[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 5

Impacts of VAs Research Efforts on
Veterans................................
1
Army Installations and Quality of Life
47
Navy and Marine Corps Installations
and Quality of Life Update..............
123
Members' Day Hearing..................
223

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

______

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-964 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

----------

Wednesday, May 11, 2022.

IMPACTS OF VAS RESEARCH EFFORTS ON VETERANS

WITNESSES

DR. PATRICIA HASTINGS, CHIEF CONSULTANT, HEALTH OUTCOMES MILITARY
EXPOSURES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DR. RACHEL RAMONI, CHIEF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 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 start 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 apologize for being a few minutes late. I had a markup in
another committee and we were voting. But I also apologize to
our witnesses in advance, because we now have very compressed
time to conduct this hearing. They are going to call votes in
about 10 minutes. And it is an extremely long series, so I
don't anticipate that we would be able to come back.
We are going to get through as much of this hearing as we
can. There are only a few members here. We are going to--I am
going to ask each member to take no more than 2.5 minutes for
your questions. I think we are likely only to get to one round
of questions, maybe two, if other members don't come. And, you
know, it is not a reflection of the commitment that we have to
the research that is so important at the VA; it is just the
voting gods are not smiling on us today.
So today's hearing will give us a chance to review VA's
research efforts and how they impact veterans. I am pleased to
welcome for the first time before the subcommittee Dr. Rachel
Ramoni, chief research and development officer at the
Department of Veterans Affairs. She is accompanied by Dr.
Patricia Hastings, chief consultant for the Health Outcomes
Military Exposures Program at VA, who we welcome back.
We are glad to have you both here with us today to share
your insights on the various research efforts VA undertakes to
improve the health of its veterans. The research programs at VA
are a critical part of sustaining the world-class care that
veterans deserve and have come to rely upon. These efforts
allow VA to stay on the cutting edge of new treatments, develop
and test improved medical devices, and enhance our
understanding of the medical conditions and injuries that
affect veterans.
As veterans live longer and recover from injuries that may
have been fatal in decades past, these programs are critical to
ensure that VA has the tools and treatments it needs to give
veterans, not only the best medical care, but the best possible
quality of life.
I have long admired VA's work in areas like improved
prosthetics and spinal cord research that help veterans recover
from the types of injuries that, unfortunately, are far too
prevalent among our servicemembers. But there is another area
that I am glad to see VA doing more in, and that deals with
developing a better understanding of how military service can
affect veterans in ways that are less immediately obvious than
a limb loss or other external injury.
First, I am really pleased to see VA's focus on mental
health and brain health within the research program, including
both traumatic brain injury, which is an area that we have come
to realize plays a significant role in long-term health
effects, as well as suicide prevention and other mental health
needs.
And, second, an area that is so critical to veterans of
multiple generations is that of toxic exposures during military
service. From Agent Orange to burn pits to PFAS, far too often
our servicemembers and their families are exposed to dangerous
chemicals as part of their military service. And the
frightening reality is we don't always see the health effects
right away, but they come back years later in the form of
cancers, breathing problems, and neurological conditions, just
to name a few. And the only way to understand how these
conditions are connected to military service is by actually
doing the research and the population studies.
So I am very glad that that is an area of focus in fiscal
year 2023 in both Dr. Ramoni's efforts at the Office of
Research and Development and in Dr. Hastings' work at the
Health Outcomes Military Exposures program, otherwise known as
the HOME program.
The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the medical and
prosthetic research account addresses a number of priority
areas that have been of great interest to the committee, and I
am glad to see the continued recognition of the importance of
the research program.
Investing in VA's research program has been a top priority
for me and for many Members on both sides of the aisle, and we
have been able to make significant investments in this program
over the past several years. In fiscal year 2022, we provided
$882 million, an increase of $67 million over the prior year's
funding, and the largest year-to-year increase in recent
history. And I know the subcommittee was very proud of that.
This year's request of $916 million is an increase of $34
million over last year's funding. I look forward to hearing
what your plans are for this program in fiscal year 2023 and
how this funding would be used to make progress for veterans.
And I also look forward to the chance to discuss some of the
overarching work of the research program and other related
efforts at VA.
So thank you both for being here today to discuss these
important issues.
And for our two members that just joined us, obviously,
votes are imminent. We have a very compressed timeframe. We are
going to limit questions to 2.5 minutes, and we will see how
far we can get.
So, with that, I am pleased to yield to our ranking member,
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I
appreciate you arranging this hearing.
Thank you for our two VA witnesses joining us today. I am
glad we are having a hearing, because I am particularly
interested in research related to burn pits and toxic
exposures, as well as the use of animals in experiments. The VA
has been a leader in research, helping veterans and all
Americans.
Thank you, Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings, for your
leadership. Please make sure the VA research community knows
that we appreciate their work and their contributions.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter yields back. Thank you
so much.
Dr. Ramoni, your full written testimony will be entered
into the record, and you are recognized to summarize your
remarks for 5 minutes.
Dr. Ramoni. Madam Chairwoman, under the circumstances,
would you like to just proceed to questions or would you like--
--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think because we are really not
going to get a lot of substance in here in terms of the
members' questions, that it would be good for you to review
your testimony publicly, and then we will do as much as we can
on the questions.
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Dr. Ramoni. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz
and Ranking Member Carter and members of the subcommittee. On
behalf of my colleague Dr. Patricia Hastings, who is chief
consultant for Veterans Health Administration's, or VHA's,
Health Outcomes and Military Exposures team, and myself, I want
to express our gratitude for the opportunity to discuss how
VHA's research programs improve the health of those who served.
VHA's Office of Research and Development, which I am
privileged to lead, has primary responsibility for managing the
Department's research appropriation and sets policy for
Department research activities.
For nearly a century, VA has had a research program
dedicated to enhancing the well-being of veterans through
scientific discovery. Because we are embedded within the VA
healthcare system, both operationally and culturally, as an
intramural program that exclusively funds eligible VA employees
qualified to do research, the science we support is firmly
grounded in the experience of clinicians and researchers
working directly with veterans in our medical centers. It
really is an extraordinary system in which to conduct
biomedical research.
Our greatest distinction is, of course, our mission to
serve veterans. Over 9 million former servicemembers are
enrolled in VA healthcare. Caring for these individuals and
those who preceded them has resulted in one of the richest
healthcare datasets in the world. When paired with the skilled
researchers and modern scientific computing, the opportunities
for veteran-centered discovery are vast.
The Office of Research and Development's capacity to do
good for veterans extends well beyond data science, of course.
We support the full range of research approaches, from basic
science to rehabilitation research. This fact could not be more
evident than in recent times.
During the past 2 years, many of our researchers stepped up
in the fight against COVID-19, including offering veterans the
opportunity to participate in vaccine and therapeutics trials.
Our researchers published the initial groundbreaking work
alerting veterans and the Nation to the potential scope and
dimensions of what is now referred to as long COVID. These
publications are among the nearly 600 articles that VA
investigators have contributed to the COVID-19 knowledge base.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget requests $916
million Medical and Prosthetics Research appropriation, which
builds upon your historic fiscal year 2022 investment.
Setting funding priorities is an essential part of
stewarding the substantial public funds. The Office of Research
and Development follows a multistep process for identifying
priorities, taking into account the input of many stakeholders,
as is detailed in a 2020 Government Accountability Office
report.
In fiscal year 2023, we continue to cultivate veteran-
centered priorities, including, but certainly not limited to,
precision oncology, brain health, suicide prevention, mental
health and, of course, military environmental exposures.
Every year, VA researchers make tremendous contributions to
expanding our body of knowledge. In fiscal year 2021, for
example, our scientists authored nearly 14,000 research
articles. Their work fuels the continuous cycle of research,
evidence-based policymaking, clinical care and evaluation,
which steadily improves veterans' care.
Dr. Hastings' Health Outcomes and Military Exposures team
is also integral to the process of using scientific evidence to
inform military environmental exposures policy and healthcare.
Both she and I appreciate the subcommittee's continued support
in our collective mission to serve veterans through the
thoughtful use of taxpayer dollars.
Dr. Hastings and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Dr. Ramoni.
And, Dr. Hastings, you are here in a support role today, or
are you also giving----
Dr. Hastings. I will answer any questions you have and talk
about military environmental exposures as you wish.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, great. Thank you.
I am going to ask the two key questions that I wanted to
ask together so that we can make this go a little faster.
My first question really surrounds how VA interacts with
other agencies in terms of your research efforts. For example,
I know we have had discussions with Dr. Hastings in the past on
VA's work in studying man-made toxic chemicals known as PFAS.
And in many ways, VA and the Department of Defense were really
letting other agencies, like the EPA, take the lead, despite
those issues directly impacting servicemembers who later enroll
in VA.
So my first question is, Dr. Hastings, on PFAS
specifically, has VA now been able to take more of an active
role in researching the health effects on veterans?
Dr. Ramoni, what interagency collaborations are you
participating in related to PFAS?
And then my other question is related to our women
veterans. That is an area of focus for the subcommittee, making
sure that we have the gender-specific needs of our veterans
met. How do you ensure, Dr. Ramoni, that women veterans are
adequately represented in VA's research?
We have felt that at times VA has treated women veterans as
an afterthought. For example, the subcommittee directed VA to
ensure adequate funds were set aside for research into women's
prosthetics. So, obviously, women's bodies are fundamentally
different from men's. So if you could answer both of those
questions, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you very much. I will start with the
question of women veterans and then hand it over to my
colleague, Dr. Hastings, to begin in the PFAS discussion, and
then finally talk about our partnerships.
So you are absolutely right that meeting the needs of women
veterans who have lost limbs is not simply a case of
miniaturizing solutions that work for men. With the support and
encouragement of Congress, we continue to conduct research on
the needs of women veterans with limb loss and have recently
licensed an ankle-foot, for example, developed at one of our
medical centers which can quickly be adapted to different heel
heights, including high heels.
Our Technology Transfer Office also has assisted in
licensing new 3D printed fingers that are more suitable to
women veterans' needs, and we have funded a follow-up study to
see how well those work for our women veterans.
And, obviously, to succeed in providing world-class care
for veterans, we have to succeed in providing world-class care
to women veterans. More women than ever are serving our country
in the military. So, for example, together with the National
Oncology Program Office, we will help to build the Breast and
Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence, including a center
for women's cancer research.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Dr. Hastings. And, ma'am, as a 33-year veteran and a
female, I absolutely understand the issues for gender in the
military. And we do work with the War Related Illness and
Injury Study Center very closely, and they actually, by ratio,
see more women than men.
We also make sure that in all our studies we oversample
women and that they are integral, because in order to
understand the veteran population, we also have to understand
the subdemographics, women being one of the fastest growing. So
absolutely.
We are working very closely with Dr. Patricia Hayes, who is
the head of Women's Health, as you know. And, in fact, we are
looking at taking one of our WRIISCs and making it a
coordinating center for the women's health issues and making
sure that we have this tertiary care available to our female
veterans.
With regards to PFAS, we actually--and this is after
talking to you last year--have a PFAS study that has been stood
up by VA's toxicologist, who is in my office. We are very
excited about that. It is going to be looking specifically at
the subsets of occupational exposures. And we also have put
together a fuel study, because we think those are two things
that really need to be more work, more in depth, more
understanding.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. I am glad to hear that. Thank
you very much. My time is expired.
And, Judge Carter, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ladies, I am pleased to see the VA is expanding its
research on burn pits and toxic exposures. How does this relate
to the Burn Pit Registry? How is VA coordinating with the
Defense Department? And are there any direct links between
cancers and other diseases to exposure to burn pits?
And, finally, a lot of our members are interested in a
Parkinson's disease study. You requested $16 million for the VA
to study Parkinson's disease as it relates to our military.
Does this budget assume a $16 million increase in the
Parkinson's disease program?
