, and the other issues that typical 
people are contacted about related to obtaining a permanent 
place of residence. So we did issue over 59,000 smartphones in 
connection with that.
    We do recognize that veterans have multiple needs, so those 
experiencing homelessness may also be experiencing problems 
with mental health, healthcare conditions, as well as childcare 
needs. And so we do know and recognize that those phones may be 
used for multiple different things.
    But we are not necessarily tracking how people are 
contacting us. We just wanted to make sure that we provided a 
means of contact for those vulnerable populations as they were 
navigating homelessness, employment, and healthcare and mental 
healthcare issues.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no, I understand the initiative, and I 
think it is a valid initiative.
    I am a cryptologist by trade, and I look at data. You know, 
the data tells you the answer on what is happening. This 
subcommittee, in particular, has been very generous in the 
amount of support that it has given, and I think, for many of 
us, we just want to see what those results netted. So, that 
way, we can be able to go: Did it work? Did it not work?
    Not every program works, and some programs work better than 
others. And when you are making decisions on what is going to 
be appropriated or not, I want to be able to look back and go, 
these 59,000 phones equated to--fill in the blank. And, that 
way, we can go: Do we need more phones, or do we need to do 
something else, right? Do we need to use something else?
    So I would just once again say, that piece is critical as 
we go forward.
    I don't have time for another one, Madam Chair, and I want 
to be respectful of time, so I will yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you all for being here.
    Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for holding 
this.
    I want to focus specifically on veterans who die by suicide 
in the VA system. We know that we have a statistic of about 6.8 
for every 100,000 veterans. And I think we all recognize that 
is inexcusable, and the goal should be zero.
    My bill, Leave No Veteran Behind Act, was signed into law 
as part of the COMPACT Act in 2020, and it requires the VA to 
reach out to those veterans who had not been in contact within 
2 or more years.
    Dr. Carroll, I will address this to you. It has now been 
over a year since the COMPACT Act was signed into law. Could 
you talk about how the implementation is going? What concrete 
actions have been taken to reach out to veterans so far? And 
where do we stand in measuring the impact?
    Mr. Carroll. Ma'am, we would be happy to answer that 
question, and we appreciate your bill, but I am going to pass 
this to Dr. Scavella, who has had direct oversight of this 
particular piece of the legislation.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    Dr. Scavella. Thank you, Dr. Carroll.
    And thank you for that question.
    We are committed, first of all, to making sure that we 
provide the best care for our veterans. With regards to section 
204 of the COMPACT Act, we were required to contact vulnerable 
veterans who have not received care from us in the past 2 
years, as you stated.
    We identified 2.9 million veterans out of our 9.2 million 
enrolled veterans. And we reached out to those veterans 
initially via email and reached successfully approximately 
648,000 of them and then provided postal mail to the remaining 
approximately 2.2 million veterans.
    We are in the process of looking at those contacts to see 
who has responded by reaching out to schedule an appointment 
with us. And based upon that net of those who have not, we will 
be reaching out to them. This will be a field-based effort to 
reach out to them to ensure that they are invited to come in 
for an appointment.
    But we did identify 2.9 million veterans in that vulnerable 
cohort. Thank you for that.
    Mrs. Lee. Do you know how many of those 2.9 million have 
actually gone and accessed care after the contact?
    Dr. Scavella. So we are still in the process of looking at 
those numbers as we speak. I think we recently briefed some 
Members of Congress about this on Monday afternoon. We are 
looking to see where that net is at this point.
    We just completed the final mailing in February, and we are 
doing a lot of data review to ensure that we have the 
appointments made.
    That act, that requirement, it requires an employee to have 
access to the medical record to do that comparison.
    Mrs. Lee. Okay. Just, if there are any specific resources 
that we need to provide to make sure that all parts of that 
bill are implemented, could you let us know that?
    Dr. Scavella. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    Mrs. Lee. I also--and I don't know if--I have Dr. Carroll, 
but it might be you. I hope you understand or are familiar with 
the Zero Suicide Initiative and its track record across this 
country, including--it has been funded under a grant program 
with HHS.
    Are you open, Dr. Carroll, to exploring the feasibility and 
the effectiveness of a Zero Suicide model within the VA?
    Mr. Carroll. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, we are familiar, I am 
familiar with the Zero Suicide effort, and we have looked at it 
very closely.
    The Zero Suicide prevention program has seven pillars on 
which it is founded. And in reviewing the programs and services 
and approaches that we have within VA, we feel that we have 
efforts under way that address all seven of those pillars 
within our system.
    We are always open to looking at what more we can do, as 
Ranking Member Carter said. We are always ready to do more in 
our efforts, and so we will continue to monitor this and to see 
what else we can do.
    We are launching a grand challenge around suicide 
prevention in the month of May. That will be called Mission 
Daybreak, where we are actually looking at technological 
innovations that would support our early identification of 
veterans who may be at risk, who would help us enhance our 
Veterans Crisis Line work as well as advance the field of 
lethal means safety.
    So that is just one example, but we are continuing to 
monitor what would help inform and improve our efforts.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Yeah, of course, this is part of my bill, 
the Suicide Prevention Demonstration Project Act. And I would 
love to see it roll out across the VA and take this type of 
approach.
    Is there anything Congress can do to help advance a Zero 
Suicide pilot program and support veterans' mental health more 
broadly?
    Mr. Carroll. As I said, we are always open to explore 
evidence-based work and to pilot. We have a number of pilots 
under way. And we appreciate your support and direction, and we 
will be happy to have further conversation about that.
    Mrs. Lee. Okay.
    And then, finally, what barriers exist to being able to do 
that?
    Mr. Carroll. To do specifically the Zero Suicide----
    I am not aware of any barriers. I think we would need to 
have a plan in place to make sure that we can collect the data. 
Our suicide prevention 2.0 effort, as we call it, that is our 
public health model, is based upon a model where we are 
continuously evaluating data.
    As Representative Gonzales said, we are trying to evaluate 
everything that we do. So we would need to make sure that we 
have a clear plan in place to conduct an evaluation to 
determine its effectiveness and what the cost would be to carry 
that forward.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    And I yield, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady yields back.
    Next, I will recognize Congressman Valadao, who is 
participating via Zoom.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thanks to our guests for making the time today for us.
    First question. Veterans in Bakersfield and Kern County 
region of my district often tell me their struggles getting 
down to the Greater L.A. VA Hospital for medical care that they 
can't receive at the local clinic. Their almost-2-hour drive is 
often 3 hours or more due to the unpredictable L.A. Traffic.
    Has there been any discussion around Kern County veterans 
being associated with the VA Central California Healthcare 
System instead?
    The Fresno VA is almost equal distance and regionally much 
easier for those veterans to get to. I know it is something 
that could happen quickly and it could take a lot of planning 
to make happen, but the Fresno VA could absorb the increase in 
patients.
    But I am curious to hear your thoughts on the process and 
if it is even possible. Do people have the ability to make a 
decision to try--like, if you live in Kern County and you are 
required to be part of the L.A. One, can you ask for a waiver 
to go into Fresno, for example? What is the best way to 
approach this?
    Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question.
    We are always committed to making sure that veterans have 
the option and the choice to do what they like to do. So our 
goal is always to try to make sure that we are meeting the 
veterans' needs and wishes as to where they would like to 
receive their care.
    Regarding the specific issue that you have described, we 
would invite more conversation to have some more discussions 
about the specific needs of the veterans in your area. We do 
understand that some of the rural areas and, also, that 
particular corridor in California, that it is very difficult to 
traverse. So we would ask to have further conversations about 
that so that we can make sure that we are meeting the needs of 
the veterans in your constituency.
    Mr. Valadao. I am curious what you mean by--because it is a 
pretty basic question. Obviously, Fresno is closer to 
Bakersfield than L.A. Is the concern that there is a capacity 
issue in Fresno? Or is it a cost, or is it the flexibility of 
it? What is the issue here?
    Dr. Scavella. So I don't think there is a concern related 
to cost. I think there may be a concern related to flexibility 
based on the structure of our networks. But I have not looked 
into this matter very closely, so I don't want to provide 
incorrect information.
    So I would like the opportunity to take this back and look 
at it for the record and to give you accurate information. But 
we would like to make sure that we are meeting the needs and 
requests of our veterans.
    Mr. Valadao. And so part of that question I want to make 
sure that you answer for the record, as well, is: Is this 
something you guys are looking into, to give veterans the 
flexibility?
    I assume there are veterans in Kern County who have no 
problem going down to L.A. And probably enjoy going to L.A., 
and there are others who probably look up to Fresno and think, 
you know, it would be a lot easier for me, personally, to go to 
Fresno.
    This is something I would like to get a question on the 
record as well, is: If this is something that is possible, what 
do we need to do to make it happen? If it isn't, and if it is 
never possible, why?
    So I appreciate that and look forward to getting those 
answers on that.
    Mr. Valadao. The second question is, I am very concerned 
about the VA recruitment and retention. Back in March, it was 
noted the VA healthcare system had 50,000 vacancies.
    Do you have any additional data you can provide on how 
those vacancies break down by field or type? And what is 
currently being done to recruit and retain talent at the VA? 
And what more can be done to ensure these positions are being 
filled by high-quality candidates who want to stay in the VA 
for long periods of time?
    Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question as well.
    Regarding the specific data, we will have to take that for 
the record. But our goal is to make sure that we are recruiting 
and retaining the highest talent capable of providing excellent 
care to our veterans. So our goal is always to make sure that 
we have the best human resources employees in place in order to 
make sure that that is a reality.
    We are also thankful that we have legislation in place that 
will help to recruit and retain the best nurses through the 
RAISE Act. And we do need to then look at the other spectrum, 
which is ensuring that we can keep housekeepers in place and we 
can keep physicians in place, as well as the other complements 
of the healthcare team.
    So we are working with human resources to make sure that we 
bring the talent there, to ensure that we have the talent in 
place to recruit and retain the highest talent.
    But specifically related to the data, I will take that back 
so that we can get you that specific information about 
vacancies and specifically by type of employee.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
    And my time is up, so I am going to yield back and let the 
chairwoman know that if I have any more questions I will put 
them in for the record. So thank you very much for hosting this 
today.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    And just for the members' information, they are going to 
call votes, 12 votes, at 3:45. So we will go until, you know--
usually the first votes are about a half-hour. So we will go 
through, you know, to try to finish our questions, and then we 
will adjourn.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    First of all, Dr. Scavella, I just wanted to commend the 
testimony, the written testimony, which is long and thorough. 
So certainly anybody that wants a good understanding, a deeper 
understanding of what you guys are all up to, here it is right 
here. So I appreciate that.
    I just wanted to--some factual questions. You said earlier, 
and it is in your testimony, that women veterans utilizing the 
VHA are now at 600,000. And your testimony says that that has 
tripled since 2001, from 160,000 to 600,000, which is, of 
course, a huge increase. And we have to meet that demand.
    But I guess my question is, is that proportionately more or 
less than the overall increase? In other words, are women 
veterans using disproportionately higher than male veterans? I 
don't know what the figure is--I don't know what the 
denominator is, if that is the right way to put it.
    Dr. Scavella. Correct. So thank you for that question.
    So, yes, women veterans within the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has more than tripled since 2001. So we have more than 
tripled that initial rate that we counted back in 2001. We are 
over 600,000 veterans. If I misspoke and gave the wrong number 
earlier, I apologize.
    Regarding the rate of increases, Dr. Hayes said earlier, at 
this point, women who are enrolling--or veterans who are 
enrolling in services at Department of Veterans Affairs, 3 in 
10 are women. So that is what is changing.
    And then we look at the numbers of women who are serving in 
the military services and the Department of Defense, and we see 
that they are also representing a higher percentage of the 
veterans--or, of the servicemembers.
    Mr. Case. Are they more than 3 in 10 or less than 3 in 10, 
the total number of women----
    Dr. Scavella. I don't know the total number. I am going to 
pass it off to Dr. Hayes, since this is her area.
    Mr. Case. I mean, you know what I'm asking.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes, I do know what you are asking, and you are 
correct that the Active Duty pipeline, right now, 19.6 percent 
of military Active Duty are female, about 20 percent of the 
Reserves and Guard are female.
    What is going on are a couple of factors. Women and men are 
enrolling from the Gulf War at about the same rate, okay? But--
    Mr. Case. Proportionately.
    Ms. Hayes. Enrolling. But using--women are coming in and 
continuing to use us. So, if we want to talk users, 600,000. 
Enrollees, in women, about 900,000.
    What is of interest, perhaps, is the market penetration. 
For women, the market penetration is 41 percent. For men--this 
is overall, all areas. For men, it is 44 percent.
    It has been narrowing for a number of reasons. Men are 
aging and passing out of the--but more women--the current post-
deployment and enrollment is higher for women than it has ever 
been. Is it really more than the men? A little bit. You know, 
our younger men are also enrolling.
    They are not always using us at the same rate. The women 
are using us more. They need to use us more. They like to use 
us more. They stick with us longer. So, you know, there is 
lower attrition.
    All those things kind of go into when we look at what is 
the population that we need to plan for and serve on a day-to-
day basis. It is growing. And we could look at various parts of 
the numbers. I can lay it all out for you in a PowerPoint.
    But your basic question is really important. Yes, women are 
using us more and at sort of a faster rate. And it is projected 
that in 9 years women will have increased 32 percent over 
today; men will have declined by 4 percent. So, again----
    Mr. Case. That is a function of demographics also.
    Ms. Hayes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Case. You have more men at the senior levels that are 
passing on.
    Ms. Hayes. Absolutely.
    Women are younger. Right. Right. But we don't expect as 
high--we expect sort of equal enrollment of the younger 
veterans, because they all are coming in at a pretty good clip 
right now.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, in any event, women are choosing to 
use the veterans healthcare system, which is good news, right?
    Ms. Hayes. Yes. It is very good news.
    Mr. Case. Okay.
    Ms. Hayes. Choosing to use, choosing to stay with us.
    Mr. Case. Right. Okay.
    And then, you know, just to kind of--I will tell you what, 
I am going to defer that question until I may get another one, 
because it is a little bit longer than 40 seconds.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Rutherford, via Zoom, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
    And I thank the panelists all for being here today and 
touching particularly on this very important issue of mental 
health.
    Actually, since I have been in Congress, I have been 
focused on getting service dogs to veterans suffering with 
PTSD, and last year we made a big step. We got the PAWS Act 
passed with the Veterans Therapy Act. And that is going to 
allow the training for those service dogs, and they can adopt a 
dog at the end of the training.
    I would like to ask a question, and whoever could answer. I 
understand that the agreements will be finalized between the 
pilot sites that have been chosen and the service dog 
organizations within the next month. What methodology are we 
using to evaluate the success of these pilot programs? And does 
the VA now have enough funding to run a really meaningful pilot 
program?
    Mr. Carroll. Thank you for the question, sir. This is David 
Carroll. I would be happy to respond to that. And we appreciate 
the support of this group and Congress in getting the PAWS Act 
passed.
    I am happy to report to you that we are in the process of 
finalizing the memorandums of agreement between the five pilot 
sites and the three K-9 training organizations. These are three 
accredited K-9 training organizations. And they will be 
complete soon. We have actually started to screen veterans at 
two of the five sites. We expect by the end of May there will 
be training cohorts under way at three of the five sites, and 
the other two sites will come on board by the middle of June.
    As far as the methodology to evaluate the pilots, we are 
looking at what is outlined in the legislation and being 
responsive to that, in particular looking at clinically 
relevant outcome data for what is the impact on veterans' 
conditions. We are also looking at veteran satisfaction as well 
as what the impact is on veterans' engagement in the rest of 
the mental health and healthcare system. So trying to do a very 
comprehensive evaluation.
    We are basing it on doing it through our Veterans Outcomes 
Assessment methodology in large measure. Our experts in 
research design from the health sciences research and 
development arm of VA are leading the evaluation of the pilot. 
And the General Accounting Office is going to be coming 
alongside and partnering with us in terms of doing an 
assessment of the pilot program overall. So there is, I think, 
a fairly robust and comprehension evaluation that is planned.
    And then, finally, your question about funding. The 
Veterans Health Administration has provided the funding to get 
these pilots launched this year. And in the President's budget 
request for next year, there is money that will go for the 
support of staff at our field facilities to work with the 
veterans in this program as well as to make sure that we can 
complete the evaluation and have the resources necessary to do 
that.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
    And, listen, I know from some of the statistical 
information that we have been provided before to this committee 
that suicide rates actually among those who have contact with 
VHA--actually see those numbers going down, which is a really 
good thing. But the problem is, obviously, it is rising for 
those who are not seeking help from the VA.
    And so, kind of going along with the PAWS program here 
also, how are we--can you talk a little bit about your 
outreach? How are we contacting these veterans? They really 
aren't coming to us; we are going to have to go to them.
    Dr. Scavella. Thank you for the question.
    There are multiple partnerships with other Federal agencies 
related to this particular aspect. We are also reaching out to 
veterans as part of the COMPACT Act that we just described a 
few minutes ago, making sure that those veterans who haven't 
come to us for care within the past 2 years, that they do.
    But we do recognize that there are some veterans who may 
not be included in that cohort that we need to reach out to. 
And that is where we are being creative with other Federal 
entities to make sure that we have other sources of referral. 
We are partnering with our veteran service organizations to 
identify veterans who may be in need who may not be enrolled, 
as well as other Federal partners, to ensure that we are known 
for providing the care.
    And we also do have a lot of public service campaigns on 
television. I actually saw one recently. So we do try to think 
outside of the box to make sure that we are reaching out to 
this vulnerable population of veterans.
    Mr. Rutherford. All right. I thank you. Because I think 
that is going to be a significant number.
    But I see my time has expired, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
    The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes. It is 3:26. We have about 
20 minutes. And I think we have enough members to just do the 
5-minute round, and then we will wrap up.
    So I want to return once again this year to the IVF 
benefit, the fertility benefit that we include in our bill each 
year, that I am hoping once again to be able to try to make a 
permanent benefit, but, for now, we have just renewed it each 
year.
    It was really good to see that the Secretary--you know, the 
President, through the Secretary--has proposed decoupling the 
VA's policy related to IVF from the Department of Defense 
policy, because the Department of Defense policy is blatantly 
discriminatory. It blocks the use of donated sperm or eggs. It 
prevents same-sex couples from being able to take advantage of 
this benefit even if they have a service-connected infertility. 
And it blocks unmarried couples, among others.
    So, Dr. Hayes, how would this new proposal make this 
service more equitable among veterans and address existing 
disparities?
    And just to clarify, because I know we tried to find a way 
to include at least some progress in our bill last year, but 
congressional action--this is not something that VA can do by 
rule, right? Congressional action is required to address the 
inequities, is my understanding.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes, Madam Chair, we are very pleased to be able 
to present in this year's budget the option of legislation that 
would authorize VA to be able to provide IVF care to service-
connected veterans, veterans who have endured serious illness, 
injury that has caused them to be infertile as a barrier to 
their family building.
    I think it is really important to understand that, anytime 
there is infertility, it is a problem for a couple, and VA, by 
law, only has authority to provide medical treatment to the 
veteran. And so we cannot change the law on our own to include 
all veterans and their partners. We need Congress's assistance 
to be able to provide the necessary medical care to both 
members of the couple.
    The proposal, as will soon be available to you in full, is 
service-connected veterans. It is an open definition of 
``partner'' and ``significant other.'' It allows for the most, 
we feel, appropriate ways to help veterans build their family. 
So, if a veteran is so severely injured as to be unable to 
produce their own sperm or their own eggs, they should be able 
to take advantage of donated eggs, donated embryos to be able 
to further their family.
    So, essentially, we are trying to do what we would do 
without the DOD--I mean, setting aside the original DOD policy, 
which is currently our law, and allowing us to move forward 
with fully, you know, operationalized treatment.
    Right now, we are handcuffed all the time. I talk with 
veterans who have the most, you know, tragic stories to tell me 
about what has happened to them in their lives during their 
military service and saying to me, why can't VA help? And we 
can't help without a law that will authorize this treatment.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Can you share any data on how many veterans have sought to 
use this benefit but been found ineligible--''ineligible,'' 
meaning that they need it, they qualify for it in terms of 
their service-connected infertility, but because of the 
discriminatory policy on the DOD side they have been unable to 
access it--and why they were ineligible?
    Ms. Hayes. I regret that we do not have data on who was not 
able to come forward through the approval process. The approval 
process is set up in such a way that someone goes through a 
checklist and has to meet all of the requirements of the 
checklist before they are referred on to the IVF specialist 
approval group that just make sure that they meet all the 
eligibility requirements. So we do not have that data.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I know something that we 
can include in our bill this year, so that we make sure we can 
get that data.
    So you haven't been able to do anything about your data 
collection to improve or ensure that you are capturing 
information on veterans who are turned away.
    Ms. Hayes. No. We would have to talk with you about the 
difficulties and barriers in being able to do that. To be able 
to measure something that doesn't occur is----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, there are certainly ways to do 
it. I mean, if you only do it as a checklist and you don't meet 
the criteria on the checklist, then you just change what you 
ask, and indicate, you know, why someone wouldn't be eligible.
    And, then, how about the outreach? Because I know one of 
the challenges we have discussed--and then I will wrap up--is 
that a lot of veterans who are eligible don't even know that 
this is a benefit that they can access.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes. We realize this barrier. We have continued 
to provide social media access. I have been working very 
closely with a number of service organizations and a group of 
women veteran representatives who want this message to get out.
    As well as, you know, a lot of men don't know that this is 
a possibility. So we have gone beyond this, sort of, women's-
health type of outreach and done considerable outreach through 
VA.
    But we have a lot more to do, and we will continue to do an 
extensive outreach program.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I look forward to continuing to work 
with you all on this.
    And, with that, my time has expired.
    I am going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Case, because I 
have to ask questions in the other subcommittee.
    Mr. Case [Presiding]. Judge Carter, you are recognized for 
any further questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir.
    As you all probably know, the American Rescue Plan provided 
$17.1 billion to VA, most of it for healthcare. The VA is 
expected to obligate $12 billion in 2022, the remaining $4.3 
billion in 2023.
    How does the ARP funding interact with your budget request? 
Would the second bite for fiscal year 2023 be higher or lower 
without the ARP funding? Is it realistic to believe that VA 
will obligate $12 billion in the remaining 6 months of the 
fiscal year?
    Dr. Scavella. So I will take that one, that question. Thank 
you for the question.
    Our goal is to try to make sure we obligate all funds that 
are provided to us by Congress and to do so expeditiously. The 
pandemic has proven to be troublesome in some areas for making 
sure that we are able to effectuate some of the programs that 
we want to put out.
    So it is our goal to use the moneys provided through this 
subcommittee and others. However, if there is a specific 
program that you are asking us to speak about, that would be 
helpful for me to answer this question.
    Mr. Carter. No, not really. I am just----
    Dr. Scavella. Okay.
    Mr. Carter. It seems like that is an awful lot of money in 
a short period of time. And that has to be in our thinking 
process as we look at this for the next round. Because that is 
a lot of money. I am not very good at math, but it is almost 
$30 million.
    Dr. Scavella. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. So that is a lot. And it is hard to obligate it 
all. You know, I am personally not for building slush funds. 
Other people are, but I am not, okay? And that is the reason I 
ask that question.
    Another question real quick, and I will be probably 
through.
    The VA has used a lot of good technologies. You are ahead 
of the game, a lot of people. I commend you for it. But with 
the growing interest in artificial intelligence to identify 
veterans' risk for, say, suicide or other things, how are you 
utilizing that type of technology? What types of technology 
would be the most useful for VA healthcare providers? And are 
you working with VA service organizations and technology 
companies?
    Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question. I will pass 
that one on to Dr. Carroll.
    Mr. Carroll. Sure. Thank you, ma'am.
    And great question, sir. Thank you.
    I think I would highlight again the grand challenge that we 
are launching in the month of May that is seeking input from 
across the Nation, from, you know, private-sector, nonprofit, 
government collaborators, it could be VSO groups, to help us 
understand what the technological advances are in artificial 
intelligence, in other sorts of resources that we can use to do 
a better job at early identification of veterans who are at 
risk for suicide.
    And it goes to, we don't know what we don't know, and we 
are really seeking subject-matter expertise in that space; also 
to help us understand what technological advances there may be 
to advance lethal means safety for someone who is at risk; as 
well as helping us understand how on our phone systems or our 
social media systems that we can better identify in a way that 
respects privacy and in a way that still engages people in 
resources, how we can do a better job at that.
    So I think this is a great opportunity to not--we are not 
relying on ourselves; we are really relying on the subject-
matter expertise across the country to help us figure that out. 
And we are very happy to support that, with your support behind 
us. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Well, that seems to be the new world we are 
going into, so I wanted to bring it up.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    Representative Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have been hearing from women in my community, 
particularly single mothers, that there are just far too many 
barriers for them to be able to access care at the VA. One 
mother described her inability to make it to the VA for an 
important medical appointment primarily because of childcare. 
And we know that these barriers are far from new and that the 
VA has been aware of them.
    So I would like to know, Dr. Hayes, if you could comment on 
some concrete actions that the VA has taken in the last year to 
address some of these enduring barriers to access for women.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes. I will overwhelmingly say, yes, that the 
issues of childcare are a barrier for women, for male veterans 
with children, for couples with children.
    This is a serious problem that is difficult for VA on its 
own to address, in part because of the overall issues out there 
in the world, with an 18-percent decline in the availability of 
childcare centers.
    We take very seriously this as a barrier. We are working to 
analyze and implement our requirement under the Deborah 
Sampson/Isakson-Roe law, which requires us to establish 
childcare assistance at VA medical centers within the 5-year 
timeframe.
    We know that--we were actually very cautious, because, 
while we know there are certain pockets where these are 
problems--I shouldn't say ``cautious.'' I should say we have 
been very deliberate in trying to figure out how best to use 
the money in order to establish childcare assistance that will 
be most helpful to veterans.
    So there are a number of options in the legislation, 
including reimbursement or stipends. There is the option for us 
to build childcare centers at VA medical centers. There are 
other options allowed in the legislation.
    We have spent our time so far doing some in-depth need 
analysis. And what is that? That has been actually interviews 
with veterans, and having--on our VSignals program, veterans 
who have appointments actually get an email asking them, did 
you need childcare for this appointment? How would you like us 
to deliver it? You know, would you rather be reimbursed for it 
or would you rather bring your child to a VA dropoff center?
    So we are in the middle stages of that data. We are going 
to present to the Secretary this summer the various options. 
And the Secretary will make decisions about how best to 
implement the childcare assistance program to veterans.
    And at that point is when we will have a cost analysis. You 
know, right now, there is no cost analysis that can be relied 
on for a very big program. And we are very conscious of wanting 
to do something that is going to meet the needs of veterans. It 
won't help us if we put a program in place that may cost a lot 
of money, may take a long time to set up, but doesn't meet 
veterans' needs.