Dr. Ramoni. Again, Representative Carter, thank you for
asking your question. It is my understanding that you would
like to know about our continued commitments to Parkinson's
disease research.
And, of course, we have a large body of research going on
in Parkinson's disease, including deep brain stimulation, which
holds so much promise for providing real answers to people with
Parkinson's disease in terms of their function, as well as
large clinical trials on some of the things that accompany
Parkinson's disease, like Parkinson's disease-associated
psychosis.
So we do look forward on expanding that portfolio of work.
And I will get back to you and take a question for the record
about the exact plan we have for fiscal year 2023, sir.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Dr. Ramoni. And for the second part, I will cede to my
colleague.
Dr. Hastings. Thank you.
Absolutely, sir, we are studying burn pits. With regards to
a number of studies that we have, burn pits are central. We are
trying to find answers. We are working very closely with the
congressionally directed Medical Research Program, and we are
working specifically with brain, breast, lung.
As you know, we have put forward 12 presumptions related to
burn pits and particulate matter pollution this year, and nine
are the rare respiratory cancers and three are the asthma,
rhinitis, sinusitis.
We right now are looking at constrictive bronchiolitis, and
that is at the Airborne Hazards Open Burn Pit Center of
Excellence at the War Related Illness and Injury Study Center
in New Jersey. And thank you very much for all your support of
that. The work they are doing there is amazing, and I would
invite any of you to visit at sometime. I would be very pleased
to set that up.
We are looking at the cancers with relation to burn pits,
and we are looking with ATSDR at lung cancer right now and hope
to have a report early fall to be able to give to you.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter yields back.
I now yield 2.5 minutes to Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me thank the witnesses for coming. I too am very
interested in the toxic exposure and the burn pits. I
appreciate it.
And to move on to another subject, let me go to women's
healthcare. The budget request indicates that women account for
30 percent of the increase in veterans that are enrolled in the
past 5 years. Do your research efforts reflect this trend? Are
you increasing the amount of women-specific research in your
portfolio, and what are some of the challenges that you face in
researching women's healthcare? Are there enough women in your
datasets to draw scientific conclusions?
Dr. Ramoni. So thank you, Representative Bishop, for your
question about the representation of women in biomedical
research. Indeed, it is a problem across the board in
biomedical research that women are underrepresented. And we are
letting women know that they are welcome in biomedical research
by, for example, having outreach tailored to them.
So when the Million Veteran Program reached out in this
way, women veterans raised their hands in record numbers. For
the first time in the month following this outreach campaign,
we had more women enroll in the Million Veteran Program than
men, which is pretty remarkable.
In fact, we also continue to expand work that will reach
women veterans in rural and urban isolation areas. One of the
challenges of researching women veterans is that, even though
the numbers are increasing, they are dispersed widely across
the system.
So side by side with clinical counterparts in VHA, we are
expanding access to women-centric telehealth services, focused
initially on diabetes prevention, cardiovascular disease risk,
and perinatal depression prevention in a program called Empower
that is currently in four VISNs.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I will
yield back. I have only 25 seconds left.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Gonzales for 2.5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you for your testimony, Dr. Ramoni. My first
question is, you know, you have got six different priorities
here that you all tackle, all very important. To the suicide
prevention piece, are you all researching how veterans receive
their care or respond to their care?
And I ask that question because you have different veterans
from different generations. And a lot of the older veterans are
accustomed to going to the brick-and-mortar type of healthcare
facility and having that one-on-one interaction, but a lot of
younger veterans in the Iraq and Afghanistan era, they don't
want to talk about their time at Fallujah or their time, you
know, in Afghanistan, for say. They want a little bit more
private kind of relationship with their provider, get the meds
they need, get the help they need and kind of move along.
Are you all doing anything as far as how veterans are
responding to the care?
Dr. Ramoni. So thank you for your question, Representative
Gonzales. Of course, suicide prevention is one of the
Secretary's priorities. And we are steadily increasing our work
specifically focused on suicide prevention over the years.
I will have to get back to you for the record on how
veterans respond to different types of outreach by generation,
but I do want to tell you about a Precision Mental Health
Initiative that we are undertaking to better tailor treatment
to veterans on the basis of biomarkers, that is, on the basis
of brain scans, genetics, and so on and so forth, working
closely with the Office of Mental Health and Suicide
Prevention.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that, and happy to chat about
it more. I would say that, you know, I got a call from a
veteran a couple months ago going, hey, I am in a really dark
spot. It is the middle of the night. It was like a Saturday. I
am in a really dark spot. You know, is there anyone at the VA
that you could, you know, connect me with?
And I go, I am happy to do that; however, like, you need
help right now. And there was a lot--there are a lot of
nonprofits out there. One in particular is called Sound Off,
and they do this zero kind of connection; meaning, the patient
doesn't know who the physician is and the physician doesn't
know who the patient is. It is a very private way. It is 24
hours.
And I just relayed that as an immediate option, with the
long-term option of being, you know, going through the
traditional VA route. And I would say that was something that
he was looking for. He is like, fantastic, I was thinking I was
going to have to wait until Monday, I am trying to get through
the night.
So I just leave that with you, if there are maybe different
ways we can look at how we can tackle, you know, reaching
veterans.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back.
Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for
having this hearing and for doing your best to manage to fit it
all in.
And thank you very much, Dr. Ramoni. It is good to have you
here. And I apologize I haven't been able to participate. Like
everyone else, I am going back and forth between a few
different hearings.
But I just want to bring a quick issue up. One of the areas
where I think the VA could be doing more research is into the
medical benefits of cannabis for veterans. My home State is one
of the States that has legalized both medicinal and
recreational use of cannabis.
And we just hear a lot, I mean, a lot from veterans in our
State, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, who are
choosing cannabis in lieu of opioids and other treatments, or
to address things like PTSD. So I just want to be responsive to
their concerns.
There are a lot of efforts in Congress going on right now,
you know, to expand the VA's research into the benefits of
medical cannabis, and we had some report language in fiscal
year 2019 urging the VA to utilize it.
But can you just give me a little update about how many
research initiatives the VA has completed or you are
undertaking? I understand that there are 134 new projects that
could be done with the funding from fiscal year 2023. If we
provide those funds, how many could you do? Would more funds
help?
I will just let you take it from there, but it is just an
area where I feel like we could be more responsive.
Dr. Ramoni. So, first, I will say that we will leave no
stone unturned when it comes to finding answers for veterans.
And we absolutely have a role to play in the veteran-centric
use of medical cannabis. We feel that our research should
augment the work being addressed by NIH and other institutes to
focus on the specific use among veterans.
We have currently completed four and started nine studies
on cannabis and cannabinoids that are funded by VA research,
including two clinical trials that have recently started up.
There are an additional approximately 40 studies across VA
funded locally or by non-VA sources.
One particular area of interest for us is that while
cannabis seems to have--I have heard the same stories you have
about it being very useful. There are some concerning factors
in the literature too, such as episodes of psychosis. And so we
would like to look into those to ensure safety.
Ms. Pingree. That is great. Well, I know we don't have a
lot of time right now, but I appreciate your answer, and I will
follow up. I would love to see the list of what you were
talking about, get a little better sense of what research is
being done, what is being funded locally, and also the concerns
that you raised.
So I will yield back, but thank you so much for being with
us today and for the work that you do.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. The
gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
And just so members know, they are going to call votes in
about 5 minutes. Of course, we have a pretty lengthy period of
time. So I am going to go another round of 2.5 minutes, because
I think we will have time to do it. And thanks for everyone
being so understanding.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our guests for being here today, our
panelists.
Quick question. A recent Air Force study found that pilots
were 23 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer than the
nonflying servicemembers, and 19 percent more likely to develop
prostate cancer than the U.S. general population.
While the DOD is researching why these cancers rates are so
startling across the Force, impacted servicemembers will depend
on the VA to provide critical testing and therapeutics to
detect and treat this ever-present cancer.
Can you provide an update on the VA research efforts on
testing therapeutics for prostate cancer? Is this a program
adequately funded to keep pace with the rising rates of
prostate cancer among our veterans?
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you, Representative Valadao, for your
question. Indeed, prostate cancer is the most common nonskin
cancer within VA. And we were fortunate to get a generous
donation from the Prostate Cancer Foundation of $50 million,
which has allowed us to stand up what we call the Prostate
Cancer Centers of Excellence across the country, which has the
acronym POPCaP.
So we are continually expanding that work, and we have
augmented those with our own genitourinary cancer, including
prostate cancer, centers in the middle of the country. And we
are actively ramping up the clinical trials available to
veterans in VA for prostate cancer. So that is squarely one of
our primary interests, obviously being the most common cancer
in VA.
Mr. Valadao. I know I have gotten that one from a few
constituents in the district. Obviously, with Naval Air Station
Lemoore in my district, a lot of pilots, and it is something
that is talked about quite a bit. And I have got a few more
seconds.
Over 60 cancers disproportionately impact those who have
served in the military, and many are considered rare cancers.
Research to identify and treat rare cancer can be difficult,
resulting in fewer clinical trials and lack of treatment
options.
There have been an increasing--there has been an increasing
focus on precision medicine to understand the specific
molecular driver for each patient's cancer, to help inform the
best treatment options.
What is the Department doing to increase adoption of
molecular diagnostics for our veterans fighting these difficult
cancers?
Dr. Ramoni. So I will be short and sweet in saying that the
National Oncology Program Office, as a consequence of the first
moonshot, made available genetic testing across the country.
And we work very closely with them.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back.
Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is good to see you, Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings. Thank
you for all your work.
I come from Nevada. We have 200,000 veterans in my State,
and we all know too well the impact of opioid dependency on
veterans and their families. We know that veterans experience a
higher prevalence of pain and are twice as likely to die from
accidental opioid overdose.
Fortunately, we have some great promise in the osteopathic
manipulative treatment as an alternative to opioids. OMT is
nonpharmacological and noninvasive and has shown some great
potential for reducing pain intensity. From my conversations
with doctors at Touro University in Henderson, Nevada, I have
been impressed by OMT's potential for supporting veterans in
managing pain and reducing opioid dependency.
And I understand, Dr. Hastings, you are a doctor of
osteopathic medicine by training. So I would like to get both
of your thoughts here. Would you please share with us the VA's
work so far related to OMT and other opioid alternatives.
Dr. Ramoni. So I will start by saying that we have a range
of studies on nonpharmacologic approaches to pain management.
And we want to be able to direct veterans to nondrug options
that work. So we have a collaboration with the DOD and the
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health at NIH
to explore nonpharmacologic approaches. That has been ongoing
for several years, thanks to your support. And we are just
getting started with a large clinical trial for back pain,
looking at approaches ranging from enhanced physical therapy to
yoga to spinal manipulation.
And I will pass to Dr. Hastings, who is the osteopath.
Dr. Hastings. We study it with our surveys. And we actually
look at substance abuse very closely and have some interesting
findings with that. National Academy just did a review of
opioids. And you are absolutely correct, there needs to be
other therapies that are available, and those can range from
nerve blocks to osteopathic manipulative treatments and--as it
is affectionately known, Crunch.
But it does work very good with--very well with
musculoskeletal pain, also works with visceral pain. And it is
one of those therapies, it is a physical medicine method that
can take care of pain. So I do believe it should be looked at
more.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Love to follow up with you and just make
sure that we are eliminating or helping, Congress can help
eliminate some barriers so that we can proceed with that.
I yield.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentlelady yields
back.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Thank you to our witnesses joining us here
today. As a cancer survivor, I have benefited enormously from
the results of medical research, and I am a huge proponent of
supporting research through appropriations.
Our over 400,000-plus servicemembers have been diagnosed
with traumatic brain injury, or TBI, in the past 20 years. Vets
who have experienced a TBI are more likely to experience
depression, sleep disorders, PTSD.
So, Dr. Ramoni, could you please discuss how the VA's, you
know, TBI researchers collaborate with the Hannon Act suicide
prevention researchers?