    So, in terms of the overall sense of what is going to be 
available to veterans when they come to medical appointments, 
that is what we are working on.
    Mrs. Lee. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Hayes. There are some other additional helps to 
veterans that are through the homeless program for those who 
are very low-income. I know Dr. Scavella is familiar with some 
of the attributes of that program and perhaps wants to fill in 
a bit.
    Dr. Scavella. Yes, so we do have some funding related to 
homeless veterans. The Supportive Services for Veteran Families 
specifically has some partnerships in local facilities that 
allows veterans to have access to childcare services. And we do 
know that they are in place. They vary in length of 
eligibility, but they are there if veterans choose to seek 
those services.
    And that was one of the things that is really great about 
that program, in that it does have lots of innovative uses to 
support the entire veteran and their family to ensure that we 
can provide all the things that wrap around to support 
permanent housing.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    Yeah, I mean, you know, I am liking the initiative of 
building women-centric holding areas, welcome areas, et cetera, 
as well as looking at opportunities within the community and 
within the VA to deal with childcare barriers. You know, my 
community has one of the worst childcare access rates in the 
country, so that is a barrier that many people deal with.
    I want to flip now to the HUD-VA Supportive Housing 
Program. Can you provide an update on how this program is 
tailoring its case management and supportive services to meet 
homeless women? You addressed it a little bit, but could you 
expand a little bit more on how we are using that program to 
address women's needs?
    Dr. Scavella. Yes. So thank you for that question.
    So, yeah, so one of the other things that that program 
specifically allows us to do is to be able to move into spaces 
that, again, are nontraditional. So the HUD-VASH program has 
funding that is available to hire social workers who can 
specifically help veterans with navigating healthcare 
appointments both within VA and in the community.
    There are also other programs that allow for the provision 
of other types of services, supporting veterans justice 
programs, essentially helping any justice-involved veterans to 
have access to those types of services should they need them, 
and then just making sure that we are providing the healthcare 
and the mental health services that veterans need.
    So lots of innovative practices within that program that 
allow us to essentially meet veterans where they are and to 
provide the care that they need.
    Mrs. Lee. Great.
    And, then, is there anything that we could be doing more of 
in Congress to help?
    Dr. Scavella. I would honestly say that the programs that 
you have put in place, these programs specifically to support 
homeless veterans, the different populations within that 
cohort, elderly veterans, frail veterans, veterans with serious 
medical illnesses or mental health issues, those things, as 
well as women, all of the things that are provided for that we 
can think kind of outside of the box and innovatively to 
support, I would honestly say I think the funding that you have 
provided and what is projected for 2023 should meet that.
    I don't think there is an unmet need. We just need to make 
sure that we are continuing to partner with our local partners 
to make sure that we effectuate those programs.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    I am sorry. I ran over my time. Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
    Dr. Scavella, I represent Hawaii, 2,500 miles from the 
continental United States. And although the city of Honolulu 
has solid, centralized VA and TRICARE capacity, still it 
presents problems, that we are 2,500 miles from the continental 
United States. And that is before we start talking about the 
other islands of Hawaii, which are separated not by roads and 
trains and buses but by ocean, so the only way to get there is 
by air.
    And, indirectly, I represent really the larger Indo-
Pacific, so places with significant veterans populations, like 
the Philippines, like Guam, the CNMI, Palau, the compact 
countries, American Samoa, where we have significant veteran 
populations. Philippines, I think, is 30,000, if I am not 
mistaken. And even a small country like Palau, with a total 
population of 20,000, has significant numbers of veterans. 
American Samoa, reportedly--and I think this is accurate--has 
the largest pro rata population of veterans in our entire 
system.
    And so I have been, you know, very interested in how do we 
use whatever tools are at our disposal--modern technology, 
innovative ways of thinking--to push healthcare out there, to 
give flexibility out there?
    For example, going back to the Philippines, where I just 
was the week before last, St. Jude's, which is one of the best 
private hospitals in the Philippines, in Manila, is used on a 
TRICARE basis by our veterans apparently pretty successfully, 
to the point that veterans from other parts of the Pacific go 
there for their own care, as opposed to in some cases flying to 
Honolulu, which is fine. Wherever they can get the care is 
great.
    But all of which is to ask you: In the President's budget 
and in your own thinking, where are the next chapters of 
getting healthcare to parts of this country that do not live in 
cities, do not live in the centers of your administrative, you 
know, districts? Telehealth we have talked about repeatedly, 
CBOCs, et cetera, et cetera. What is the big picture on that, 
and where should we be going now?
    Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question.
    I think we have to think innovatively, as you have just 
described. We have programs in place to deliver tablets so that 
we can provide different types of video-assistive care to 
veterans.
    So telehealth is definitely a modality that we would like 
to leverage. And we know that there are ways to potentially use 
that to surround even care that requires procedures in a 
facility. So I think we have to leverage that and think about 
that. We partner with our Office of Rural Health to look at 
different solutions related to that.
    And I think the most important thing is for us to continue 
to have conversations so that we understand the needs of the 
population that you represent as well as those other areas that 
you just described, to ensure that we are meeting those needs. 
Those are very challenging areas, and we definitely understand 
that. So we will continue to partner with you.
    Mr. Case. I mean, what are the frontiers of telehealth? Are 
we approaching the edges of the frontiers? Is there still room 
to grow there? What are the next chapters of telehealth to 
solve this issue?
    Dr. Scavella. So I think there is still room to grow there. 
We know that it is limited by the connectivity, essentially. 
So, you know, we would really need to understand if there are 
barriers to telehealth because there is not broadband. So those 
would be things we would need to look into.
    And I know that there were some provisions in some of the 
American Rescue Plan related to that. And so I know that we 
would need to take a look at that and see where the 
shortcomings may still be.
    But I do believe there are probably lots of capabilities, 
but we just need to continue to think outside of the box to 
make sure we are providing the care that veterans in those 
areas need and deserve.
    Mr. Case. And, then, just in term of primary care in these 
communities, more remote communities, I mean, are we still kind 
of expanding the scope of practitioners that can actually 
provide, you know, effective services to VA participants in 
those communities, as opposed to kind of a ``you have to have 
an M.D. After your name to provide the services'' model?
    Dr. Scavella. So there are lots of different types of 
healthcare practitioners that can serve in this particular 
space that you are describing of primary care. So we are 
looking at that as well. We do have providers that are not 
physicians providing primary care, and that is definitely 
something we will continue to do.
    There is a shortage in this country, as you are aware, of 
healthcare providers. So really going into spaces to encourage 
people to go into this particular area, to make sure that we 
are recruiting that pipeline early on, to ensure that we have 
people providing all types of services that wrap around, that 
support veterans and the American public.
    So I would say that we would need to do many different 
things. But, you know, physician-specific care for certain 
things is not necessarily required, nor is it what we practice 
within VA. We do have multiple different types of licensed 
independent providers who are providing care, especially in the 
space of primary care.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, thank you so much. I think the VA has 
done a good job of trying to think innovatively about pushing 
care out, rather than requiring people to come to the care. And 
that is going to be necessary to reach many, many of these 
populations.
    So thank you very much.
    I think I am turning this back to my chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you so much.
    Thank you very much for your testimony, for the work that 
you are doing. Really, how you make sure that the oversight of 
caring for our veterans and making sure that we don't do things 
in this little box that is the way we have always done them 
just because that is the way we have always done them is so 
critical to the quality of life of our veterans. And we have 
work to do, obviously, as evidenced by your responses, but it 
is clear that you recognize that.
    And so, Dr. Scavella, Dr. Carroll, Dr. Hayes, Dr. Kligler, 
thank you so much for participating today. I know we all 
appreciate our conversation and look forward to getting the 
answers back for the record that you were not able to respond 
to today.
    The committee staff will be in contact with your budget 
office regarding questions for the record. I know we have a 
number of questions to submit, and I would imagine that other 
members of the subcommittee will as well. So, if you would 
please work with OMB to return the information for the record 
to the subcommittee within 30 days from Friday, we will be able 
to publish the transcript of today's hearing and make informed 
decisions for fiscal year 2023.
    [The information follows:]

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to remind members that our 
next hearing is tomorrow, tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock, to 
discuss the Department of the Air Force installations and 
quality of life.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]

                                          Thursday, April 28, 2022.

           AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE UPDATE

                               WITNESSES

EDWIN H. OSHIBA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR 
    INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND ENERGY, U.S. AIR FORCE
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM KALE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, U.S. AIR 
    FORCE
BRUCE HOLLYWOOD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, U.S. SPACE FORCE
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE JOANNE BASS, U.S. AIR FORCE
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE SPACE FORCE ROGER TOWBERMAN, U.S. SPACE 
    FORCE
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee is called to order.
    Thank you all for participating in this hearing about ``Air 
Force Installations and Quality of Life Update.''
    Before we begin, as this is a hybrid hearing--I like when 
Luke does this better--as this is a hybrid hearing, we must 
address a few housekeeping matters.
    For the members joining virtually, once you start speaking, 
there is a slight delay before you are displayed on the main 
screen. Speaking into the microphone activates the camera, 
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your 
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch. If the 
screen does not change after several seconds, please make sure 
you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being displayed, we ask that you remain on mute unless you 
have sought recognition. Myself or staff I designate may mute 
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition 
to eliminate inadvertent background noise.
    Members who are virtual are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you 
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request 
so you are no longer muted.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and the 
ranking member; then, members present at the time the hearing 
was called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, 
alternating between majority and minority; and, finally, 
members not present at the time the hearing was called to 
order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    And this subcommittee has already come to order.
    Good afternoon.
    Today, we welcome Air Force and Space Force installation 
officials and senior enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal 
year 2023 budget quality-of-life issues as well as receive an 
update on the installations.
    Today we have before us Mr. Edwin H. Oshiba, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, 
Environment, and Energy; Brigadier General William Kale, Air 
Force Director of Civil Engineers----
    General Kale. Right here.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There you are. Thank you.
    Mr. Bruce Hollywood----
    Space Force Associate Chief Operations Officer.
    You win the prize for coolest name.
    Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne Bass.
    Good to see you.
    And Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger 
Towberman.
    Good to see you as well.
    Thank you all for joining us today to testify about some 
very critical issues. We certainly have a lot to discuss.
    Today, we look forward to engaging with the Department of 
the Air Force on a host of important subjects that impact our 
Airmen and Guardians.
    I was very pleased that the fiscal year 2023 President's 
budget request was delivered to Congress in a timely enough 
manner that allows us to discuss the request in depth at this 
first hearing. I was also happy to see the fiscal year 2023 
request was larger than what I saw as an inadequate fiscal year 
2022 request.
    But I do have to say that I am once again concerned with 
what has now become a tradition of the budget request which I 
hope we break: looking to reduce the funding of military 
construction in comparison to the previous years' enacted 
levels.
    Mr. Secretary, I mean, we have a really serious problem 
with infrastructure. It is incomprehensible that we are 
submitting budgets that are lower than the previous enacted 
bill. This trend not only impacts the mission-readiness of our 
forces but also the quality of life of servicemembers and their 
families.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of 
the Air Force is $2.85 billion. That is $930.5 million less 
than the fiscal year 2022 enacted level of $3.8 billion. That 
is a 25-percent cut.
    And I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill 
offered a particularly high mark for spending compared to 
recent years, but that is because it was necessary. And this 
type of high funding should be the rule, not the exception.
    In this committee, you know, we don't debate so much DOD 
spending. You know, what we spend on equipment and warfighters 
and all of that stuff happens in the DOD bill. In this bill, we 
all acknowledge, and we work so well together, because we have 
a huge infrastructure problem, and we all know that we really 
can't appropriate enough any time soon to catch up with the 
backlog, nor to catch up with the problem that we have with the 
failing quality of our infrastructure.
    So military construction, we have to underscore, is so much 
more than just building infrastructure and building bases. It 
is providing modern, efficient facilities that can weather 
increasingly destructive natural disasters. No one knows that 
better than me. It is reducing our carbon footprint through 
energy resilience. It is building child development centers. It 
is remediating contaminants left behind by our services like 
PFAS. It is providing quality housing for our servicemembers 
and their families.
    Reducing military construction funding when there is an 
overwhelming backlog of required priorities and when 30 percent 
of our infrastructure is in fair or poor condition is simply 
not good government.
    Beyond the fiscal year 2023 budget request, we also look 
forward to discussing quality-of-life issues and an update on 
installations.
    Sexual assault is still rampant across all services--and I 
don't use that term lightly--including the Air Force. The 
subcommittee will seek out answers as to why it is still so 
prevalent and what the Air Force is doing about it.
    We will talk about child development centers, which provide 
young children of our servicemembers safe, comfortable 
childcare, and yet they are still not receiving the proper 
prioritization by the Department.
    We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing 
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance and 
what the Air Force is doing to ensure support for its 
servicemembers.
    This hearing will address ongoing Air Force efforts to 
identify and remediate PFAS contamination across their 
installations, as well as replace the harmful AFFF firefighting 
foam that spreads so much of it into the land and water 
resources.
    Additionally, I hope to receive a full report on disaster 
recovery and what the Department is doing to ensure our 
facilities are equipped to survive increasingly intense storms 
as a result of climate change.
    As you can see, we have many important issues to discuss. I 
really believe this hearing is a great opportunity to identify 
those crucial areas where we can do more to serve those who 
serve us, and we look forward to an open and honest 
conversation.
    And now I would like to recognize, and recommend to you, my 
dear friend, Ranking Member Judge Carter, for opening remarks.
    Mr. Carter. And let me also confirm everything that the 
chairwoman said. We have terrible issues that are going on 
across the board, and we just can't be reducing our budget. We 
are too small every year, and getting smaller is not good.
    But I am pleased we are having the hearing today and we are 
having our fiscal year 2023 budget request from our U.S. Air 
Force and our Space Force. And we are proud of both of you.
    This subcommittee understands the important connection 
between the installations and readiness and quality-of-life 
programs for our airmen, guardians, and their families. I look 
forward to the discussions we are going to have here today and 
to talk about the budget request and how we balance priorities.
    I would like to thank each of you for being here today and 
for your support for and dedication to our Nation's Airmen and 
Guardians.
    I yield back my time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    It seems like we are attached to the hip because we are. 
And you will find, Mr. Secretary, that there is not a lot of 
difference of opinion among any of us. We have a very, very 
small number of issues in this committee that we don't share 
the same opinion. And we are really here and we look at 
ourselves as your advocates.
    So thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be 
here and to share your expertise.
    Due to the number of witnesses, for opening testimony we 
will start with Acting Assistant Secretary Oshiba and move down 
the list as follows: Brigadier General Kale, Mr. Hollywood, 
Chief Master Sergeant Bass, and Chief Master Sergeant 
Towberman.
    Without objection, all written statements will be entered 
into the record, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes to 
summarize your opening statement.
    Acting Secretary Oshiba, you are now recognized for your 
opening statement.
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Chair Wasserman Schultz, Ranking 
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    I am honored to be here today with Brigadier General Kale, 
Mr. Hollywood, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Bass, and 
Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Towberman--dedicated, 
selfless servant leaders and partners representing over 700,000 
airmen and guardians in the Department of the Air Force.
    Together, we thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
and provide updates to our installation investment priorities.
    Our Nation faces an array of complex challenges in a 
rapidly evolving global environment. In addition to the threats 
imposed by pacing adversaries and other state and non-state 
actors that would exploit opportunities to further their 
interests, transboundary challenges, such as climate change, 
also demand our attention.
    In addressing these challenges, the fiscal year 2023 budget 
request supports the new National Defense Strategy by 
contributing to integrated deterrence, campaigning, and 
building enduring advantages. Coupled with the Department's 
guiding principle of ``one team, one fight,'' we can and will 
overcome these challenges and provide installations which 
underpin our Nation's security.
    Accordingly, we view our installations as foundational to 
enabling and projecting air and space combat power. The 
Department remains committed to ensuring they are ready by 
investing in the right capabilities, at the right time, in the 
right place, with a diverse, inclusive team of trained and 
equipped Airmen and Guardians, resilient against natural and 
manmade threats, and balanced to be effective, efficient, and 
optimally postured.
    Since 2019, the Department's infrastructure investment 
strategy has guided our efforts to make our installations ready 
and resilient through decisions meant to balance effectiveness 
and efficiency. The strategy informs policy and investment 
decisions supporting weapons system modernization and combatant 
command priorities, while balancing the need to recapitalize 
our aging infrastructure and facilities, which improve the 
quality of work and life for our Airmen, Guardians, and their 
families.
    Additionally, our strategy emphasizes adoption of smarter 
business practices by investing at the optimum point in 
infrastructure lifecycles, using smarter acquisition methods, 
strengthening installation planning, and leveraging 
partnerships and third-party investment.
    We are cognizant that climate change and the resulting 
effects have and will continue to severely impact our 
installations and the missions they enable. Climate change 
effects are accelerating, and the time for action is now.
    The Department is nearing release of our climate action 
plan. It will lay out objectives and key results to address the 
challenges of changing climate through improving operational 
energy efficiency, enhancing installation resilience, 
diversifying energy sources, and developing a climate-literate 
force.
    We also continue to emphasize continued quality-of-life 
investments in housing dormitories, child development centers, 
and other support facilities. We appreciate your support for 
the additional child development center projects in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget. And we will continue to balance operational 
priorities with preserving the readiness and resilience of most 
important resource, our Airmen and Guardians.
    Additionally, the Department is committed to ensuring our 
privatized housing projects provide safe, quality, well-
maintained housing for servicemembers and their families. With 
the help of Congress, our project owners are in the progress of 
implementing the tenant bill of rights. And we added over 200 
government housing management positions to maintain our focus 
on improved oversight, long-term project health, and 
sustainment of the privatized housing inventory.
    Finally, we remain firmly committed to executing robust 
environmental programs and protecting human health. Regarding 
PFAS, no one on or off our installations is drinking water with 
PFOS or PFOA concentrations above the EPA lifetime health 
advisory attributable to our operations. We developed a robust 
framework to identify and remediate impacted areas within our 
legal authorities, as well as continue to proactively work and 
communicate with local communities and partners at all levels.
    In summary, your Department of the Air Force is committed 
to preserving ready, resilient installations. Our platform is 
to enable and project combat power. We employ a strategy which 
balances operational effectiveness and resource efficiency as 
one team to win our one fight.
    Madam Chair and Ranking Member Carter, thank you again for 
the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    General Kale, your full written testimony will be included 
in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    General Kale. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman 
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
    On behalf of your 51,000 military and civilian airmen 
engineers who are responsible for sustaining our Air and Space 
Force's installation and power-projection platforms around the 
world, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss our 
fiscal year 2023 Air Force military construction budget 
request.
    I would like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for 
their steadfast support and generous military construction 
funding contained within the Fiscal Year 2022 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. Your leadership and your staff's mentorship 
is making the Air and Space Forces better.
    I am especially thankful for the fiscal year 2022 NDAA 
section 2802 technical amendment which enables us to award over 
a billion dollars' worth of natural disaster recovery projects 
to Tyndall Air Force Base in the next few months.
    I look forward to working with the subcommittee on our 
fiscal year 2023 Air Force military construction budget request 
and tackling new challenges to improve the program.
    Our fiscal year 2023 military construction budget request 
supports the 2022 National Defense Strategy through 
accelerating the recapitalization of two legs of our nuclear 
enterprise, supporting combatant command infrastructure 
requirements in the European and Indo-Pacific theaters, and 
investing in our airmen and their families.
    Our fiscal year 2023 budget request remains consistent with 
last year's record-breaking request, but I acknowledge it is 
below what you enacted last year.
    We have also taken great strides in process improvements to 
create a more stable military construction program with better-
defined requirements that will increase the number of projects 
awarding in the year of appropriation, which significantly 
enhances our ability to keep projects on time and on budget.
    However, we continue to work through numerous external 
influences affecting this portfolio, be it from increased 
global market prices for commodities and labor, ongoing impacts 
from the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of changing climate, 
and continuing resolutions.
    In the face of these challenges, the Air Force continues to 
balance risk and installation investment with the necessity to 
modernize and meet our most critical mission needs. Over time, 
though, this has resulted in atrophied facilities and 
infrastructure.
    In order to mitigate some of this risk, we optimize the use 
of our military construction and FSRM funding accounts. These 
two funding streams serve as the foundation of sustainable Air 
and Space Force's installations. Through a combination of well-
timed MILCON projects and continued FSRM funding, we are able 
to bring on new weapons systems and combatant command 
capabilities while sustaining day-to-day maintenance and repair 
in order to maximize the lifespan of our facilities.
    While we remain focused on the health of our 
infrastructure, we always keep in mind that our installations 
are more than just a place where our airmen work; it is where 
many of them live and their families call home. Bottom line: 
Both military construction and FSRM investment into our 
critical quality-of-life facilities plays a vital role in 
ensuring the well-being of our airmen and guardians, which is 
integral to our mission success.
    Lastly, over the past year, I have been able to see our 
airmen engineers around the world in action, implementing the 
programs your subcommittee appropriates. It is eye-watering to 
see the obstacles they overcome every day to accomplish their 
mission. They are making great strides to implement reforms 
this subcommittee expects and delivering highly complex 
requirements our mission demands.
    I particularly want to highlight the heroics and humanity 
of our airmen engineers on the front lines of Operations Allied 
Refuge and Welcome. From Kabul to Al Udeid, to Ramstein, to 
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, to Holloman Air Force Base, 
our airmen engineers played a vital role in the care, bed-down, 
transition, and future resettlement of thousands of refugees. I 
am extremely proud of the performance of these airmen.
    Thank you again for your continued support and the 
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General.
    Mr. Hollywood, your full written testimony will be included 
in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hollywood. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman Schultz, 
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 
behalf of your United States Space Force for our military 
construction program and quality-of-life initiatives.
    We are the Department of Defense's newest military service, 
established to organize, train, and equip space forces to 
protect America's interests in space and provide space 
capabilities to the Joint Force in accordance with the new 
National Defense Strategy.
    The military construction program and quality-of-life 
initiatives are vital to our mission and to the guardians and 
airmen who work, live, rest, and play on our Space Force bases 
and stations.
    Established in 2019, our Space Force is rapidly taking the 
necessary strategic steps to appropriately transition the 
management of our installation resourcing. As one of two 
services within the Department of the Air Force and in line 
with our Department's guiding principle of ``one team, one 
fight,'' we will remain intertwined with the Air Force as it 
provides foundational installation support to the Space Force. 
We will continue to team and collaborate with the Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment and the Office of the Director of Civil Engineers 
in the Headquarters Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection.
    To remain a lean service, as Congress directed, and in 
accordance with the Chief of Space Operations' planning 
guidance, the Space Force leverages current Air Force 
installation support processes, and we are active partners in 
the Department's facility and infrastructure readiness 
initiatives.
    We are strategically examining our bases that may be 
impacted by climate change and planning resilience in our 
mission operations while protecting the guardians and airmen 
stationed in potentially vulnerable locations. Additionally, we 
are participating in the energy and water resilience 
conversations within the Department.
    This past year, the Space Force developed its own process 
for prioritizing requirements with a deliberate, collaborative 
planning effort that accounts for our operational and community 
priorities. We focused on infrastructure improvements in areas 
to reduce our risk to mission and reduce risk to the force by 
improving quality of life for our guardians, supporting airmen, 
and their families.
    With the $68 million provided in fiscal year 2022, the 
Space Force will: construct an addition and improvements to the 
Schriever Space Force Base Fitness Center, ensuring guardians, 
airmen, and families' readiness and resilience at that base; we 
will construct an emergency power plant fuel storage facility 
at Cavalier Space Force Station, ensuring 24/7 no-fail mission 
operations. We will also design the Headquarters Space Rapid 
Capabilities Office at Kirtland Air Force Base and design a 
secure integration support lab with land acquisition at Maui.
    Our fiscal year 2023 request includes $79 million to build 
a dormitory at Clear Space Force Station, enabling Space Force 
mission growth and securing the vital interests of our Nation 
through the bed-down of a new mission system. We will advance a 
resiliency project to stabilize a road prone to landslides at 
Vandenberg Space Force Base. And we will support planning and 
design efforts to ensure our future success.
    The military construction program, quality-of-life 
initiatives, and relationships with Mr. Oshiba's office and 
Brigadier General Kale's office are critical to performing our 
mission and to the well-being of our guardians, supporting 
airmen, and their families.
    Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to 
testify. I look forward to our dialogue.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Chief Hollywood.
    You yield back.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass, your full testimony will be 
entered into the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman 
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of 
the subcommittee. Thank you for your continued interest and 
support in the quality of life of the men and women who serve 
this great Nation.
    I am honored once again for this opportunity to address the 
needs of our Air Force as well as speak with you on issues that 
impact our airmen and their families. I also appreciate the 
opportunity to be here with this distinguished panel, 
especially my dear friend and wingman, Chief Towberman, who, 
for the record, has been an airman longer than he's been a 
guardian.
    Over the last year, despite the challenges of COVID, I have 
been able to continue meeting our airmen and their families 
during my travels, see them in action, and watch them get after 
our Nation's business, listen to their stories, their concerns, 
and the unique challenges that they face as members of our Air 
Force family.
    I am honored to be their voice and their chief, and I do 
not take this responsibility lightly. As America's sons and 
daughters serving in challenging times at the forward edge of 
an impending strategic competition, we all owe them our very 
best.
    More than any weapons system program or piece of hardware, 
our airmen are the greatest competitive advantage that we have 
over our enemies. For the past 75 years, the United States Air 
Force has stepped up and answered our Nation's call without 
hesitation and without fail, and it falls on us to ensure that 
they have the resources required to be able to serve.
    Recent events have shown us that strategic competition is 
not some distant pondering; in fact, it is knocking on our 
door. And in order to continue being the Air Force that our 
Nation needs, we must prioritize the resources our 
servicemembers need, to include quality-of-life programs that 
help us to retain those airmen and their families. Our Air 
Force and airmen must remain ready, willing, and able to 
deliver air power anytime, anywhere. And in an All-Volunteer 
Force, we can never, ever take that for granted.
    Over the past year, I have seen so many examples of our 
airmen working tirelessly to modernize and accelerate the 
changes that we need in our Air Force. They understand that 
rapidly evolving challenges, new domains of warfare, and near-
peer competitors will define future state operations. And how 
we recruit, train, develop, retain, and transition them are key 
to readiness.
    We are moving out in the right direction, and I am certain 
we will need your continued support, as this is a whole-of-
Nation effort.