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you, Representative Trone. It is an
interesting way that people do divide up the body. And we have
to sort of knit it together when we take on comprehensive
problems, like traumatic brain injury and its impacts on brain
and mental health.
And so the Hannon precision mental health component has
really allowed us the opportunity to bring together the Office
of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention with some of our large
studies looking at brain health over time. And that is thanks
to the generous support from this committee that we have been
able to undertake those.
So in the coming months, we will, for example, make
available a broader set of data that are related to both mental
health and brain health and allow researchers to begin
exploring the yet to be identified underpinnings of why it
seems that there are so many people with brain health
conditions who also, as you said, are living with these other
conditions at the same time.
Mr. Trone. And how does your research on TBIs and
depression influence the VA's Suicide Prevention Program?
Dr. Ramoni. So I will have to get back to you for the
record for the specific description, but we have at this point
an executive committee with the Office of Mental Health and
Suicide Prevention where we interact regularly about the
intersection of our work. And, of course, there are the MIRECCs
across the country, many of which receive substantial VA
research funding from my office.
Mr. Trone. And the VA budget request states diversity,
equity, inclusion and research is a priority for fiscal year
2023. How does the VA plan to increase diversity in----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Trone? Mr. Trone?
Mr. Trone [continuing]. Trials, particularly for TBIs,
where vets may not even realize that they experienced one?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I apologize. Your time has expired,
because we are under a compressed timeframe because they have
called votes. So we are going to come back to you, but I
limited every member to 2.5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, madam.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
I will just ask my question really quick, because we have
gone through round one.
I have spoken with the Secretary and was really pleased to
see the focus on oncology, cancer treatment, and research,
including $81 million within the research program. I also am a
cancer survivor, but, you know, cancer is obviously one of the
very prevalent diseases that afflict veterans.
So can you go into more detail about the new initiatives
that the funding would support with the oncology program?
Dr. Ramoni. Yes. I myself have personally been involved
with the precision oncology effort because it is so central to
what we do. The first thing that it is helping to support is
something we call the Lung Precision Oncology Program, where we
are working to get the best cancer care available across the
country to all veterans, no matter where they live. So every
VISN has a hub, and there are a total of 80 hubs and spokes
across the country. So that is number one what we are doing.
I mentioned previously the focus on cancers that
predominantly affect women, including breast cancers and
gynecologic cancers. That will be standing up over the next
year and into fiscal year 2024.
And in addition, we are focused not just on providing
precision cancer care once somebody has cancer, but the early
detection of cancer. So, for instance, one of the signature
efforts of the LPOP, or Lung Precision Oncology Program
efforts, is lung cancer screening and making that more
available to veterans wherever they live.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I will yield back.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Over the past 10 years, the VA research program
has increased by $300 million, 52 percent. The fiscal year 2023
budget requests another $34 million increase. If enacted at the
requested level, the VA's research budget will have grown 57
percent over 10 years.
Why does the VA need a $34 million increase in research?
How much do you intend--what do you intend to do with this
increase? And how much funding do you expect to carry over to
fiscal year 2023?
Dr. Ramoni. Appearing before the Appropriations Committee,
that is a very appropriate question, Representative Carter.
And so we have outlined in our budget request the areas
that we intend to expand, which include brain health, which
include precision oncology, includes expanding our research
enterprise footprint. And the reason that we need additional
funds to do this work is because we are focusing ever more on
what is now my second strategic priority, which is to increase
the substantial real world impact of VA research.
So I think in a previous time, we were judged mainly on our
publications, how many articles were published. And you heard
me cite the substantial contribution, the 14,000--14,000
articles.
But I think, hearing veterans and in speaking with
Congress, I think you also want to know what changes are
happening within the VA. And so working in partnership with
people like Dr. Hastings and working with the Oncology Office
on the national--on the Precision Oncology Program is part of
the work that we are establishing with the additional funds to
give you more bang for your buck.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Dr. Ramoni. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. The
gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
I want to turn to toxic burn pit exposure. And I am really
excited to hear about the VA's efforts to leverage internal and
external partnerships for toxic exposure research.
I just had a roundtable just this past week with several
veterans in Nevada. And so many of them who are younger who
were in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is their number one concern.
We have a premier research institute in Nevada, Nevada
Desert Research Institute, and they are standing ready to help
with these breakthroughs. In fact, they have been studying the
interaction of genetics and toxic exposure as it relates to
negative health outcomes, and they are preparing an impressive
research program that would leverage some datasets to learn
more about the effects of genetics and burn pit exposure on the
risk of cancer and other diseases.
So I wanted to ask both--I guess this is a combined
question. Dr. Ramoni, could you speak to VA's integrative
approach to promoting and establishing these types of research
partnerships? And then to Dr. Hastings, could you discuss VA's
interest in driving forward this type of genetics toxic
exposure research?
Dr. Ramoni. So I will speak more broadly about our
partnerships approach. So I have not explored the Nevada Desert
Research Institute in particular, but if it is an academic
institution, we have, as you know, many, many partnerships with
academic affiliates. And should people wish to become part of
VA and become eligible for funding through VA, those are folks
that we would be happy to fund their VA research.
But I want to highlight the point you are making, which is
that this topic is too broad to cover on our own. And so it is
only through partnerships that we are going to make this
progress. And we are fortunate in this space to have laid a
good foundation, as I think my colleague, Dr. Hastings, can
cover.
Dr. Hastings. Absolutely. There is a concern that veterans
have with military environmental exposures and a concern for
themselves, but it also extends to concerns for their family,
especially their children. And this has been something we have
seen since Vietnam, and we have researched it.
And, in fact, for the Gulf War and Health Series, the last
one we did, we asked them to look at the genetic components of
military environmental exposures. And the conclusion we came
to--more work needs to be done, but we really need a national
birth defects registry to be able to do that effectively. And
that was one of the things that stymied us. And if we had a
national birth defects registry, we could do a great deal more,
not only for veterans, but for the Nation.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. And I yield. I am over time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes and to
wrap us up.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Ramoni, I am proud San Antonio is the home to the VA's
Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center at the Audie
Murphy Medical Center.
What resources do you need in order to make sure that that
facility remains successful?
Dr. Ramoni. So thank you, Mr. Gonzales. As a proud
Laredoan, it is wonderful to see south Texas represented.
I believe that our budget outlines the resources we need to
strengthen our partnerships across the country. Certainly,
south Texas being home to so many veterans is an important area
for us. And the GRECCs, as you mentioned, are an especially
important group, given the population that VA serves in terms
of older veterans.
And I would like to take for the record your question so I
can get back to you with specific responses. But I also would
like to highlight the deep partnership we have with the
National Institute on Aging. And that partnership is a benefit
not only, of course, to us in ORD, but the offices that support
the GRECCs as well.
Mr. Gonzales. Great. My final question is, how does the VA
coordinate the research between all 20 medical centers with
these Centers of Excellence?
Dr. Ramoni. Oh, you are absolutely speaking my language
now, because I used to be the head of a coordinating center for
the Undiagnosed Diseases Network, as Ranking Member Carter
knows.
It is a great interest of mine, and that is where some of
the funding for next year will go, to have enhanced
coordination across these centers in terms of their research
portfolios. So, for example, the executive committee that we
have established with the Office of Mental Health and Suicide
Prevention exactly does that in terms of coordinating across
the MIRECCs. And I look forward to expanding that to
coordination with the GRECCs, which are another incredible
piece of infrastructure across the VA.
Mr. Gonzales. Great.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank everyone for accommodating our very
compressed timeframe, and apologize for speeding through what
would normally be a more leisurely approach to this hearing.
This concludes this afternoon's hearing. I want to thank
both Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings for participating in our
discussion today. I look forward to continuing to work with you
both.
As we move forward for our witnesses, 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,
given that we were not really able to ask the usual number of
questions that we can under a more expansive timeframe, and I
would imagine other members of the subcommittee do as well.
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.
And I would like to remind members that our next hearing is
tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the Department of the
Army installations and quality of life.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Thursday, May 12, 2022.

ARMY INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE

WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JASON T. EVANS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY
FOR INSTALLATIONS MANAGEMENT (G9), DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MAJOR MICHAEL A. GRINSTON, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY
RACHEL JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS,
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing on the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee will come to order.
Thank you all for participating in this hearing about Army
installations and quality of life update.
Before we begin, 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
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 or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
And the subcommittee will come to order. Good morning.
Today, we welcome Army installations officials and senior-
enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal year 2023 budget,
quality-of-life issues, as well receive an update on
installations.
Today we have before us Ms. Rachel Jacobson, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and
Environment; Lieutenant General Jason T. Evans--there you are--
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Installations Management;
and Sergeant Major Michael Grinston, Sergeant Major of the
Army.
Thank you all for joining us today to testify about some
very critical issues, and we certainly have a lot to discuss,
as we usually do.
Today, we look forward to engaging with the Department of
the Army on a host of important subjects that impact our
soldiers. I was very pleased that the fiscal year 2023
President's budget request was delivered to Congress early
enough to actually allow us to discuss the request indepth at
this year's hearing instead of spending a lot of time guessing,
like we had to do last year.
I was also happy to see the fiscal year 2023 request is
larger than what we saw as an inadequate request last year.
However, as with other services, I am once again concerned with
what has now become a tradition--an unfortunate one--of the
budget request looking to reduce the funding of military
construction compared to the previous years' enacted levels.
This trend not only directly impacts the mission readiness of
our forces but also the quality of life of servicemembers and
their families.
The fiscal year 2023 budget request of the Department of
the Army is $1.85 billion, which is $1.2 billion less than the
fiscal year 2022 enacted level of $3.1 billion. That is an
unacceptable 39-percent cut--39-percent cut.
Now, I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill
offered a particularly robust mark compared to recent years.
However, with so much important MILCON work to be done, higher
funding should be the norm, not the anomaly.
I shouldn't have to remind everyone that the military's own
estimate is that 30 percent of our military infrastructure is
in fair or poor condition. It just doesn't make any sense to
me. Even though Defense spending overall has increased every
single year, military construction somehow gets left in the
basement.
MILCON is so much more than building new firing ranges and
forts. It is providing resilient state-of-the-art facilities
that can weather increasingly destructive storms; I know that
from firsthand experience. It is reducing our carbon footnote
and combating climate change. It is building child development
centers and hospitals. It is cleaning up the environmental
messes our bases have left behind. It is providing quality
housing for our servicemembers and their families, all of which
ensure military readiness.
Reducing military construction funding when there is an
overwhelming backlog of required priorities is not only a
threat to our Nation's security, but also really bad
government. And, also, it is not doing right by our soldiers
and our servicemembers and servicemen and -women.
But this hearing will go beyond just this fiscal year's
budget request. Today, the subcommittee also looks forward to
discussing quality-of-life issues and also an update on
installations.
Sexual assault is still rampant cross all services,
including the Army, which has the highest rate of assault
reports. The subcommittee will seek out answers as to why that
is still such a significant problem and what the Army is doing
to remedy it.
We will talk about child development centers, which strive
to provide young children of our servicemembers safe and
comfortable childcare, and yet they are still not receiving the
attention they deserve from the Department of the Army.
We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance,
including the ongoing fraud scandal by one of its leading
housing companies, and ask what the Army is doing to ensure it
supports its servicemembers while holding its housing partners
accountable.
We will discuss what the Army is doing to protect its
servicemembers in threatening locations and how it is improving
its policies for those servicemembers who are becoming parents.
Additionally, we look forward to hearing how the Army is
addressing the ongoing remediation of PFAS contamination and
transfer of closed installations to their local communities.
Obviously we have many important issues to discuss. As it
is the ongoing mission of the subcommittee, this hearing is yet
another great opportunity to identify how we can do more to
serve those who serve us. We look forward to a candid,
productive conversation.