    As we move forward in our strategy and focus on the Air 
Force of 2030 and beyond, there is much to be done. Secretary 
Kendall and General Brown spoke on much of this yesterday. In 
addition to that, we must continue to focus on foundational 
requirements and airman programs that focus on the airmen 
themselves--their development, modernizing training, and an 
environment where every single airman can reach their full 
potential.
    We must also maintain the proud and rich heritage of what 
it means to be in a military service, while ensuring a culture 
and a climate where every airman feels valued and free from 
sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, violence, or 
anything that runs counter to our core values.
    I will be the first to admit that we have a lot of work to 
do here, and this is something that we can never take our eyes 
off of. I am deeply concerned about suicides, sexual assault, 
harassment, and all things that impact our airmen, their 
families, and our force. And there is not a day that goes by 
that I don't think about their health and welfare.
    Recently, Chief Towberman and I stood up the Fortify the 
Force Initiative Team to help identify and tackle barriers that 
keep our airmen from getting the help that they need. This 
working group and the Department of the Air Force is committed 
to dismantling any stigmas that surround mental health 
treatment and creating a culture where airmen seeking help is 
not shameful. We believe that this is imperative to our future 
success.
    We also deeply appreciate the sacrifices of our military 
families. They give so very much in their own right, and the 
same care and support that we provide our airmen must be 
extended to them. Whether it is spouse employment, childcare, 
or quality of our schools, ensuring our families have the 
access and support that they need when they need it is 
critically important.
    On that same note, we can never turn a blind eye to aging 
and excess infrastructure. Our installations are not only key 
in our warfighting mission but, as General Kale said, they are 
where we call home.
    Years of competing priorities and fiscal constraints force 
us to manage risk in infrastructure, and we cannot continue to 
do so at the expense of airmen's quality of life. Whether it is 
in the dormitories, housing, workplaces, or where our airmen 
recreate, they need places, and they need safe places, where 
they can come together as a community. Those things impact 
airmen retention, and retention is inseparably linked to their 
quality of life--an investment we must continue to make.
    Thanks again to this subcommittee for your leadership. As 
you make the tough decisions concerning our defense budget, 
please continue to keep our airmen and their families at your 
forefront by providing a budget that is timely, sustainable, 
and appropriate. That impacts the decisions that we as a 
service have to make every single day.
    We continue to be grateful for your continued support to 
the men and women that serve our great Nation, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Trone [presiding]. Thank you very much for your 
insights. They are much appreciated.
    Lastly, Chief Master Sergeant Towberman, your full written 
testimony will be included in the record. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    Chair Trone now, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished 
members of this subcommittee, thank you for asking us here 
today. Thanks for everything that you have been doing for us. 
Thanks for your opening comments. And thank you for allowing me 
the opportunity to talk to you about your Space Force and the 
Guardians and loved ones who make up our service. I couldn't be 
more honored or humbled to be their voice.
    From every one of us, which is now 7,108 in uniform and 
6,738 civil servants and their loved ones, thank you for your 
service to our country and your steadfast leadership and 
support of our military and our quality of life. We are excited 
about our future and working hard every day to make it as 
bright as possible. We simply can't be successful without your 
help.
    Without question, the most important and decisive 
warfighting advantage in the history of the world is the 
advantage of the human beings who make up our military. No 
weapons system, no technology, no strategy sets us apart 
further or more definitively.
    Within that set, our most advantageous subset is the all-
volunteer, highly technical, and deliberately professionalized 
enlisted force that Chief Bass and I represent. By every 
measure we have, their skills, talent, and experience continue 
to grow, as does the empowerment and autonomy we give them. 
This drives necessity and responsibility to grow our commitment 
to them at a commensurate rate. They are, without question, our 
most important weapons system.
    Like all weapons systems, they must be acquired and they 
must be maintained. Their quality of life is part and parcel to 
that effort and should never be thought of as something we do 
for them, but, rather, a necessary and essential component of 
our operational readiness and warfighting advantage. While 
their direct pay and compensation is critically important and 
best when sufficient and predictable, we must not ignore the 
rest of the ecosystem that makes up their value proposition.
    This is not yesterday's enlisted force. For our Space Force 
enlisted recruits of this year, they average 22 years of age, 
with significant life and work experience to offer. They are 
more talented and more sought after than ever before. Thirty-
six percent of them have completed successfully some college. 
Fourteen percent have 4-year degrees or higher. And over half 
of those degrees are in our highly sought after STEM fields. In 
short, they have choices.
    And we are seeing leading indicators that young Americans' 
propensity to serve in the military may be waning. Real 
recruiting and retention challenges could lie ahead if we 
ignore those indicators. We must do what we can to become an 
employer of choice. And, to that end, these discussions about 
quality of life are vitally important.
    Because much of our quality-of-life ecosystem is provided, 
as you have heard, by the United States Air Force, I would like 
to take this opportunity to publicly thank our sister service 
and my fantastic teammate, Chief Bass, for their outstanding 
support. And for the thousands of Airmen who enable our mission 
every day, we couldn't win without you, and I thank you from 
the bottom of my heart.
    Because we are moving quickly in uncharted space--pun 
intended--I would also like to publicly thank Congress and the 
Department of Defense for the flexibility and authorities you 
have given us, specifically for things like grade allocations, 
end strength variance, and hiring authorities. These things 
continue to be vital to our success, and we will continue to 
use them both responsibly and to our Nation's advantage.
    I would also like to thank you in advance for helping 
establish a single component of regular and Ready Reserve 
forces, which is so absolutely necessary to our mission 
success.
    Since we spoke in this forum last year, we released our 
human capital plan, ``The Guardian Ideal''--I have a copy if 
you would like it--which includes our Space Force core values 
and other aspirations for our force. We are committed, next, to 
operationalizing those values of connection, courage, 
commitment, and character and putting together our Guardian 
Value Proposition, which we believe will resonate loudly with 
current and future guardians.
    Unfettered access to and freedom to maneuver in space 
simply will not happen without our most important weapons 
system, our guardians. I look forward to working with all our 
teammates to find predictable, executable ways to invest in our 
quality-of-life ecosystem and create that employer of choice in 
the United States Space Force.
    I thank you again for today's important conversations to 
that end and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The information follows:] 
    
    
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
    
    Mr. Trone. Thank you very much, Chief, for your remarks.
    We will now proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, 
alternating sides, recognizing members in order of seniority as 
they joined or were seated at the beginning of the hearing. 
Please be mindful of your time and allow the witnesses time to 
answer within your 5-minute turn.
    I now yield myself 5 minutes.
    Thank you for joining us today, both the Air Force and the 
Space Force.
    Chief Bass, let's start with you and something you already 
talked about, and that is: We know mental health is so 
important to our servicemembers and impacts their quality of 
life. A few questions in this area. I know we both care about 
it, and I appreciated you discussing it in your testimony, you 
know, the mental health of our junior airmen.
    So, according to the Air Force, 26 percent of the airmen 
were seeking care for some mental-health-related reason. That 
is an old number, 2014, so I can only imagine with COVID what 
that number has risen to.
    So, as the leader of our enlisted airmen, could you expand 
upon how you use your leadership position to advocate for the 
mental health of our airmen, including reducing stigma and 
other barriers to treatment?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Acting Chair, thank you so much 
for that question.
    I will be honest with you. I am concerned about it deeply 
all the time, especially the impacts that we have had with 
COVID.
    I would offer that I don't think that this is necessarily a 
junior airmen challenge more than it is holistically and 
something that impacts every single airman, every guardian, and 
every loved one that we have.
    And I think that, you know, to the impacts from COVID, I 
think we have yet to see what those second- and third-order 
impacts are going to be.
    And so, to that end, we have been working really hard on 
mental health, more importantly mental wellness, and really 
getting left of trying to take a holistic look at how can we 
fortify the airmen themselves, build them up to be strong, 
resilient, and able to take on any task that they can.
    We believe that this is a holistic look. We are looking at 
a total force fitness model, where, whether it is mental 
health, whether it is utilizing our Chaplain Corps, SG 
community, other opportunities for our airmen, loved ones, and 
guardians to be able to connect and have community with each 
other, we think that it really takes all of that.
    I am deeply concerned about the shortage of mental health 
that is not only in our service but across the Department of 
Defense and, quite frankly, across all of our Nation. And so 
how do we, again, get left of the situation so we can build up 
and build resilient people so that perhaps they don't 
necessarily need that mental health.
    You know, when I talk to our mental health providers--and I 
talk with them often--they typically tell me, out of every 10 
airmen that come into our facilities, that out of 10 of them, 
only about 2 of them need clinical support. The other 8 really 
just need to know that they are cared about.
    And so, to that end, we are working really hard on our 
leadership development that we have going on. We are working 
hard--that is why I mentioned, you know, myself and Chief 
Towberman provided that Fortify the Force Initiative Team, so, 
from a grassroots effort, we can start to hear from our airmen, 
how can we get after the stigma of mental health and be able to 
apply some initiatives to that.
    We also have an initiative focused on ``no wrong door.'' 
Like, our airmen can go into a central location, and whether it 
is the chaplain, whether it is our mental health techs, or 
whether it is a life counselor, they are not going into a wrong 
door. We will ensure that there is a warm handoff and that that 
person can be taken care of.
    Whiteman Air Force Base has a fantastic model in their life 
center where they are doing that. And, again, we are trying to 
create more of that and--sir?
    Mr. Trone. Touch on some unique stressors. And I think the 
key we are trying to get--we always talk about physically fit. 
We are trying to have our folks mentally fit.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely.
    Mr. Trone. That should be the goal. And that eliminates 
stigma, when you talk about it in that way.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah.
    Mr. Trone. So unique stressors on the airmen that other 
folks don't see.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. So, sir, from my vantage and my 
experience, most of the challenges that our airmen are having 
are all relationship. And so, you know, they are typically 
relationship, finance, or whatever, but, for the most part, 
they are relationship.
    And so, to that end, how do we build in some training and 
how do we build in that connective tissue, starting from basic 
training or OTS, all the way up, to make sure that our airmen 
are starting to have those conversations, you know, to help, 
again, fortify them for the challenges that are going to come 
writ large.
    Mr. Trone. And we have to work on the infrastructure where 
the airmen live, you know, with their families. Because if we 
don't get that infrastructure right, you know, that is going to 
lead to all kinds of problems down the line.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you for that. We appreciate that.
    Quickly, Mr. Oshiba, you know, I have only been in this 
business 3 years, but I have been in real business 37 years. 
And, then, my budget was my own.
    What trouble are you having with the continuing resolutions 
that we have continued to have year after year as you work on 
the infrastructure investment strategy, extending across 
multiple fiscal years? How do you deal with that problem?
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, Chair Trone.
    That is--some would probably characterize continuing 
resolutions as one of the more damaging things that can happen 
to national security. It introduces doubt and, in some cases, 
just volatility into how we do our business.
    One of the things that we have seen, I think, over time is, 
there is sort of this cost premium that gets added on because 
of this uncertainty in the budget, both in terms of what that 
number will end up being and when that money will arrive. And I 
realize we are in the MILCON Subcommittee here, but this is 
extremely acute particularly when you talk about what happens 
on the O&M appropriations side, in our FSRM accounts.
    One-year appropriation, many of the vendors know that. Many 
of the vendors know that, by the time we get an appropriation, 
now we are into the third, sometimes fourth quarter of the 
fiscal year when we are ready to award our projects. And there 
is a cost premium to that, because they know that that 
appropriation is going to expire at the end of the fiscal year.
    In other cases, particularly with the MILCON budget, what 
we see is delays in scheduling, which could impact things like 
new mission bed-downs or, in some cases, just recapitalizing 
projects, extended bids that expire that have to be redone, 
which, again, adds time to how we execute particularly our 
MILCON projects. And, as you all well know, time in this 
economic environment means cost. And so being able to get past 
that would be extremely helpful.
    I don't know, General Kale, if there is anything else you 
want to add?
    General Kale. I would just say real quickly that, you know, 
in this environment, what we are really seeing is the bid 
periods are really getting cut short, because the contractors, 
they are fearful of the risk. And if we have to extend that bid 
period, it is a lot more expensive than if we were able to 
award projects on time. And that is the challenge that is 
exacerbating our situation right now.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Trone. The bottom line is, our failure to pass a budget 
on time costs us all, together, collectively, billions of 
dollars, and we have to do better.
    So I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Trone. 
And thank you for taking over for me temporarily.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Carter. All right.
    Well, welcome, everybody.
    Let's talk about the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 
program. I think you are all aware that the recapitalization of 
our Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is a massive project. For 
fiscal year 2023, the budget requests $444 million for six 
projects. Over the next 4 years, the FYDP has--there is $2 
billion in planned projects.
    First, are you on track? Second, can you execute $98 
million provided in 2022 in a timely manner? Third, will you be 
able to execute $44 million--2--$444 million? And, finally, 
what are the plans to keep the program on track? It is a big 
deal.
    Mr. Oshiba. Ranking Member Carter, thank you for that 
question. You are absolutely right; that is a big, humongous 
project.
    I guess I would say, overall, we are on track. The projects 
in fiscal year 2022 are nearing award. We are planning, working 
together hand-in-hand with the program office on this very 
unique relationship we have.
    This is a very different kind of program, when you think 
about how we typically do MILCON projects. In this case, thanks 
to support, again, from Congress and getting some special 
legislation on how we are going to execute this massive 
program, we are tied at the hip with the program offices so 
that, as the weapons system develops, the projects are designed 
to support it right along the way.
    You are exactly right; there is close to--over $2 billion 
across the FYDP. But, again, I think that partnership that we 
have established both at the program offices and down within 
our execution arm at the Air Force's Civil Engineer Center in 
Texas is--I have never seen it better. And so I am very 
confident and optimistic that we will stay on track.