And now I would like to recognize my friend and colleague,
Judge Carter, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you and welcome, everybody.
It is a great pleasure today to meet with our ground
pounders, the Army. These are the guys and gals that do the
tough work every day.
I say this with no disrespect to the Marines. We will see
them next week. But there is no Nation that can defeat our
combined joint land forces, and together, they proactively and
ably defend our Nation's interests in liberty.
But, specific to the Army, I am pleased that we were able
to provide significant increases in fiscal year 2022 to support
the Army's military construction, family housing needs.
I wish this administration, just as I wished the previous
administration, would emphasize more military construction in
their budget request, as our chairwoman just explained.
Facilities and infrastructure makes soldiers better fighters,
also supporting their families and their happiness back home.
In closing, I want to thank the Army's witnesses today and
look forward to our discussion.
Go Army. Beat Navy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
So I appreciate all the witnesses that are here joining us
today and sharing your expertise.
For opening testimony, we will start with Assistant
Secretary Jacobson and move down the list as follows:
Lieutenant General Evans and then Sergeant Major Grinston.
Without objection, all written statements will be entered
into the record, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes to
summarize your opening statements.
Assistant Secretary Jacobson, you are recognized for your
opening statement, summarizing it for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Carter, and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear
here today with Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston and
Lieutenant General Jason Evans to testify on Army quality-of-
life issues and to present our fiscal year 2023 budget request
for installation and infrastructure.
Our fiscal year 2023 budget will help fund improvements to
family housing, barracks, and childcare facilities. I also want
to express our deep appreciation for the additional $1.4
billion in MILCON appropriations in fiscal year 2022, which
will enable the Army to continue investing in these essential
priorities.
The Army's most valuable asset is our people. We rely on
our soldiers to protect our Nation. It is our obligation to
treat our soldiers and their families with dignity by providing
safe, high-quality, affordable housing. We must not break trust
with those who serve us so very well.
I take very seriously any report of substandard conditions
that compromise the life, health, and safety of soldiers and
families.
I have reviewed the recent Senate report citing
mismanagement by Balfour Beatty Communities. I have also
watched the related hearing. The findings contained in the
report and highlighted in the hearing are very disturbing,
especially concerning conditions at Fort Gordon in Georgia.
The day after the report was released, I wrote to Balfour
Beatty indicating that I had directed an immediate
investigation at Fort Gordon to be overseen by the commanding
general of the Army Materiel Command.
We are also performing an audit of Balfour Beatty's
property management records at Fort Gordon, and we are
suspending any requests for incentive fees at this time.
When a privatized housing provider fails to meet its
performance obligations, the Army will be aggressive in using
all tools available to hold the provider accountable.
I have asked the Army's general counsel to provide me with
a comprehensive legal opinion outlining all enforcement options
available under law. Included in that analysis will be an
assessment of when we can amend contracts with privatized
housing providers to give us additional leverage as necessary.
And, if we conclude from this assessment that we need
legislative authorities to strengthen oversight and impose
greater consequences, we will work with Congress towards that
goal.
In the meantime, we have made progress in implementing
housing reforms directed by Congress. The Army has fully
implemented the tenant bill of rights, providing soldiers and
their families with real negotiating power. And the privatized
housing providers have committed to investing $3 billion over
the next 10 years to make needed improvements across the
portfolio.
We are also making improvements to Army managed barracks.
Over the last 3 years, we invested $2.4 billion. And, going
forward, we will continue to improving barracks--to improve
barracks for unaccompanied soldiers. And we are investing in
Army-owned housing as well.
As part of our quality-of-life commitments, in fiscal year
2022, the Army will build several new child development
centers. Where on-base childcare is not available, we are
providing subsidies so that Army families can obtain childcare
in the local community.
Quality of life also means ensuring our installations are
resilient in the face of climate change. Severe weather, heat
waves, and wildfires disrupt training and operations, displace
military families, damage Army assets, impose national security
threats by compromising readiness. That is why the Army became
the first service to release a climate strategy that details a
comprehensive plan to protect installations against climate
hazards, enhance our readiness, and reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Army places a high value on environmental protection
for our soldiers and their families, as well as our neighboring
communities. We are addressing PFAS by making sure we continue
to test Army-owned drinking water systems and take immediate
action if we find exceedances of EPA's health advisory levels.
We are also working with DOD and the other services to identify
substitutes for AFFF, and we will phase out its use in
accordance with NDAA requirements.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Carter, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for your continued support to our
soldiers, civilians, and their families.
I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Assistant Secretary.
Lieutenant General Evans, your full written testimony will
be entered into the record, and you are recognized for 5
minutes to summarize your remarks.
General Evans. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member
Carter, and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf
of 1 million soldiers and 2.2 million family members, thank you
for your continued support of our Army and for supporting our
fiscal year 2023 budget and providing over a billion dollars in
additional funding for key programs such as barracks, family
housing, and childcare facilities.
The Army's budget for installations is aligned with the
priorities set by the Army's senior leaders: people,
modernization, and readiness.
In this year's fiscal year 2023 budget, we are requesting
$8.1 billion for the Army installations infrastructure; $1.9
billion of that is military construction, and $6.2 billion of
that is facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.
Our MILCON request is focused on improving soldier and
family quality of life. It also includes projects to improve
readiness and modernization for all components, at various
locations throughout the United States.
To make the best use of the funding allotted to the Army,
we are working to balance sustainment, restoration,
modernization, and demolition across all components, especially
as these projects typically have a faster impact on improving
our facilities than just a military construction solution.
The Army relies on a multipronged strategy to provide
childcare and plans to construct seven additional CDCs by
fiscal year 2026. We also seek to expand and retain our
existing CDC staff and increase the number of family childcare
homes. For families who don't have childcare on post, the Army
fee assistance subsidy will increase from 1,500 to 1,700 in
fiscal year 2023.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the importance of
the Army's quality of life and military construction
initiatives. At every installation, we endeavor to take care of
our soldiers and families by ensuring access to quality
facilities, housing, and childcare. And, to do that, we need
your continued support by providing timely, adequate,
sustainable, and predictable funding so our installations will
remain ready and resilient and provide the quality of life our
soldiers and families deserve.
Again, thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General Evans. I
appreciate your remarks and your service.
And, lastly, Sergeant Major Grinston, you are recognized
for 5 minutes to summarized your statement, and your full
written testimony will be entered into the record, without
objection.
Sergeant Major Grinston. Thank you.
Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to speak on behalf of 1 million soldiers, their
families, and the Army civilians who make up your all-volunteer
force.
First, I want to say publicly how proud the Army senior
leaders are of our soldiers and their commitment to reassuring
our NATO allies and supporting our Ukrainian partners.
Over the past few months, we have visited soldiers in
Germany, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. We would like to thank
all those host nations for welcoming our soldiers and providing
so much to help sustain our presence in Europe.
Never before has the United States Army moved so many so
quickly. What many people don't see, however, is the impact on
the families. We visited Fort Stewart, Fort Bragg, and Fort
Riley to listen to spouses and ensure we are taking care of
them. Hearing their passion and emotion underscored the
importance of providing additional resources to support them
during this time.
These soldiers and families, our people, are what make us
so lethal and effective, ready to surge when called upon to
defend America and enduring national interests, and fight and
win the Nation's wars. That is why we must remain--they must
remain our top priority. Our focus on people means providing
quality housing, healthcare, childcare, spouse employment
opportunities, and efficient PCS moves.
I want to thank you for all the work this committee has
done to support the Army in these areas.
Last year's appropriations bill demonstrated that
commitment to your soldiers and their families. The Army needs
cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined, and
mentally, socially, and physically fit. Soldiers should be able
to serve in any environment without the effects of harmful
behaviors, like sexual harassment, sexual assault, and suicide.
The Army's top enlisted leaders have dedicated countless
hours to this aim through a monthly solution summit. This
meeting brings together leaders from around the globe to
identify early trends and discuss lessons learned from their
individual prevention initiatives.
A no-cost solution from this summit was moving sexual
assault and sexual harassment training in initial military
training from week 2 to within the first 72 hours,
significantly reducing abusive sexual-contact cases. The Army
is doubling down on our prevention efforts through a holistic
approach, focusing on not only leader development, but also the
institutional factors that shape the overall environment.
During a recent trip to Alaska, we identified shortfalls
affecting overall quality of life that the Army senior leaders
are currently addressing. We are surging behavioral health
professionals, chaplains, and military family life counselors
to Alaska, some arriving as soon as May 15th. Preventing
harmful behaviors is the focus. However, I acknowledge that
world-class trauma-informed response is also necessary.
It is okay and encouraged to seek behavioral health when
concerns arise. Likewise, the Army encourages reporting from
victims and survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment
so victims get the services they need and offenders are held
appropriately accountable.
We are investing in soldier support programs and
initiatives, such as the Sharp Fusion Center Pilot, to provide
the necessary response for our soldiers. My goal remains to
have prevention efforts so effective, there is less need for a
response.
As your Sergeant Major of the Army, it is humbling to serve
our soldiers, families, and civilians and to be their voice
here today. The advocacy of this subcommittee is a reminder
that our Nation stands with them.
They have overcome great adversity, but their service
reminds the world of one thing: Our men and women are ready
now, and that will never change.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Sergeant Major. And, on
behalf of the committee, thank you for your service and for
your leadership in representing the thousands of enlisted men
and women that serve in the United States Army.
So thank you all for your remarks. We will 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 times to answer within your 5-minute
turn.
I want to start with the obvious, and that is what I
mentioned in my opening remarks, that I find it unacceptable
that the annual budget request is yet again looking to reduce
spending compared to last year's enacted funding levels. Each
year, the President's request seeks to increase overall Defense
spending. But, for some reason, military construction is
usually left out.
The Department of the Army is facing the most dramatic cuts
of all the services. The Army has requested $1.85 billion,
which is $1.2 billion less than the fiscal year 2022 enacted
level of $3.1 billion. As I said, that is a 39 percent cut from
one year to the next.
So, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, welcome to your first Mil
Con, VA hearing. Understanding that the fiscal year 2022
appropriations bill was only enacted in the omnibus when it
passed in March, can you briefly explain how important that
high level of funding was for the Department and a sample of
what you will be able to accomplish briefly with that funding?
Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, that additional funding
will allow us to make immediate improvements in Army-owned
housing, barracks, childcare facilities, and other
modernization and sustainment and resilience efforts across our
installations.
I am going to ask General Evans if he has additional detail
to add to that.
General Evans. Madam Chairwoman, first of all, we were
grateful for the additional $1.2 billion, which allowed us at
least 30 more MILCON projects. As the Secretary articulated, in
terms of childcare facilities--and this is across all compos--
readiness facilities, and family housing.
To address your question on what was enacted versus what
was appropriated, I think you will find, Madam Chairwoman,
since 2021, each budget, when you look at our infrastructure
investment, which also includes facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization, along with military
construction, we have increased that budget request each year.
And, also, we have been able to take advantage of the
chief's UPL list, which has allowed us, at least in the last
two, additional billion dollars investment, 46 projects in
2022, and then another 46 projects at $1.3 billion for 2023.
And all of those requests are filled with childcare centers.
In 2021, you were gracious enough to support the three
childcare centers, one in Alaska, two in Hawaii. And then,
again, in 2022, you supported childcare facilities at Fort
Knox, Fort Leavenworth, and now we have one in Fort Polk for
the 2023 UFR. We were also to get a number of barracks projects
across the compos in those UFR requests.
And so, ma'am, each--each year, we base our budget request
on Army priorities, and we think, right now, in terms of people
and modernization and readiness, we are serious about the money
that you appropriated in addition and the money that we ask for
each year in addition to the previous year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean, there are words and actions,
and I am a show-me person, not a tell-me person. And a 39-
percent cut is the action. So, I mean, you can tell us that,
you know, you are serious about making sure that you take care
of the infrastructure needs of the Army, but your budget
request doesn't represent that seriousness.