    And, again, I don't know if General Kale wants to add 
anything else to that.
    General Kale. I agree with everything that Mr. Oshiba said. 
This is a once-in-every-other-generation-type program, and I am 
hugely proud to be involved with that. And I know the team is 
working hard with that.
    Two things that concern me most with this program. We do 
have tight timelines, and it is really important that we are 
able to bring this capability. What is interesting about this 
capability, it is locked, you know, tight with the weapons 
system. So the MILCON and the weapons system, it is unlike any 
other scenario, where they are very closely interlinked.
    The two things that I am most worried about is, you know, 
number one, you know, when we have delays with the CRs, that 
can have a huge impact to this program in particular. And we 
would ask to work with the committee here for help on that.
    And then, number two, you know, this is a very highly 
technical and complex program, and there will be times where, 
you know, we are going to have potential cost implications. And 
with the reprogramming limits at, you know, $2 million and such 
a low percentage, that can add a significant time increase to 
that program. And, you know, similar scenario with the natural 
disaster reprogramming. We would like to work closely with the 
Congress so that you have trust from transparency of what we 
are doing to ensure that we can keep this program on track.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. I am all for that.
    And let me say, I think there is not a member of this 
committee or any of us who work in the area of defense that 
like CRs. We do our diligent best to get a bill out, and the 
House gets a bill out always, almost always, by July. And it is 
just crazy how this place slows down to a crawl at the end of 
the fiscal year. But I guess part of that is politics.
    The subcommittee strongly supported rebuilding Tyndall and 
Offutt after the natural disasters that occurred. Will more 
funding be needed? Will it be needed in 2023? In 2024? And when 
will all the projects be completed so we all can have a party?
    General Kale. Well, first, I have to thank the subcommittee 
here for the amazing support on this. And I will say, I think 
the way that we are working together, with us showing you all 
the good, the bad, and the ugly, letting you know what is going 
on, I think that has been able to ensure that this program is 
going well.
    Yes, we do need more funding in fiscal year 2023. That 
amount is included in our unfunded priorities list. We have 
worked with your staff to provide specifics on that. And, as of 
right now, the way the market is working and how things are 
going, I suspect that we will also need some money in fiscal 
year 2024 for that. I can't give you an exact amount right now 
on that, but we will work with your staff on that.
    You know, as far as, you know, when this program will be 
complete, you know, we are looking in fiscal year 2027-2028 
timeframe is when everything, you know, will be done program-
wise. And we have shared that schedule with your subcommittee 
and can provide more specifics if required.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Well, you know, you were fortunate with the 
time it happened. You happened to have a Secretary of the Air 
Force that everybody in Congress knew, because she was one of 
our colleagues. And so, when she came in here and said it is 
serious, we took her at her word.
    But we are looking forward to getting that project--keeping 
it on track going forward.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    So, obviously, we appreciate you being here.
    And I mentioned in my opening remarks that I think we all 
share the frustration that the budget request reduces spending 
compared to what we enacted. I mean, I think we have sent 
pretty strong messages about how we feel about funding in this 
bill, and I am wondering if there is anyone listening in your 
department.
    The Air Force has requested $2.85 billion. That is $930.5 
million less than fiscal year 2022 enacted, which was $3.8 
billion total. And that is a 25-percent reduction from one year 
to the next.
    So, Acting Secretary, welcome to your first MILCON-VA 
hearing.
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I understand that the fiscal year 
2022 appropriations bill was just enacted last month. But can 
you explain briefly how important the high level of funding was 
for the Department and just a sample of what you would be able 
to accomplish with that?
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, Chair Wasserman 
Schultz. Just to clarify, when you talk about that high level 
of funding, you are talking about the fiscal year 2022 enacted?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The enacted, yes.
    Mr. Oshiba. It was incredibly helpful for us in a lot of 
different ways. You know, you mentioned the importance of 
quality of life, and, certainly, we are deeply appreciative of 
the additional funds provided for child development centers. We 
will be able to get after five of those using those fiscal year 
2022 dollars.
    We talked a little bit about the natural disaster recovery 
and $130 million that was appropriated, as well, to support 
that effort. You know, you mentioned climate change in your 
opening statement. That is something that is very near and dear 
to me. And I think one of things that we are seeing, 
particularly with the work we are doing at Tyndall and Offutt, 
is our ability to incorporate climate resiliency features into 
the construction, you know, designing facilities with--with 
resiliency incorporated.
    And I think that will be extremely important moving forward 
as a, sort of, model, a foundation, for construction that we 
would want to do into the future.
    Those are just a few highlights. But, again, I cannot thank 
you enough.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I didn't ask the question 
gratuitously so that you would thank us. I genuinely wanted you 
to walk us through a little bit of that.
    So now can you explain to the committee why you are asking 
for dramatically less money than we appropriated to you in 
fiscal year 2022? And do you have less needs in fiscal year 
2023 than what we are aware of?
    Mr. Oshiba. That is a great question, Chair.
    So I guess I would start off by saying, as I mentioned in 
my opening statement, we are pivoting toward a pacing adversary 
that we really haven't seen in the past two decades. And that 
requires us to modernize our force, and it lays in some hard 
choices in terms of what we have to do inside of our Air Force 
budget--actually, Department of the Air Force budget.
    And we do deeply care about our installations, and we care 
about what it provides to enable combat power going into the 
future, but we do have to make some of those hard choices. And 
while we recognize the fact that there are other requirements 
out there that continue to build over time and there is a risk 
associated with that, again, we have to balance those risks 
against the other priorities within the Department.
    One thing I would add to that--and I mentioned the 
infrastructure investment strategy that we have had ongoing for 
the past couple of years now--3 years, to be exact. There are 
portions of that strategy that get after what I call non-
resource policy changes to ensure that the dollars that we do 
spend are targeted toward the most cost-effective and the most 
mission-driven requirements that we have.
    Things like different kinds of acquisition practices--
category management is one of them--investing dollars in the 
part of the lifecycle of the facility's infrastructure that 
yields the most effective change, while reducing overall 
lifecycle cost--those are other areas in which we are striving 
towards so that the dollars that we do receive from you, again, 
go the farthest.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It seems that your hard choices 
always come at the expense of the quality of life of your 
servicemembers, of your airmen. You know, when you make hard 
choices like that, when we travel around the world to take a 
look at the infrastructure needs of your service, we see 
rusted-out doors that are supposed to be protecting billions of 
dollars' worth of equipment--planes and other vital equipment 
that protects our national security interests, and it both 
endangers your airmen who use those facilities and need to make 
sure that they function properly, or you are looking at 
barracks that are decrepit and decaying and that we are making 
your airmen live in, or you are not requesting funding for 
child development centers when you have 15,000 people on a 
waiting list for those child development centers. And, you 
know, they are not designed, obviously, to only get childcare 
in those facilities, but, you know, you are falling woefully 
behind. It is not right.
    And, yeah, there are hard choices, but having the quality 
of life of your airmen suffer for as long as you make them 
suffer is not right, which puts us in a position--look, I am 
thrilled to be able to be the ones that say, no, no, no, you 
haven't asked for enough, you are not taking care of your 
people. And, by the way, this is equal opportunity, because it 
happened in the previous administration too. But this committee 
ends up having to step up, which we are glad to do, but we 
shouldn't have to.
    So I will stop there and defer to my next colleague. But 
before I do that, I just want to let you know, they are about 
to call votes in a few minutes, and we are going to come back 
so we can confer. And we are going to recess--it is one vote--
we will go vote, and we will come back and finish.
    So, with that, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing and appreciate all the panelists.
    You know, I retired a master chief, and, to the 
chairwoman's point, quality of life is--it is operational. You 
know, it absolutely transitions over to operation readiness. So 
thank you for what you all are doing.
    I would also say, you know, I have the privilege of 
representing Lackland Air Force Base, Laughlin Air Force Base, 
and former Air Force Base Kelly. And my grandfather was an 
airplane electrician at Kelly, and my wife served boot camp at 
Lackland Air Force Base. And it is just an absolute honor.
    I would ask the Secretary or anyone on the panel, I would 
love to take a visit to Laughlin Air Force Base, so, you know, 
let's coordinate. To the chairwoman's point, we have a lot of 
aging infrastructure, and it seems as if Laughlin in particular 
is the last to eat, if you will. And I just want us to spend 
some time and devotion doing that. You know, I would love to 
get on your calendar sometime.
    I want to start by--I want to start with Chief Bass.
    You stated in your testimony that nearly 25 percent of Air 
Force family housing is below standard. How many of the 3,477 
homes are privatized homes?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Thank you, Rep. Gonzales, and 
thanks for your service while you did.
    Sir, I am going to have to get back to you on the record 
with respect to how many of those are privatized, unless----
    General Kale. I can answer that. It is zero.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Fantastic.
    General Kale. That number was based off of overseas 
government-owned housing. And of the 3,477, 1,400 are 
unoccupied, and 2,000 are occupied, but they are safe to live 
in.
    Of the 2,077 that are occupied, we plan to divest 671 of 
them, and then we are planning to provide projects for almost 
1,400 of them. And we will be working with the subcommittee 
here, because that is a significant plan that we are going to 
have to----
    Mr. Gonzales. Yeah. I appreciate that. I just got back from 
a trip to Italy and Greece, and I was looking at Army housing, 
but that is another thing too. And I know this subcommittee is 
planning additional trips.
    A lot of times, there is nobody that directly represents 
these overseas bases, and they fall through the cracks just 
equally as well. So, to the chairwoman's point earlier, any 
inputs you all have not only on the bases here at home but also 
the infrastructure abroad is greatly appreciated.
    My next question is for Chief Towberman.
    I was pleased to read last week that Lackland Air Force 
Base will host Space Force's first all-guardian boot camp class 
next month. Once again, I would love to visit with you anytime 
that happens. You know, please, you know, I would love to do 
more there. I am very excited that, you know, finally, Space 
Force is starting to get its feet underneath them.
    My specific question is, what installation requirements 
does Space Force need in order to grow the force to an expected 
8,600 by 2023?
    Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Well, thanks for the 
question. And thanks for the offer to come down there, 
Congressman. And, certainly, you are happy--I am going to go 
down for the graduation. I will have my office reach out, and I 
am sure you would be welcome.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great.
    We are excited about that opportunity. It will be the first 
time that Guardians are all of their training instructors, an 
all-guardian course, and all those new recruits will go through 
together.
    So it is pretty exciting for us, culturally, to be still 
there, where they do such a good job, at the gateway to the Air 
Force, because they give us all the logistics and all of that 
stuff and that remains, but for us to kind of instill our own 
culture on that new team.
    So, for the next year, I think we are set on that front. We 
have all of the places where we need folks and all of the 
things that we need.
    I think, as we move forward and there are basing decisions 
and things to be made as we move forward--but for right now, I 
feel very comfortable with the footprint that we have and with 
the installations and facilities that we have.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Great.
    One point and then one final question.
    You know, we were able to get a new child development 
center at Lackland Air Force Base over this last budget, and 
that was great. Randolph Air Force Base, I was pleased to see 
that they have a child development center on the list as well, 
and we are going to make that a priority.
    My last question is for the Assistant Secretary.
    You know, last--one of the installations I visited was 
Laughlin Air Force Base. You know, at the time, the base 
expected to receive funding to construct a new suite of officer 
quarters in fiscal year 2023. It stated this was AETC's number-
two on the MILCON priority list.
    Laughlin is a critical pipeline for Air Force pilots. Can 
you talk about why this vital project was not included in the 
President's budget?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thanks for the question. I don't 
have the details for that specific one, so we will have to take 
that for the record.
    Mr. Gonzales. Fantastic. Thank you.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Bishop, virtually, you are recognized for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member Carter, for hosting this hearing today.
    And thank you to the witnesses for testifying.
    I am particularly interested in learning more about the Air 
Force's recent request in the budget to divest the Combat 
Readiness Training Center in Savannah, Georgia.
    The CRTC's fourth- and fifth-generation fighter training 
capability cannot be replicated anywhere else in the Air 
National Guard. And the CRT has unparalleled access to the 
airspace, the ranges, the emitters that are required for the 
high-end, advanced training for the fourth- and fifth-
generation fighters that were necessitated by the 2017 
enterprise range plan and the 2020 enterprise range plan.
    Our air dominance is a critical capability for both today 
and tomorrow's wars. And, additionally, the CRTC is able to 
provide training at low cost to the Air National Guard and 
outperforms all of the other CRTCs in both utilization and 
efficiency. And divestment of the Georgia CRTC will result in 
the loss of the Air Force's ability to host and train 
tomorrow's high-end fight today.
    In order to assist the Georgia CRTC's mission, this 
committee appropriated funds for a new, state-of-the-art hangar 
that is scheduled to finish construction later this year. If 
the Air Force divests the CRTC, what, then, is the plan for 
this new, $24 million fifth-generation fighter hangar at the 
CRTC in Savannah? And how did this infrastructure factor into 
the decision to divest of the CRTC?
    You built a new operation facility for C-130s in 2018 at a 
cost of $9 million and a new $13.5 million ramp in 2016 for 
those aircraft, and now you want to abandon that to make use of 
a $24 million hangar that was constructed for fifth-generation 
fighters? I mean, what is the logic in that?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thanks for the question.
    I am aware of that situation. I had a conversation this 
morning with members of the Air National Guard Readiness 
Center. We are going to continue that conversation so that I 
can fully understand the rationale as well.
    I served on Active Duty for 26 years. I have actually been 
to Savannah, Alpena, Volk Field, and Gulfport, so many of your 
CRTCs. So I understand the value that it brings, not just for 
the Guard component, but also for the Active Duty, who have an 
opportunity to go there and train on their wartime skills.
    So that is definitely something we will continue to--I will 
continue to investigate. And happy to meet with you separately, 
if you would like, and provide you some additional details.
    Mr. Bishop. Yeah. I am just--this is the only CRTC that 
really is capable of the fifth-generation fighters. It requires 
secure maintenance facilities and secure hangars, and, of 
course, we are just about completed with the construction of 
that. It seems like an awful waste of resources now, to have 
that capability relegated to some lesser requirement.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bishop, did you--was that a 
response that you needed from someone?
    Mr. Bishop. Well, let me just follow up, then.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Mr. Bishop. On the issue of housing, let me ask Mr. Oshiba, 
does the Department of the Air Force have the necessary 
authorities to properly manage the private housing partners? 
And if you don't, what authorities would you need for this 
committee and for Congress to give you in order to have 
effective oversight?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question.
    We do have the authorities necessary to provide the 
necessary oversight. We have recently hired 218 additional 
government oversight members for our government housing offices 
as well as to serve as resident advocates. We just finished 
hiring the last of those 218.
    All of them go through training for a week--for a week of 
training before they assume their positions. And then we 
provide monthly recurring training to ensure that they have the 
skills necessary to represent the occupants of these homes, 
these families that live in the privatized homes across the 
Department.
    So I think----
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Mr. Oshiba [continuing]. We do have the resources.
    Mr. Bishop. I think my time is about to expire, but I would 
like to follow up with you on the CRTC issue. That is very 
concerning to me. And I would like to get with you and your 
folks as soon as we can possibly get together on that.
    Mr. Oshiba. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
    The gentleman yields back.
    As votes have been called, as I said, the subcommittee will 
stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair. And members 
will just go vote--it is one vote--and we will come right back.
    The subcommittee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The subcommittee will come to order. 
We will return to the member questioning.
    And, Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 
questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you to all our panel here for taking the time today.
    And I know it has been touched on quite a bit, but this is 
something that is important, that is affecting a lot of our 
districts. So I hate to be repeating ourselves, but it is 
important that we do emphasize the importance. In fiscal year 
2022, the MILCON budget provided historic increases for family 
housing modernization, and I hoped to see the fiscal year 2023 
continue in that trend.
    It was noted that a majority of these funds will be 
contracted out to privatized housing companies to modernize 
existing housing units. As we all heard in a hearing a few 
weeks ago on privatized military housing, there are still many 
outstanding concerns with some of the units these companies 
manage. I have had a lot of issues. And I know in my district 
it is Naval Air Station Lemoore, but I have been to a few bases 
around the State of California that also have other issues.
    So what are doing to ensure the money being spent on 
housing modernization is resulting in the quality of homes our 
servicemembers obviously deserve?
    And I have a few followups, so if this could be quick, 
hopefully.
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Congressman. I will try to be quick 
about that.
    We do have a very stringent oversight process with our team 
down at the Air Force's Civil Engineer Center who kind of 
oversees the entire--not just the privatized housing program 
but also the government family housing program as well.
    I guess one thing I would share with you that we have 
learned over a period of time is that some of these deals, when 
they were put together, going on almost 20 years now, the 
financial structure of these deals were probably, what I would 
call, somewhat high-risk.
    They were based on assumptions made in terms of what we 
would see in terms of the trajectory of the basic allowance for 
housing. We financed them with a lot of equity that the 
companies that took over the housing put into the deal.
    And we conveyed a lot of old homes. You know, out of the 
50-something-thousand privatized homes we have, 18,000 of them 
were conveyed, sort of, as is. And when you think about what 
those as-is housing were, many of them were old Capehart 
housing built in the mid-1960s to late 1970s--or, I mean, early 
1970s.
    That is what I experienced when I was stationed down in 
Georgia, and it has been something that we will have to address 
in the years coming up.
    Mr. Valadao. And this followup might be a better question 
for the record, but what do you see--what do you have--I am 
sorry. Do you have a revised breakdown of the condition of all 
the base housing units across the Air Force installations? For 
example, what percentage of houses have been updated in the 
past decade, and what percentage are still in need of 
modernization?
    I assume that is probably for the record.
    Mr. Oshiba. Yeah. If we could get that for the record.
    Mr. Valadao. So, then, I will move on. The fiscal year 2023 
budget did not have a request for construction funds for brand-
new housing. I know we have talked about this a bit last year, 
but several bases don't seem to have enough housing available. 
And since we last spoke, has there been any conversations on 
how we can provide alternative or temporary housing solutions?
    The reason why I'm asking this question is, earlier this 
year, or late last year, I went up to Beale Air Force Base, 
north of Sacramento, and spent some time up there. There was 
some really old housing there. It was all torn down because it 
was in really bad condition. I think there was 1,500 units, if 
I remember correctly. Tore them down; they built 500 new ones. 
So, obviously, there is a shortage there.
    And then you include the situation with COVID where people 
were moving out to rural areas. That added some more pressure 
to the housing situation there. And then you bring up the fires 
that we had burning down some of the homes along the foothills 
there and up into the mountains. That added even more pressure, 
and that made it just the more difficult for our airmen that 
are living in that area, servicing that base.
    So what is being done to help with those? And why aren't 
there some new houses? Why don't get back to at least the 
numbers that that base used to have?
    Mr. Oshiba. Yeah. Congressman, that is a great question.
    So one of the things that we continue to do is what is 
called a housing requirements market analysis, or HRMAs. And we 
do those periodically to ensure we understand what is happening 
in the local housing market.
    It has been the Department's policy for some time now that 
we will continue to count on the local communities to provide, 
sort of, that first source of homes. And as we have all 
experienced over the past several years, that market has 
changed quite a bit.
    And so what we are doing is, in certain areas that we know 
that the housing market is extraordinarily volatile, we are 
going to go back in and do these housing market analyses to 
determine, what is the real requirement, what is the conditions 
out there, so that we can address shortfalls in housing, not 
just in numbers, but in some cases in cost.
    Mr. Valadao. All right.
    Well, I know we are coming up on the time. I think I will 
have another opportunity to follow up. But I appreciate the 
time, and I will yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you want to continue. You 
probably will not have----
    Mr. Valadao. I will continue then.
    So, this year, I have spent a lot of time visiting various 
National Guard and Reserve facilities in central California. I 
have been quite surprised at the state of repair some of the 
facilities are in.
    How do you prioritize modernization of the Guard and 
Reserve facilities?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, for the Guard and Reserve 
facilities, they are allocated a certain portion of our overall 
budget for both MILCON and for FSRM based upon their plant 
value relative to the entire plant value of the Department of 
the Air Force. And, certainly, we do adjust that based upon 
unique requirements or things that they might bring in.
    But internal to both the Guard and Reserve components, they 
do their own prioritization, if you will, ensuring that they 
are addressing the needs that they see fit. And as we have 
brought on the Space Force, it is very much the same way.
    Mr. Valadao. All right.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    And I yield myself 5 minutes.
    So, on Tuesday, April 26th--a day that will also live in 
infamy--the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--and I know you know 
this was coming--released a report suggesting that Balfour 
Beatty has continued to engage in similar and, quote, ``ongoing 
mistreatment,'' unquote, of military families since the last 
known cases of fraud in 2019. The panel's probe covered homes 
at Fort Gordon, an Army base in Georgia, and Sheppard Air Force 
Base in Texas.
    Acting Secretary Oshiba, as discussed in this 
subcommittee's recent MHPI oversight hearing--military 
privatized housing--and subsequently in a Senate Subcommittee 
on Investigations report released on Tuesday, Balfour Beatty 
has allegedly continued the same types of fraud and 
mistreatment that got them into trouble between 2013 and 2019. 
One specific location cited was Sheppard Air Force Base in 
Texas.
    Is the Air Force aware of the situation? And what are you 
going to do to address it?
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you very much for the question, Chair 
Wasserman Schultz.
    So I watched that hearing in its entirety on the 26th. And 
we are certainly very aware of what Balfour Beatty was found 
guilty of, if you will, over the past couple years. And we have 
also put in place oversight specifically for BBC, as well as 
another owner as well, based upon what we have seen over a 
period of time. So we understand what they have done----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, I am sorry. Let me just make 
sure I get that right. So you have a different company that has 
also subsequently been found to have engaged in mistreatment?
    Mr. Oshiba. It is what we have seen in terms of their 
performance. So let me correct the record for that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Mr. Oshiba. So we understand what BBC has done. We have put 
in place a performance improvement plan, if you will, to 
continue that oversight specifically to ensure that that does 
not happen again. We review their third-party audits, both 
financially as well as their work-order management, and will 
continue to oversee that while they are on probation through 
2025.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    So my recollection is that Balfour Beatty already paid 
something like $65 million in fines for the previous violations 
and mistreatment and outrageous treatment of servicemembers in 
military privatized housing. And now they have been caught 
doing it again.
    What is the pain point for the Air Force? I mean, you know, 
when is, and are we at, the point where the Air Force believes 
that Balfour Beatty has finally done enough harm to revisit the 
housing partnership and severing ties between Balfour Beatty 
and the Air Force?
    I understand all of the twisting and intertwined, 
complicated contracts and all of that. But they don't appear 
that they are ever going to get it. And they appear to be--and 
other companies might apparently do, as well--doing everything 
they can to cut corners, save money, abuse their great 
privilege that they have been given to take care of our 
servicemembers and their families, and they are mostly only 
interested in making money on the backs of the suffering of the 
people who we house in the housing we have turned over to them.
    Mr. Oshiba. Chairwoman, you know, as I mentioned, we 
provide specific oversight over this housing--or this 
privatized owner to a degree that I would say goes beyond what 
we do for others as well, given what their perform has shown in 
the past given the findings of the Department of Justice----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, apparently not.
    Mr. Oshiba [continuing]. And we will continue to do that. 
We will continue to provide----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Apparently not. No, no, no, no. This 
is a real question. What's the pain point? Have you begun 
discussing severing ties with them and no longer continuing to 
do business with this company that doesn't care, that, you 
know, $65 million was a rounding error, a cost of doing 
business, and now they have done it again? And are they going 
to be subject to more, you know, penalties? They certainly 
should be.
    I mean, incentivize--my definition of incentives, at least 
in my experience, is through money. We are not giving them 
money, I hope, to make sure this doesn't happen again. What do 
you mean by ``incentives''?
    Mr. Oshiba. For the record, or a correction to what I 
stated before: It is a performance improvement plan that they 
are on. And that's, again, not an incentive. It is just 
basically additional oversight we provide, specifically to look 
at the results of their work-order performance management, the 
results of the audit both on their finances by a third party as 
well as the audit on their work-order performance.
    We will continue to do that. We will continue to work with 
investigative organizations via the Department of Justice or 
others that may look into this. And, if necessary and if 
proven, certainly that is an action we would be willing to 
take.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is an action you would be 
willing to take?
    Mr. Oshiba. Look at different alternatives, to include 
potentially terminating them. But I think it has to be founded 
on fact and evidence that are provided by investigative 
organizations.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How many more facts do you need? 
They have horrendously abused the trust that we invested in 
them. They have mistreated our servicemembers. They allow them 
to live, you know, endlessly in poor conditions. They don't fix 
things. They don't follow up. They have terrible communication.
    You have a retention problem. We have had two whole 
hearings on this. And you are losing people who would otherwise 
commit their careers to the Air Force but they don't want to 
commit their family members to the godforsaken housing that 
apparently there's not a commitment to ensure gets better.
    Mr. Oshiba. Chair, you have my commitment that we will 
continue to provide that oversight that is necessary to ensure 
that they deliver on the terms of their project.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are they still getting incentives 
during the performance improvement plan?
    Mr. Oshiba. I do not know specifically, and that is 
certainly something I can check into.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. See, the problem with you not 
knowing specifically is that we take the question for the 
record and then we don't get the answer on the record. So can 
someone check now? We will be here for a few minutes.
    So I would like someone to check now whether or not they 
are still getting incentives during their performance 
improvement plan, and has the Air Force paid incentive fees to 
Sheppard Air Force Base during the time period of November 2019 
to January 2022.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass, while we are waiting for the 
answer to that question, our recent subcommittee hearing on the 
Military Housing Privatization Initiative discussed continued 
quality-of-service issues and unacceptable housing conditions.
    What is the Air Force doing to ensure that its 
servicemembers and their families are being supported when 
living in privatized housing? And how is the Air Force making 
sure that the right people are in the right positions to help 
servicemembers when they are seeking help with their housing 
issues? Because it didn't seem like much has changed from our 
first hearing to our most recent one.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah. Madam Chair, thanks for 
your concern of our airmen. I am deeply concerned too, and 
mostly deeply concerned because, you know, while we might think 
sometimes, centralized, that things are going well, we find out 
otherwise when we go and talk with our airmen.
    I will tell you that the challenges that we have had over 
the past several years have really, as Mr. Oshiba identified, 
put a spotlight onto those project owners. And so, with that 
spotlight, we have really empowered our command teams as well 
as the tenants more than we ever have before, with our command 
teams now being able to actually, you know, institutionalize, 
if you will, groups where they can come together to be able to 
find out what are the challenges that airmen are going through.
    We have also put people in position within those housing 
locations as advocates to be able to allow our airmen to be 
able to get after some of those things.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, I know that. But it has not 
gotten better. Something is not working.