I would like to also have you explain to the committee,
Secretary, why the Department's fiscal year 2023 request is
dramatically lower than what we enacted in fiscal year 2022.
Are you suggesting that the Army simply has less needs in
this fiscal year?
Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the budget process is, of
course, finely tuned, and it balances the Army's top
priorities--Department's top priorities--people,
modernization----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I know.
Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. And readiness.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know, but why does MILCON always
get the short end of the stick? I know there is a lot of
priorities----
Ms. Jacobson. Yeah.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. But we balance those
priorities every single fiscal year.
Ms. Jacobson. Some of those same construction modernization
efforts are funded through the facilities sustainment and
restoration and modernization moneys. So MILCON alone doesn't
reflect the total investment in housing, modernization of
infrastructure, childcare centers, and so forth.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Since you mentioned housing,
does the Department consider family housing a need worthy of
funding? And I am asking because the Army's budget request cuts
family housing funding in fiscal year 2023, but you had the
gall to list over $320 million worth of family housing projects
on the unfunded requirements list submitted to Congress this
year.
Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the housing investments are
a top priority, and barracks especially are funded largely
through facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization
accounts, as well as military construction. And, in the last 3
years, the last 3 fiscal years, we have invested $2.4 billion
in barracks recapitalization.
For Army-owned housing, in the last 3 fiscal years, we have
invested $900 million on construction, and the budget now
includes requests for additional funding for Army owned housing
in Italy and in Germany.
The privatized housing, of course, is financed by those
privatized housing companies.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am a little over my time,
but, if they are a priority, again, you can speak words here,
but money talks, as the expression goes.
If they are a priority, why are they on the MILCON unfunded
priorities list? If they are a priority, then they would be in
your budget request asking us to fund--I mean, the unfunded
requirements list is what we have to go to if we have the money
and how far down the list we can fund. That does not
demonstrate that they are a priority.
Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the balance between the
unfunded priorities list and what goes into the original budget
is a finely tuned process, and I am going to ask General Evans
if he has anything to add to that.
General Evans. Ma'am, I think what you are seeing on the
fiscal year 2023 UPL lists, those cost-to-completes for housing
were in a budget request previously. Those are on the UPL list
because they are cost overruns. As you may know, ma'am, we have
been experiencing about a 24 percent because of materials and
labor----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I know those entry costs.
General Evans [continuing]. And so that is why they
migrated over to the UPL list, because they are very important,
particularly when you are talking about the preponderance of
Army-owned housing is overseas. And I think what you will see
there is you will see Kwajalein, you will see Vicenza, and you
will see Baumholder long overdue. And so we made that a
priority on the UPL list, and we are starting to experience
even more cost overruns with 6 percent increase in----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am just reclaiming my time.
It is difficult to understand why you wouldn't prioritize
completing a project over starting another one. I mean, that is
not how we do things in our own households, and that isn't, to
me, efficient, nor is it providing good, comprehensive,
completed service to the needs of our--of our servicemembers.
Okay. My time has expired. I appreciate the indulgence.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, in fact, if you add in the unfunded requirements, we
are $3.3 billion short.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah.
Mr. Carter. That is a lot of money. And we are all about
making the Army still the most lethal force on the face of the
globe and a place where our families--Army families can be
comfortable and feel that they are not forgotten by our
country. And there is some of that going on right now,
especially with the housing challenges we have got.
And so I realize everybody's charging hard about that, but
the real world is that we have still got a lot of issues out
there. And one of them that I just really enjoy talking about
is motor pools.
Now, I realize you are doing them off budget here, so I am
happy about that. But--and I am sure the sergeant major knows
this, and I am pretty sure the general knows this. At Fort
Hood, we had motor pools where you can't pull the engine off an
Abrams tank indoors. You have to do it outside. It is not good
watching them pull it in close to zero-degree weather, and
there is a lot of busted thumbs and unhappy soldiers.
I have also seen it even worse when the temperatures are 90
to 100 degrees outside, and you can fry an egg off the top of
the engine that they are working on. That is why motor pools is
a work environment for a soldier, and that work environment is
not good.
Now, we are--I realize both--I learned from the general and
from Ms. Jacobson that you are doing this off other money. But
things bog down a lot, and we feel like--I agree with my
chairman. If we are going to be military construction, we ought
to be doing this where we have oversight over it and can do it.
And so I wish that we could convince those who do the brain
thinking on budgets that military construction projects should
be properly funded under military construction, not off budget.
That is just--I preach along with my chairman.
But that's the thing I wanted to--those guys working on
that hot engine out there in the sun at Fort Hood, it is
criminal. You have got to work with gloves on, or you burn your
hands. And, you know, if you have got to put gloves on to
protect your hands, you have always got the possibility of
something slipping when you are dealing with that big of an
engine, plus you can't get into the detail, and, therefore, you
have got a real problem. Somebody gets hurt.
And then there are--you have got a soldier not only not
able to do his job, but maybe seriously injured. And I have
watched them juggle things out there. You set a wrench down.
And, with a bare hand, you try to pick it back up, and you have
got to drop it. We have got to cover where you go under. It
still doesn't work.
So we have got to make the highest priorities about these
workplaces. And I would like a little comment from all of you.
I know we are off budget on that and doing something, but we
have to hear the complaints about that, and this is our job.
And how do we move to that?
I will start with Ms. Jacobson.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you so much. Oops.
I thank you so much, Representative Carter, and thank you
for your support. And Fort Hood obviously is a very special
place. I have heard a lot of folks talk about it since my short
time at DOD, and I know your support for it has been highly
appreciated.
With respect to the motor pool modernization--and I know my
colleagues here will have a lot more to say about it--the new
design is--will both protect soldiers and provide safer
conditions and make sure that new equipment can more readily--
that can accommodate new equipment. And so, with the new
design, the problems that you--the challenges that you
highlight should be alleviated.
But I will turn to both of my colleagues for any----
Mr. Carter. Let me say that I--I have been--we have a new
design. You can pull a great--great track on ceiling that will
pull an engine. It is wonderful. I just want all of those to be
that way.
Ms. Jacobson. Right.
Mr. Carter. General.
General Evans. Sir, thank you again for your support. And
you are absolutely right. Motor pools are critical to readiness
of our Army.
I visited those motor pools that you are speaking of at 1st
Cav Division at Fort Hood. While Fort Hood didn't compete in
the 14 motor pools across the Army we have in the program,
Judge, again, we are using restoration and modernization to get
at that. And we will be able to get at that using the new
construction standards, as we have talked about before, having
the 5-ton crane and the 10-ton crane, the appropriate tools and
the climatization and get soldiers outside inside. But we are
committed to getting the motor pools in a place where soldiers
can work safely and effectively.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, General.
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Carter, thank you.
And I have been one of those soldiers that has had to pull
an engine outside in extremely hot weather and in extremely
cold weather. And, yes, it is extremely challenging. And I
agree with you that I want the same thing that you want, is all
those motor pools have the overhead capacity. So we completely
agree.
That is why we--we absolutely have to have, you know,
timely, adequate, and predictable and sustainable funding so
that our facilities investment plan can actually get to where
we want for all our soldiers to have that.
There is going to be times that soldiers are going to have
to do that. And I have been in those places. We probably need
them to always wear gloves, no matter if it is hot or cold. I
know things will slip, but, when you work with heavy machinery,
we want them to wear gloves so we don't lose fingers and things
like that. So it is a safety issue. So please wear your gloves.
But, Judge--Rep--Congressman Carter, I agree. I want the
exact same thing, that all those motor pools look the same.
Mr. Carter. Well, the one we have, you know, the good one,
it is just beautiful. And all of our soldiers are so pleased
with it. But then the other guys feel like they are not second-
class citizens; they are last-class citizens where they are
working. I just can't help but keep preaching on this. We have
got to get that fixed.
And just drive down Tank Destroyer Road and see our money--
how much heavy equipment we are dealing with at Fort Hood. And
these guys are--they see it, and they all do--it all has to be
worked on all the time. And, therefore, those people in the
small World War II motor pools really feel like second- and
third-class citizens and--as they serve in this Army.
So I am going to keep yelling about it until we have got
motor pools for every soldier on Fort Hood, a thing to be proud
of.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. You are a
remarkable advocate for your people, always. And the gentleman
yields back.
And, Ms. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being
here.
I want to focus on access to timely mental healthcare. That
has been an issue, as previously I served on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. But, given the immense amount of stress that
our servicemembers, especially in Nevada--our National Guard as
well--are under, and then what we have seen in terms of over
30,000 of those who have served since 9/11 have died by
suicide, which is four times more than the number of deaths in
military operations over that period, so we felt this loss
acutely in my home State.
And, unfortunately, the Army and other branches have
struggled to provide mental healthcare in a timely manner. The
IG report has said that the DOD has consistently not met the
Federal standards for outpatient mental health access,
including wait times for urgent care that shouldn't exceed 24
hours, but we have heard of month-long wait times for
nonemergency mental health appointments, as recently as this
spring.
And so it goes without saying that we owe this to our
servicemembers, and I am committed to working to improve that
standard. And, with that, Sergeant Major Grinston, I would like
to ask: Can you speak about the impact that you have witnessed
on mental healthcare wait times on servicemembers' well-being
and readiness?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congresswoman, thank you. This is
not just a good question; it is a very extremely important
question.
The impact to our soldiers and their wait times, we have to
do better. We have seen those wait times. I have had a lot of
soldiers explain this, that we need to do better, but we also
need to do better as a Nation.
Currently, we are about 78 percent of our authorizations.
That is what we have filled. We are working with DHA to get
more authorizations, but we actually have to fill to those
authorizations we have. In other words, we are short.
Mrs. Lee. Sure.
Sergeant Major Grinston. So we have got to work with DHA to
get that. That will help us out and get those wait times lower.
But we also have to use all the capabilities that we have,
meaning we have to utilize our military family life counselors.
We have to use our chaplains--those are licensed counselors--so
that we can triage the mental resiliency of our soldiers and
get them the care that they need so that at least they are
seeing someone.
But we are absolutely working with DHA to get to our
authorized, and then get above that authorization. But, right
now, we are short of our authorizations. But we have to do
better.
There is--one thing I will say, Congresswoman, is that, if
a soldier has an emergency, they should not wait, and that is
inexcusable. We have to get them to the emergency room and get
them the care. If they are going in through a routine
appointment trying to do emergency care, we as leaders have to
do better to make sure that they are going to the right spot.
And so the impacts are there. We did see our suicide
numbers for the last 2 years go up. And, this year, we can say
that they are down. But we have put a lot of effort into that,
and that is not an excuse to take our foot off the gas to get
us to the appropriate behavioral health that we need.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Yeah, I am--you know, access to
practitioners obviously is something we are struggling across
this country, something that we deal with in civilian
circumstances as well.
Ms. Jacobson or Lieutenant General Evans, on top of that,
what are the other barriers that we can assist with to reduce
this wait time and open up access? What other issues can we
help you address?
General Evans. Ma'am, I don't have anything that I could
offer. Just in addition to the Sergeant Major of the Army's
comments, you are exactly right. We are all competing in
America for the same kind of skill set, the behavioral health.
And I know that the Army Surgeon General is using incentives to
incentivize to get--bring people on Active Duty to serve as
behavioral health specialists.
Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Okay. Thank you.
I don't think I have enough time for another question, so I
will yield.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlewoman yields back.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, General Evans, and
Sergeant Major Grinston, for testifying before this committee
today.
I know that we all share in your commitment for supporting
our soldiers both abroad and at home. I look forward to
discussing all installation quality-of-life concerns affecting
our Army and what we can do to address them. And I want to echo
our chairwoman and ranking member on some of the concerns
obviously with the budget request for the--it is disappointing,
but we will focus on other stuff for right now.