    And the problem with something not working is that Balfour 
Beatty, in this instance, even though they knew they were 
paying a fine kept doing what they were fined for, like, 4 more 
years, that we know of, and it is probably continuing to this 
day.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So something is not working.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. I would offer, Madam Chair, 
that, you know--right?--that depends. In some of our locations, 
actually, you know--and, oh, by the way, I have had an 
opportunity to live on many of our installations, coming from 
Keesler Air Force Base, where we had significant mold issues 
there as well, and some other locations, Goodfellow Air Force 
Base, where I again was a tenant on base--I would offer that it 
really depends.
    We are not where we need to be. A lot of that is challenges 
with, again, the project owners that we have to hold 
accountable. But in many of our locations, things have gotten 
better. I got a firsthand experience of witnessing the mold 
situation at Keesler get better.
    And so it will take time, it will take investment, it will 
take us holding those project owners to the test. But I will 
tell you, there is not an installation that I go to that the 
command teams are not involved and concerned about the welfare 
of every single one of their airmen.
    And what we can control in terms of being able to make sure 
that our airmen that do have to get displaced or the guardians 
that might have to get displaced, we are taking care of them as 
much as possible to relieve the pressure and the stresses that 
it is causing them as well as their families.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, we have heard testimony from 
them, and I don't think that you have done enough.
    And I would just like to know, Chief, if you repeatedly 
violated the standards that were expected of you, and your 
boss, you know, your next person up who supervises you puts you 
on a performance improvement plan, and in spite of that 
performance improvement plan you continue to do what you were 
put on the performance improvement plan in the first place for, 
what would happen to you?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. In that scenario, Madam Chair, 
if it was about me and my boss, I would probably not have a 
job.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So why are we continuing to allow 
Balfour Beatty to have contracts and put our trust and millions 
of dollars into their pockets and allow that to continue?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Madam Chair, I--you know, we 
will definitely have to take some of this for the record. I am 
not an expert in contractual law, but I----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I understand.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass [continuing]. Definitely want to 
be able to come back to you with things that, again, matter for 
our airmen and their families.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, I will tell you that I am 
going to be looking towards what language we can include in 
this bill and working with Chairman Smith in the Armed Services 
Committee and our fellow ranking members to address this. 
Because if you don't take care of our servicemembers, then we 
will.
    Okay.
    Perfect timing.
    Mrs. Lee. I know. My goodness.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I yield back, and I recognize 
Mrs. Lee for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And thank you to all the witnesses today.
    I represent southern Nevada, and I work closely with the 
leadership and the fine men and women at Creech and Nellis Air 
Force Bases. And, unfortunately, they face a longstanding issue 
of the insufficient dormitory space.
    This runs contrary to the Air Force's requirement that 
first-term airmen reside in dorms for 3 years until they earn 
the requisite rank. Nellis currently is 486 dorm beds short, 
forcing them to move young enlisted members out of the dorms 
after just 12 months.
    Although Nellis's deficit is greater than many bases, this 
shortage of dormitory space exists across the Air Force, and it 
forces junior airmen into difficult financial situations.
    And while this committee works to pursue solutions for 
specific bases through the military construction process, it is 
clear that we need a broader solution here, or else our 
servicemembers will continue to struggle in a housing market 
that is often prohibitively expensive and difficult to 
navigate. And that certainly is true in southern Nevada.
    Mr. Oshiba, I wanted to ask you: We know that this problem 
is not true. What is the Air Force doing to address this 
current mismatch between capacity and the guidance?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the 
question.
    We are aware of the shortfall in the Nellis and Creech 
area. We do have two dorm projects that we are currently going 
through the requirements for, in terms of doing the programming 
into the FYDP.
    In the meantime, we are working with the community, in our 
personnel community, to increase their basic allowance for 
housing and basic allowance for subsistence to ensure that they 
can compensate for the increased cost of housing. You know, the 
BAH rate at Nellis went up 12 percent between 2021 and 2022 
specifically to account for that.
    And we continue to work with the communities to see if 
there are other options available beyond just the typical 
MILCON construction, if you will, just to understand, because 
it is a long process, as you well know of getting things built.
    Mrs. Lee. What is the timeframe on these dorm projects?
    Mr. Oshiba. We don't currently have it in our Future Years 
Defense Program. Right now it is just being developed as a 
potential future project.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman Lee.
    Mrs. Lee. Yes.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Thank you so much. If I can add 
a few points on that.
    You know, until those solutions are had, where we actually 
have some MILCON and things going to be able to take care of 
our servicemembers, we are actively trying to figure out some 
creative ways to get after this. And so we appreciate the 
community's support that they are doing. We are looking at 
partnering with Nevada State, as they have some capacity, and 
so we are looking at that. We have seen that model work out 
well at Angelo State University out near Goodfellow Air Force 
Base. And so we are trying get creative about that.
    You did mention the airmen who are getting out within 12 
months. Typically, they stay into the dorms upwards of 3 years. 
I will tell you, that is not necessarily uncommon at any of our 
Air Force bases. But prior to our airmen going out, the intent 
always is--and I have a college kid--the intent always is, one, 
they are going to be able to take care of themselves 
financially. And so there is a lot of leadership oversight with 
their first sergeants, with their commands teams, to make sure 
that we are sending out the right airmen who are financially 
ready, who are responsible and able to go out and do those 
things.
    But, again, you know, our first priority is really to those 
airmen and making sure that we are not putting them in a 
dilemma. But we appreciate the community support that we are 
getting from those locations, and we need more of it.
    Mrs. Lee. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, housing is an issue in 
southern Nevada. So, happy to hear that you do additional 
wraparound support, because what we don't want to see is airmen 
see their careers derailed because of having to navigate this 
situation.
    I am going to turn to suicide prevention really quickly. I 
welcomed the establishment of the review committee in the NDAA. 
Nellis Air Force Base is one of the eight installations 
selected for visits as part of this review. I know we are going 
to expect the report here soon.
    Mr. Oshiba, can you speak to the concrete steps that the 
Air Force has taken in the last year to address mental health 
and suicide prevention and what tangible programs or steps we 
can expect in the coming year?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, I apologize, but I don't have 
the details specific to that. I am not sure if either of the 
chiefs do?
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Sure. I would like to take that 
on.
    Mr. Oshiba. Thanks.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman, you know, as I 
mentioned in my opening statement--I don't think you were able 
to be here--but, you know, there is not a day that goes by that 
I am not deeply concerned about suicide. But, more importantly, 
how do we get left of that, and how can we take care of our 
servicemembers and their families in a better way.
    So we are taking a broader, holistic look at mental health 
in all forms, right? The wellness of them physically, mentally, 
spiritually, socially. We have 17 of our bases that have a True 
North program, if you will, where we have embedded support at 
those locations.
    For all of our other installations, what we are trying to 
do is just have a menu of options for those installation 
commanders to be able to have all the supporting agencies where 
they need them when they need them. And we are also promoting 
that we try to get all of those supporting agencies under one 
roof, where there is no wrong door for our airmen to walk into 
and get the help that they need. Lots of efforts.
    The other one that I did mention in my opening comments 
that I am championing with my teammate Chief Towberman right 
here is, we established a grassroots effort called Fortify the 
Force Initiative Team. And that team is really comprised of 
airmen, guardians, loved ones, veterans of all sorts really 
starting to come up with, what are the stigmas associated with 
mental health, and how can we as a force be able to get after 
that? We are killing any of the bureaucracy from their ideas 
and their thoughts by allowing us to champion these things.
    And so we look forward to the progress we are going to make 
with that, again, getting after the total force fitness, ma'am.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    You know, I was out at Creech, and one initiative that I 
thought was incredible was that they have a chaplain on site 
who is there, available. So it is part of the daily operating 
procedure. It is not a, you go and ask for it. It basically is 
part of what their operations are.
    So I thought that was a good way to break down the stigma 
and make sure that people understand that mental health is 
primary health and it is part of their job.
    Madam Chair, I have one more question. Can I ask----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you can ask it quickly.
    Mrs. Lee. I will ask it quickly. Sorry. Only because this 
is a big issue.
    Creech Air Force Base--irregular work schedules, lengthy 
commute. Nevada obviously has a childcare shortage issue, as 
the rest of the country.
    And I wanted to know, either Mr. Oshiba or Chief Master 
Sergeant Bass, what actions can we expect from the Air Force in 
the coming year to materially improve childcare options, 
especially for a location like Creech?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, I will take maybe a first swing 
at it, and maybe the chief can add in.
    We are putting in place several different programs to 
provide some additional assistance beyond just, sort of, what I 
call the brick-and-mortar CDC solution.
    Childcare Fee Assistance program, $21.3 million budgeted in 
fiscal year 2022 specifically for that. To date, you know, we 
haven't denied any fee assistance to any eligible military-
connected family, and we are committed to maintaining that 
support for our Department of the Air Force families moving 
forward.
    The 2023 budget request includes $31 million--so we are 
going to increase that--for childcare fee assistance. And that 
increase, again, reflects the continued growth of the program 
participation, which I think is just another alternative to the 
traditional brick-and-mortar efforts that are out there.
    And I know one other thing that particularly within the 
personnel community and services community that we are looking 
very hard at--and we sort of touched on it in different 
places--was, sort of, this nationwide shortage of childcare 
providers and if there are things that we can do. And we are 
looking at things like, how can we increase wages so that we 
are competitive with the market? Or, in certain places, we are 
increasing that wage above market rates, again, to ensure that 
we attract and retain the kind of childcare providers we need 
for our families.
    Chief.
    Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman, you know, again, 
not a day that goes by that I'm not thinking about childcare. I 
had two children myself that, as a dual military family, we had 
to have--they went into childcare from the day they were born.
    I would offer two challenges that we have. One is capacity; 
one is being able to hire the right staff and being able to 
have that staff.
    Where we are still waiting on capacity when it comes from 
things that are--you know, Mr. Oshiba is working on, we are 
really focused on, well, then, how do we get the staff, the 
right staff, into the seats? And so a lot--we have a working 
group that is very focused on that very thing, providing 
incentives.
    But the challenge that we have is, you know, COVID didn't 
do us any favors with respect to hiring people. The health 
protection levels, the staff availability, quarantines--all of 
those things were not helpful.
    Nonetheless, you know, our managers are out there at every 
one of our installations, you know, really beating the streets, 
trying to be able to hire the right people. And, oh, by the 
way, you know, they are challenged with they are competing 
against, you know, downtown locations or competing against 
McDonald's and, you know, other places that really do offer 
fantastic incentives.
    But we have taken a really strong look at our internal 
hiring processes, making sure that they are effective but they 
are, you know, as easy as we can make them to be able to 
onboard some of the best people.
    But we have done, also, a lot of other pretty good things 
to take care of them. We have militarychildcare.com. We have 
provided home community care that takes care of our Guard and 
Reserve brothers and sisters. We have a childcare coordinator 
on every single one of our locations who their whole job is to 
figure out the people especially on those different work 
schedules, to be able to help get after that.
    With respect to Creech, I am concerned about those parents 
who have their--you know, who have to drive 35, 45 minutes 
away. But I will tell you, I am very proud of the folks at 
Nellis and what they have done to be able to get after that, 
because Nellis has to take on those childcare responsibilities.
    They have done a lot of work to be able get after family 
childcare at homes. They have coordinated where I believe there 
was upwards of 150-ish families and childcare locations in the 
northwest part of Las Vegas to help limit some of that 
downtime, to be able to take care of them. They have 
established MOAs with the YMCAs who try to help get after 
childcare.
    So, again, a big challenge, but opportunities for us to, 
again, capitalize on our communities. And we are taking hard 
looks at this, ma'am.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. That is how we roll 
here. And thank you for your excellent line of questioning.
    Mr. Oshiba, I assume you have an answer to the questions I 
asked you about performance incentives still being given----
    Mr. Oshiba. Madam Chair, I do.
    So I can confirm that, at least for the Air Force, for the 
Air Force projects, we have not issued any performance 
incentive fees since 2019, and none have been approved since 
that point in time.
    And we will continue----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. For any company? For either Hunt or 
Balfour Beatty?
    Mr. Oshiba. For BBC specifically.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. For Balfour Beatty.
    Mr. Oshiba. Right.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And that is directly related 
to their past unacceptable performance?
    Mr. Oshiba. Directly related to the past performance as 
well as our--and, again, we continue to monitor their 
performance through that third-party auditor who was put in 
place so that there is no potential for doctoring anything or 
for any kind of bias.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And we will check with the 
rest of the services as well. And if you could, for the record, 
let us know about Hunt, because they obviously engaged in the 
same kind of conduct.
    Mr. Oshiba. Ma'am Chair, we will check.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I thank the members for their participation, as well as our 
witnesses. That concludes today's hearing.
    Your updates and perspectives are going to be very valuable 
to us as we start to prepare the chairwoman's mark for 2023. We 
appreciate all of your service. And I trust that we have 
thickened your skin a bit today, but it is better than tearing 
it off. So, you know, there is that.
    The committee staff will be in contact with your budget 
office regarding questions for the record. I know we have a 
number of those to submit, and I would imagine other members of 
the subcommittee do as well. So, if you would work with OMB to 
return the information for the record to the subcommittee 
within 30 days from Monday, we will be able to publish the 
transcript of today's hearing and make informed decisions for 
fiscal year 2023.
    I want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing, on 
research at the Department of Veterans Affairs, is on 
Wednesday, May 11, at 2:00 p.m.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]