Ms. Jacobson or General Evans, I represent several Army
National Guard and Reserve facilities in central California.
Over the past year, two facilities in Bakersfield reported
break-ins resulting in loss of property, including vehicle
parts, tools, and other items that could easily be resold.
My office reached out to the facilities to see how we could
help, and, after some site visits, we were surprised to learn
that these facilities lacked some very basic security measures,
including cameras and taller fencing.
I can only assume that there are many other facilities also
lacking these very basic protections. While the value of these
losses might be small compared to the totality of the DOD
budget, I am concerned about the overall readiness issues they
present. For example, several vehicles were missing their
batteries. And, in the event of an emergency, they would be
useless.
Are you aware of the prevalence of these security issues
across the country, and is there anything you might need from
this committee to ensure that our installations, including the
Guard and Reserve Components, are secure to the best of our
abilities?
And, additionally, does the Army collect any data on the
status of Guard and Reserve facility infrastructure?
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you very much, Congressman Valadao. And
thank you especially for mentioning the Guard, of course, and
the Reserves. And we provide as much support as available to us
for the Guard and Reserves. They are very important components
to us, and we want to make sure they have that--what they need.
The security issues have been brought to our attention, and
they are being taken very seriously. And we do need to employ
more security measures to avoid the kinds of thefts you have
described, because it compromises readiness, and we really
can't afford a compromise of readiness. But I will ask General
Evans to amplify on that and if Sergeant Major has any other
comments.
General Evans. Sir, you are exactly right. It is very
concerning. We will work with the Army National Guard to
provide them any additional sustainment funds or R&M funds they
need.
Basic security is a line item in sustainment. It does
involve fencing and intrusion systems, but we will work with
the Army National Guard to make that a priority. And we do
assess Army National Guard and the USAR facilities just like we
assess the Active Component each budget cycle so that we know
what they need based on their facility investment strategy and
the conditions of their facilities, sir.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. I had the opportunity to
see quite a few bases over the years, and some abroad and some
obviously here in--on lower 48, and there is obviously a lot of
frustration. So, when we see the numbers being requested, we
know that there is the need. We know that there is a
requirement, and hopefully we are meeting that.
The Army announced--this one is for Sergeant Major
Grinston. The Army announced an overall reduction in total end
strength of--from 485 soldiers to 473,000 in fiscal year 2023,
so I think the need to focus on quality over quantity.
Can you provide a bit more insight into this decision?
Specifically, what career fields are you prioritizing, and how
are you addressing your recruitment techniques to find the
high-quality talent you are looking for to support our future
force?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the
question.
You know, we want to maintain the all-volunteer force. We
want to maintain the quality of soldiers that are coming in. We
don't want to lower--the quality versus quantity means we don't
want to lower those standards. We have a certain level
standard. We want you to have a high school diploma or
equivalency.
That is why we are saying we want to maintain that quality.
What we really need is we need everyone's help. We are seeing
the amount of individuals that qualify for the military to go
down. So a couple----
Mr. Valadao. Could we clear up that number?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Sure.
Mr. Valadao. Give a little more details there?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. Twenty-nine percent of
Americans qualified and could come into the military, meaning
they didn't have a disability, they were eligible through--you
know, they were physically fit enough to actually come in the
military. That was 29 percent of all--all American citizens.
That is now 23 percent. So the pool is shrinking of those
that are qualified, that could pass the aptitude test, that can
physically come into the military. And, as we see that pool
shrink, that just makes it harder, because we all want those
same American citizens. We want them to come in in the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force.
We also want them to be college athletes. We want them to
go to--so that pool, as it gets less and less, it just becomes
extremely hard for us to recruit because the overall bench is
less and less in American citizens. And that is why we want
to--we want to maintain our quality and not--and say we are
going to bring people that aren't really eligible to come into
the military, and that is what we mean by doing--maintain the
quality.
What are we doing to ensure that we can maintain our goals
as much as we can? We have to meet soldiers where they are at.
We have a social media influencer recruiting drive that is
going on. We have done Army days, and we have got to get out
and make sure that our country knows that, you know, we are
still a reliable employer.
And what I mean by this is that a lot of our soldiers that
are coming in right now are from military families. We need
to--this doesn't need to be a military business. This needs to
be an American business where everyone says it is okay to join
your Army.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, thank you.
My time is up, so I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time is expired. The
gentleman yields back.
And, Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions. Mr. Bishop is participating virtually.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me welcome Assistant Secretary Jacobson, Lieutenant
General Evans, and Sergeant Major Grinston.
Let me go to the issue of our privatized housing
initiative.
Ms. Jacobson, do you support overall the way that we
structure our contracts with military privatized housing
partners to ensure that we can hold them accountable when they
fail to provide safe and healthy housing for our soldiers and
when they defraud the Federal Government?
Ms. Jacobson. Oops.
Congressman Bishop, thank you so much for that question,
and thank you also for your support.
As you are aware, the contracts are very complex with these
privatized housing companies, and there are several governing
agreements, including the operating lease.
Part of my review right now in the wake of the Balfour
Beatty incident is to ask the general counsel to give me a
better understanding of all enforcement authorities and
oversight authorities I have within the context of those
contracts.
Obviously we have implemented a lot of oversight reforms as
directed by Congress, and those reforms are clearly within the
scope of those contracts, so that we now have, at echelon,
going all the way to the top and throughout the chain of
command, much better oversight. We are performing more
inspections. We are meeting more frequently with the CEOs.
And, importantly, the tenants have a voice now, and they
can dispute, as needed, either formally or informally. They
have access to maintenance records.
But we have to do more, and we certainly have to keep
assuring that the privatized housing companies remain
accountable. And so, for this reason, I want to understand my
authorities better.
Mr. Bishop. Can general counsel perhaps give you some added
provisions that will give you some teeth for enforcement? If
you just take that for consideration.
Let me switch to Sergeant Major Grinston and ask: Since the
Army has implemented all 18 of the tenets of the tenant bill of
rights at all of the Army installations, have you seen
improvement in military family satisfaction with military
housing because of that?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Hi, Congressman. Thank you for
that question.
I think, in the next few weeks, there will be a survey that
actually lets us know exactly what the families--we don't have
that finalized yet and to come out, so there is a survey that
we do that says whether they are--agree, and it is good living
in family housing.
Since I ask, just talking to families across--and I do a
lot of that--I would say generally yes and no, meaning the
majority of the families really like the new tenant bill of
rights. They liked having the authorities. But it will take
some time for that to come into play. We can implement it and,
it takes a little while to have a universal lease, for everyone
to understand it as you move from one location to the next. So
I believe----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will be monitoring----
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir?
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. That, sir. Thank you very much.
In the last three NDAAs, the most--and the most recent
appropriations bill, we requested congressional briefing and a
written report from DOD on food insecurity in the military, and
we are still waiting for the briefing and the report.
My colleagues and I have the impression that the military
and its branches are not taking this seriously. Do you think
food insecurity is an issue for soldiers and their families,
and are you assisting DOD in compiling the report?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. We clearly take food
insecurities seriously. No soldier or family should be, you
know, wanting or needing food and go without and having to do
that.
So we are clearly working with Department of Defense. We
have a weekly meeting with the Department of Defense to discuss
the--what was put in this year's NDAA on the basic needs
allowance so that we can get that DOD-I out so we can
identify--once DOD tells us the parameters that we do, we can
go ahead and put out our orders to see how we can get that
money to our families as fast as we can. And we are working
with DOD as much as we can.
But it is not just the basic needs. It is also about
financial literacy. It is about teaching soldiers how to manage
their money. It is also teaching them how to get appropriate
food in the commissary so they have healthy choices.
So we are working with the Department of Defense on the
money. We are also working internally to make sure that our
soldiers know how to financially do the--manage their budget.
But it is not just about finances. There is many other factors
of that, and, yes, we are working with all involved leaders and
the Department of Defense.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has just about expired, but
let me thank all three of you for your efforts on behalf of our
servicemembers in the United States Army. I am an Army veteran,
and I just say hooah.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Thank you for
your service as well.
Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gonzales, you represent your--excuse me. You are
recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, panelists,
for being here today.
You know, you really stepped in it earlier, Sergeant Major,
when we were talking about quality of soldiers. You know, my
father was in the Army. My grandfather was in the Army. I
thought I was going to go join the Army.
And, when I went to go sign up to join the Army, I was a
half credit away from graduating, and I dropped out at that
time. And the Army didn't have a program for me.
So I ended up going to the Navy. And guess what? I served
20 years in the Navy. I retired a master chief, and now I am a
Member of Congress.
So, when you talk about quality of folks, I think you can't
always just look at the--you know, the bean counting in it. You
have got to look at different options.
And, also, by the way, I went and got my associate's. I got
my high school diploma when I was stationed in Pensacola,
Florida. I got my associate's, my bachelor's, my master's, and
I started my Ph.D. before joining Congress.
I say all that to go--look, please--look beyond just maybe
some of the things that we traditionally look at as far as high
school diploma equivalency.
My priority--my priorities for the Army MILCON construction
projects for fiscal year 2023 include a request for $15 million
to construct a new fire station at Fort Bliss to support the
new William Beaumont Army Medical Center. Without this fire
station, Fort Bliss will not have the adequate facilities to
protect the new hospital.
I look forward to the Army's report on the mobilization
force generation installations as required by fiscal year 2022
omnibus. Addressing deficient rapid deployment capabilities for
armored units is imperative in the event the Army needs to send
equipment to the Pacific theater.
Fort Bliss' railhead currently only has one track, which I
recently visited and was able to see personally, which could
cause deployment delays of up to 4 weeks if China were to
attack Taiwan. This report is due to congressional Defense
committees within 90 days of March 16th's enactment, and I want
to ensure the Army will meet this deadline.
My first question is for Lieutenant General Evans. In the
coming days, a Federal judge would decide if Biden's
administration can lift title 42 authorities. Actually, it came
out yesterday that that may be delayed.
But my question is: You know, Fort Bliss has been central
into a lot of this immigration crisis, not only what happened
in Afghanistan, but also what is happening on the southern
border. As you know, now they are currently housing some
unaccompanied minors.
So my question is: If title 42 were to be lifted now or
whenever it is lifted, periodically Fort Bliss is required to
help address some of this influx.
Is the administration preparing for, once again, to use
Fort Bliss to help shoulder the burden of the influx?
General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
I don't have a specific answer for that, but I do know, if
we are called on by the Secretary of Defense or the President
to participate in that, then the Army will do as they have
before, but I don't have a specific----
Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
General Evans [continuing]. Answer to that question, and I
can take that for the record.
Mr. Gonzales. Sure. What I would say is Fort Bliss is a
great facility, and it is a warm and welcoming community, and
people want to help. That is not the problem.
I think the problem is when they don't know what is
happening; then, all of a sudden, the truth gets spun and
turned into something else. So the more transparent the Army
can be on the forefront, if something were to happen, whether
it is Ukrainian refugees or whether it is migrants, whatever it
is--I hear from my constituents, and they are just looking for
transparency.
So I would just--you know, if that is coming down, anything
you can get ahead of, certainly it would be welcomed.
General Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gonzales. My next question is about UFRs. And, you
know, the chairwoman hit it right on the head. You know, we
were talking about the resources given. I am not even trying to
get to UFRs. I am looking at how do I even get programs on the
UFR list, right? And, when you ask for less money, you know, we
can't even get the programs that aren't on there.
In particular, construction of a new dining facility for
Camp Bullis has been indefinitely delayed. The current dining
facility was constructed in 1930 and lacks adequate air
conditioning, no bathrooms on site, and employees must leave
the facility to access food storage units. The soldiers
training here do not have the means to dine off base, and there
are no other food options on Camp Bullis, leaving the facility
as the only option.
Completely unacceptable. This is not--this particular
project is not included in Army's FYDP or its UFR list. When
does the Army plan to request funding for this project?
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you--whoops.
Thank you, Congressman Gonzales, and thank you for your
support. The Camp Bullis dining facility was an fiscal year Air
Force MILCON project because it is part of the Joint Base San
Antonio, so we checked with Air Force about what is happening
with that. And the project amount is $18.5 million, and the
bids have been received, and they are currently being
negotiated. But we are happy to provide an update with you. We
will check in with the Air Force and provide an update on that.
Mr. Gonzales. Great. Thank you.
My time has expired. Madam Chairwoman, I yield.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
And next up, we have Mr. Case. You are recognized for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Case is participating virtually.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, first of all, thank you for your response
to my letter on the REPI program in Hawaii. I appreciate that
response. And we will certainly be following up with you, but
appreciate the prompt response and the commitment to what is a
critical program in Hawaii to not only provide full and
adequate buffers to Army and other training facilities but also
to the long and good relationship that has existed between the
military and the civilian community in Hawaii. So just a simple
thanks on that.
And then, General Evans, I want to follow up on our
discussion of the other day--thank you for that--on the Hawaii
Infrastructure Readiness Initiative.
As you know, in 2019, the Army committed to a 10-year
program of a billion dollars of upgrades in military facilities
throughout Hawaii. Many, many facilities need that upgrade. And
things were going along fine for a few years, including one of
the childcare centers that you referenced, so appreciate that
very much.
But, as you know, the current budget did not include any
HIRI projects on it, which is causing us great distress,
because HIRI was supposed to be a commitment over and above the
normal military construction requirements of our country, given
the seriousness of the situation and the critical importance of
the Indo-Pacific.
And my colleague, Senator Schatz, engaged General
McConville on this subject. He is a member of the comparable
subcommittee over on the Senate side, and he asked him straight
up whether we had your commitment to continue with HIRI even
though this budget itself does not have HIRI projects in it.
And I do note that, on your unfunded priorities list, you
do have some HIRI projects as well as--oh, I take that back.
Actually, it is in your future year funding programs, if I am
correct.
So I am just asking you the exact same question that
Senator Schatz asked of General McConville: Are you committed
to HIRI, and do you expect to deliver a billion dollars of HIRI
projects within the 10-year window?
General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
Absolutely, we are committed to HIRI and the infrastructure
and the importance of the Hawaii infrastructure there. So, sir,
you are absolutely right. We have six of the HIRI projects
funded already, and six more in the FYDP, and we have a couple
in the unfunded priority list, which, from 2019 to a 10-year
period, we are looking at about a billion dollars, probably
$916 billion; $495 million of that is in the program.
In addition to that, we also are looking at the quality of
life in terms of barracks, and we have a 10-year plan to invest
$851 million in barracks. But, sir, you have my commitment.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you so much, General.
And, General, I want to follow up on the line of
questioning by our chair, because it is distressing to me as
well that the reduction in the actual presented budget was so
significant.
And you and I talked about this exact issue in terms of the
escalation and the cost of already approved projects. I think I
recall you saying that the figure was as high as 30, 31 percent
escalation in one year in some theaters, especially in my
theater, where the cost of construction is higher to start
with.
If I understand what you are saying to this committee, you
are essentially saying that you did not submit in the normal
budget the cost escalation part of the projects that are
already approved. In other words, your budget came in with new
projects. But you left to the unfunded priorities list the cost
escalation from previously approved projects, and your
expectation is that Congress will undertake to increase those
amounts to keep those projects underway.
And, if that is the case, then I am back to the same
question that the chair has been asking, which is: Where are
the priorities here, because that would indicate to me that
you, the Army, were under very severe budget constraints
internally in the Department of Defense to come up with some
form of budget, and essentially military construction projects
were, in fact, sacrificed for other priorities throughout, but
you didn't want to take the existing projects off the table?
And so I--first of all, tell me whether that is a correct
assessment, at least of the facts, but then, to comment, I
don't think that is the right way to budget.
General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
So, between 2021 and 2022, we were experiencing--the Corps
of Engineers was experiencing a 24-percent increase of cost due
to labor and materials and the supply chain.
Now we are experiencing a 30 percent increase due to fuel,
and that is causing some of the bids--new bids for the
contractors not to hold the bid, particularly why we come back
for an authorized reprogramming.
You did see the costs to complete. Those are very important
projects. There are housing projects in there; particularly,
the overseas housing projects. And it was important for us to
make sure that we include those back in there because we are
committed to people and the quality homes.
And so, yes, we are experiencing the cost, and we are using
the chief's requirement to submit a list of unfunded
requirements, and that is why you have seen the cost to
complete on the UPL list, sir.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
I am out of time, so I will yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case. The gentleman
yields back.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
And Mr. Trone is participating virtually.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
the witnesses.
The leaked draft of Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade
was deeply troubling. It shows that we need to do more to
protect reproductive rights.
I was extremely pleased to see the Army released a new
Directive on Pregnancy that eliminated the requirement for unit
commanders to pre-approve a servicemember's leave to seek an
abortion.
Sergeant Major Grinston, can you please, like, talk a
little bit how this policy change will support recruitment and
retention?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Trone, thank you for
the question.
We were really proud of the Parenthood, Pregnancy,
Postpartum. There is a lot of--more information in there than
just pregnancy. It is about parenthood. It is long overdue. It
takes a long time to get there, and it is pretty long for an
exhort, 15 pages. It is a lot of detail.
So it really says that, you know, we are putting our people
first. It says people first. So, if you are people first, you
have got to give them enough time to go through fertility
treatment without moving them to one, like, location to the
next. If our people are first, we have to give them time to
recover from their pregnancy. If our people are first, then we
have to have time for them not to go on CQ on a moment's notice
if they are a single parent, so they--they have to pick up
their children.
So we believe--this is just, you know, putting our people
first, and it remains the commitment to our soldiers and
family. And, if we do that, it is going to help with retention
and recruitment.
Mr. Trone. Yeah. You and I spoke about this individually,
and I couldn't be more pleased with your philosophy on people
first. It is absolutely the way to go, especially our women,
with more and more women in the military.
The new guidance also standardizes convalescent leave for
women who experience a miscarriage or stillbirth.
Sergeant Major, could you describe how this policy will
contribute to the servicemembers' well-being and what mental
health services are available for parents after a pregnancy
loss or a stillbirth?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir.
This means a lot to those families. I mean, that is a loss
to a family, and how do you equate that it is not good enough
for them to take some leave?
So that is why it is in the parenthood policy, is that--
depending on the length of carrying that child. There will be
times that you will take leave, and it is a graduated scale.
Again, it is about putting our people first. So this is
important that we acknowledge this and allow our soldiers and
families to execute that leave.
Now, as for the mental resiliency and what is available,
all the behavioral health that we can get and the mental
resiliency we have, just like I said before, military family
life counselors, behavioral health appointments, all that is
still available to any of our soldiers if they are in need. And
they are encouraged to utilize those services.
Mr. Trone. I thank you so much for all of that. It is great
work.
Maryland has a military--major military footprint, and we
also care about restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
Storm water runoff is a significant, persistent cause for
pollution in the bay. The cause is not unique to military
facilities. Impervious surfaces--roads, homes, schools need
storm water management. As one of the largest landholders in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Department of Defense and the
Army plays a vital role in controlling storm water runoff.
Climate and its related impacts have increased the intensity.
That is why, in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA, MILCON approps
approved additional authority to invest in storm water
infrastructure like programs like the Energy and Resilience
Conservation Investment Program.
Ms. Jacobson, how is the Army utilizing these programs to
invest in storm water infrastructure at installations in the
bay watershed, and how do they contribute to readiness, the
DOD's climate adaption plan?
Ms. Jacobson. Congressman, thank you very much for that
question.
We are addressing climate resilience on a number of fronts,
both on installations and off installation, as you suggest, by
participating regionally in efforts such as addressing the
Chesapeake Bay and storm water runoff.
I don't have specific examples or specific numbers for you
today on what we have invested in the Chesapeake Bay for storm
water runoff, but I will promise to get those to you.
And we are also--by the way, Fort Detrick is also
contributing to our climate resiliency as the location for a
solar energy facility with battery energy storage as part of a
public-private partnership with Ameresco, and it not only helps
us with our energy storage at the base and energy independence,
but it also will save $125,000 a year, and it is expected to be
operational in 2023.
So there are so many ways right now that we are trying to
address climate change, and storm water runoff is certainly an
important component.
And we will get you information on that. I promise.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
We will start a second round, and we will proceed until--
until members are done with questions.
Sergeant Major Grinston, I notice that you did not answer
Mr. Trone's question related to abortion services in your
answer on the long-prepared Parenthood in the Army policy
I want to explore that with you a little bit more, because
these are important healthcare services, and making sure that
all of the healthcare needs surrounding parenthood and whether
or not to become a parent are important.
So I am sure you are aware that, on Monday, May 2nd, an
initial draft majority opinion was leaked that appears to
indicate that the Supreme Court is likely voting down--
overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
If that opinion goes unchanged in its final form, there
will be massive ramifications for women, including those in the
armed services. Women in the military already have a higher
rate of unintended pregnancy than civilian women. Currently the
Defense Health Agency has the limited authority to only provide
abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman's
life. For those female soldiers in States with restrictive
abortion laws, their options for safe abortions may be
completely erased if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Sergeant Major Grinston, what will the Army do to protect
and support their female servicemembers and their families if
Roe v. Wade is overturned?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for
the question.
We didn't have that addressed in the Parenthood policy. We
couldn't foresee what was going to happen with Roe--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Sergeant Major Grinston. Roe v. Wade, and still can't see
what is going to happen with Roe v. Wade.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Forgive me.
He asked you a specific question that included in the
Parenthood policy for you to comment on your--how it impacts
abortion services. And I am asking you: Have you prepared, in
potential anticipation, of what you would do if--to make sure
that healthcare services comprehensively were available to your
servicemembers if that happened?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for
the question.
And the answer is yes. We are drafting policies that ensure
that we take care of our soldiers in an appropriate way. Those
policies have not gone to the Secretary of the Army. We are in
collaboration throughout the--usually in the ASA, M&RA realm
through my office, so we are in collaboration. There are drafts
if it were to be overturned, but that will be a decision for
the Secretary of the Army to sign that policy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you. It is good to know
that you are preparing in anticipation of that possibility.
What will the Department do to offset, Sergeant Major, the
expected impact on recruitment and retention of qualified
female troops who currently make up 20 percent of the Active
Duty force?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for that
question also.
What we would do to offset the recruitment, it is still to
continue to recruit as many eligible servicemen and Americans
that we can to come in the military. Again, we do not want to
disadvantage anyone in our force--men, women--or alienate
anyone that is eligible to serve in the military. We will
continue to recruit as best as we can with the policies that we
have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could keep us posted on the
draft policies as they move through the process, that would be
helpful.
Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, absolutely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Speaking of discriminatory laws, I was really gratified to
see that the Air Force recently informed its servicemembers
that it will support their families with medical and legal help
if they are affected by dozens of new bigoted State laws
restricting LGBTQ rights, including relocating families if the
need arises.
You know, as Mr. Gonzales mentioned, you know, he ended up
in the Air Force because there wasn't a forward-thinking
progressive policy when he had an education issue. And, you
know, it is important that we are making sure that we are
taking care of our servicemembers and protecting them from, you
know, discrimination.
So what I am asking is: The Air Force is going to provide
assignment, medical, legal, and other resources available to
support airmen, guardians, and their families if they are in a
State that has those discriminatory laws, and the Army
currently has no such policy.
Sergeant Major, why is that? And is the Army going to
consider such a protective policy?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, the first
question is why--we are aware of the policy, and we are
drafting--that is--both those are policies, are the ones
looking at. It is the same policy. It could be an adapted, the
way that we--that the Air Force would do to relocate them. And
that is going to be the draft--as we look at how can we do
this, that could be one option, and that is--that is--that same
policy drafting and that requirement would be the same as--for
the abortion. I believe it would be one policy, but, again, we
don't have the policy before it goes to the Secretary of the
Army yet.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am glad to hear that.
Assistant Secretary Jacobson, what is the current status of
PFAS testing and clean-up at Army bases, both active and
closed? The subcommittee, in fiscal year 2022, provided an
additional $150 million for PFAS remediation. How is the
Department using its portion of the funding?
Ms. Jacobson. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the
question, and thank you for the PFAS-specific funding.
The Army obviously is doing everything we are required to
do to address PFAS. Where we are a provider of drinking water
that exceeds the EPA health advisory standards, we are
replacing the drinking water. We are remediating. We are using
the CERCLA process for the remediation, which is a policy that
EPA endorses. And we have already completed preliminary site
assessment at 337 installations where Army or National Guard
may have used or stored or released PFAS.
And then the next step will be a remedial investigation, if
warranted, where we will evaluate the risks to human health
both on base and in the surrounding communities.
We are also going to phase out AFFF, the firefighting agent
that was the source of many of the PFAS releases, in accordance
with the congressional directive, so we are----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is the timeframe for that? How
long are they--to phase out?
Ms. Jacobson. Well, the Congress requires us to phase it
out and to no longer use it, I believe, by end of fiscal year
2024.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
Ms. Jacobson. And the Department collectively is looking at
alternatives and working with industry to look at alternatives
so we have something else to use as a firefighting foam, but
PFAS will no longer be used.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. My time has expired.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
You know, I spent 20 years as a problem solver for the--as
a judge, so listening to that recruitment thing, I have got an
idea here I want to think--want to run by you.
Right now, if you accumulate student loan while you are
serving in the military, the Army assists you in that student
loan payment, as I understand it. Isn't that correct?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. If you join the military
and you have a student loan, there is a student loan repayment
program also. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. So, if you have a student loan, they pay it--
you pay a portion of that student loan debt?
Sergeant Major Grinston. It depends on the contract. So I
have a soldier in my office, went to--I won't say where he went
to university. He went to university. He had accumulated a
debt, and there is a student loan complete--not part of it. A
complete repayment of the student loan depending on the
contract that you come in. And so we'll pay all of it.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Pays it?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, that--one of the things I want to
tell you, my son was a scholarship athlete in football, and my
student--my chief of staff were scholarship athletes in
football. And, unfortunately, we have an awful lot of young
football players in college that are getting their food,
housing, and books paid for, but they are still borrowing
money, because they are saying: I will pay it back when I get
in the NFL.
Well, the number of people that actually get into the NFL
is about 1 percent maybe, or maybe a half a percent that get in
the NFL.
And then you get a kid that has played 4 years of football,
and he has got just as much debt as--as just about anybody else
does.
You know, that ought to be some kind of an incentive
program, because one of the things about college athletes,
especially when they get right out, they generally like the
idea of staying fit. They may lose it after a while, but
generally want to do that. And you offer that to them. You
offer them the ability to keep fit and keep learning in the
Army.
And, if you could do something about student loan debt in
addition to that required, you know, in the contract, might be
a good recruiting tool, because at least half of the graduates
on the football team--no--three-fourths of them have student
loan debt, and they don't have a way to pay it off. And many of
them don't graduate from college. They don't have a way to pay
it off. It may be a pool of people you could get in the Army.
Just a thought.
That is all I wanted to say. I didn't have a question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired,
yields back.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized to bring us home, 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Quick question, and I know it has been addressed a little
bit earlier by the Representative from Nevada, but one benefit
of the pandemic was increased access to telehealth services for
soldiers, specifically for mental and behavioral health. I
frequently heard from servicemembers who struggled to get
appointments, and with many mental health issues, time is
precious.
Does the Army intend to maintain access to telehealth
services for our soldiers, and are there any programs you are
hoping to expand?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the
question.
The answer to increased telehealth is--or access is
absolutely. And any programs we are trying to expand, we are
working, again, DHA. That was a program we wanted to--want to
utilize telehealth more, and I can give you one very quick
example, is in Alaska.
Sometimes we have found it really hard to get a contract,
behavioral health, to go up in those conditions, and then
expand telehealth to those individuals in Alaska for--a
behavioral health specialist didn't want to go there.
Currently, we are sending two green suiters right now, but
utilizing telehealth more, especially for those remote and
isolated areas. And that is what we are trying to expand
through DHA.
Mr. Valadao. All right. And then many military spouses
believe that the military lifestyle, including frequent moves,
deployments, and long hours that keep servicemembers from
assisting with parenting and living in areas with poor local
labor market conditions has negatively affected their
employment opportunities. I am glad to see that the Army is
prioritizing addressing this concern for our military families.
What programs have you been working on, and what can
Congress do to help ensure our military spouses remain
competitive in their civilian job market?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for that
question.
PCS moves, we are really--we actually want to limit those
PCS moves. That is why we are really trying to work hard on the
integrated personnel and pay system Army, and how does that
help us stabilize soldiers and families? If we can manage
talent with a system in the long term, so, if you want to stay
in California, you can stay in California, go to the NTC, and
then go back and be a recruiter in California. So you are still
there, and you kind of stabilize your family if you want to
stabilize.
We need an integrated personnel pay system to help us to do
that on--for the PCS moves. We got a new PCS move-out to help
with that.
But, on the spouse employment piece of that question, State
reciprocity as a family member moves from one State to the next
is also helpful so that they don't have to relicense. We have
got 42 States that say: We will validate or accept some of your
license as you move as a spouse from one State to the next.
That will help us out.
The more States that say, ``I acknowledge that license from
whatever State''--I have actually had a behavioral health
specialist move from Washington State to a different State--I
won't say where--but they didn't accept their license.
So the more we can have States acknowledge those licenses,
help us with spouses get employment faster. We also have spouse
employment initiatives where, if you are staying in the GS
system, we will accept you before you get to that next duty
location. We are encouraging that.
We are encouraging home-based businesses for spouse
employment. You can go right down the road to Fort Belvoir, and
we set up an office, computer. So, if a spouse wants to have a
home-based business, but the other spouse may be staying at
home for COVID; then you need a quiet place to stay.
So we are encouraging all these type engagements for spouse
employment. And, if you would like further information, I could
give you even more information after the testimony.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam. That is all I have got, so I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
I do have one other question that I wanted to--I wanted to
make sure we focused on, and that is the issue of sexual
assault.
Sergeant Major, sexual assault continues to be a problem
for DOD, including the Army. In the fiscal year 2020 annual
report on sexual assault in the military, 3,250 reports of
sexual assault were filed in the Army, the most of any service.
Can you explain why the Army continues to have such a high
number of sexual assaults?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for the
question.
There is no excuse for our numbers to continue to get
higher for sexual assault. What I have done is, those countless
hours that I mentioned in my opening statement, is, last year,
we--we brought all the nominative sergeant majors that, if you
work for a general officer, I brought them in in a forum and
asked them: How do we solve sexual assault better? We saw the
numbers in fiscal year 2020.
And, at the end of that, I said: I want zero sexual assault
for the Army.
And that is a bold move, but I think what I learned is, if
you don't go for zero, you will stop short of what you need to
do.
And, ever since then, every month--we look at not just
sexual assault, sexual harassment. Where we see higher sexual
harassment, you are going to see more sexual assault. So that
is not a good indicator, but at least we can start there before
we get to the sexual assault.
So, every month, every senior enlisted leader that is in
charge of an installation around the globe gets on the net, and
we look at our numbers. And we look at it not as a way of got
you, but as a prevention, every month, and say, What have you
learned? What are your prevention initiatives, and that is that
one initiative.
When a soldier goes to basic training, we were given that
training at the 2-week mark for abusive sexual contact. Well,
the new citizen didn't know that locker room antics is not
allowed. That is illegal in the Army. And that--you know, a
good game on the rear end, that is abusive sexual contact.
Putting that right upfront, we have seen about a 60-percent
decrease in abusive sexual contact. That come from that forum
every month where we were looking at and say: How do we prevent
this? Where is it happening?
So that is what we are doing about it. It is not acceptable
for those numbers to go up, and my ultimate goal is to have
zero sexual assault in the Army.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. What new steps? Because you
have a--this has been a problem for a long time. We have
identified--we identified it and exposed it and have shined
spotlights on it for a long time, and your numbers are still
really high.
So what new steps is the Army taking to tackle the
continually high rate of sexual assaults? How are your efforts
evolving year over year? How will those steps be effective in
finally reducing the prevalence and culture of sexual assaults?
This is a major culture problem. It is not just a matter of,
oh, good, people don't slap each other on the butt anymore to
say good job. You need concrete, programmatic, consistent,
effective efforts.
What are those?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for your
question. And I completely agree.
So, 3 years ago, I did say This is My Squad, and that is
the culture that I said--and the chief of staff of the Army, we
said we want in the Army. This is how you treat people, with
dignity and respect, on a daily basis, every day. And we
acknowledged that it would take a lot of time.
One of the concrete programmatic steps that we are doing
right now, the pilot that we are running is the Fusion
Directorate pilot, where you are going to bring all the--it is
still a response, is you bring everyone into--the SHARP victim
advocates. You have the special victim prosecutors are all
going to be in one location. So, if you were to be a victim,
you could go into that area.
So having the Fusion Directorate pilot--that is one
programmatic that we are looking at.
The second one is a prevention strategy. The Secretary of
Defense has authorized us to have 20--2,000 prevention
specialists, and we are looking at a prevention strategy to
say: How do we just look at prevention? And it is all
prevention.
The theory of This is My Squad isn't about sexual assault,
sexual harassment, suicide, domestic violence. It is about
prevention of things. If we create the culture, we won't have
any of those. And it won't just be sexual assault. It will be
all the other things.
So the programmatic is the prevention strategy. We are
working to have a prevention directorate, and we don't--is it
going to be through the G-9 or the G-10 or some record, but we
are looking at a complete prevention strategy with the
prevention workforce that the Secretary of Defense has
authorized us, and a Fusion Directorate.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Secretary Jacobson, what more can be done to ensure the
installations are safe for all genders, and what are you--what
leadership role are you taking to ensure that there is
movement?
Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, this obviously has to be a
whole-of-Army approach. And, for our part, to the extent that
installations and living situations pose potential security
problems, such as inadequate locks on doors, inadequate
cameras, inadequate lighting, that is something we are looking
at. And, anytime we hear of that, we are trying to address it
as soon as possible.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I mean, you know that
shouldn't be necessary, right? We--that is----
Ms. Jacobson. It is basic. It is basic. You are--I----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There shouldn't be predators that
are lurking to assault a fellow, you know, soldier in the Army,
and that it is--locks aren't our problem.
Ms. Jacobson. I couldn't agree more, and we are all
bringing our respective expertise and subject-matter experts
within our portfolios to address this problem, because it is
unacceptable.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But it is not working. You might be
bringing all--if you are bringing all your expertise, then you
have the wrong expertise.
Ms. Jacobson. We will coordinate with Sergeant Major Mike
Grinston and others to make sure we are doing more on the
installation standpoint----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Ms. Jacobson [contining]. To ensure----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like a more detailed
answer----
Ms. Jacobson. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. As to what game-
changing, culture-changing steps are being taken, because we
have talked about this every single year that I have been chair
of this, or ranking member of this subcommittee, and the needle
is going in the wrong direction.
Ms. Jacobson. Understood.
Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, may I?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Sergeant Major Grinston. If you don't mind. Just on the
infrastructure, again, going back to monthly summit, what we
found on the prevention side, we have developed a QR code so,
when you do go in the barracks, it is just not about going to
see who is doing sexual assault. We can have a detailed list of
questions, and it is on a backboard.
So, when I go into the building, a leader says: I am going
to scan in, and then here is the things that I need to check on
that--in that building.
And then we can overlay that--and the 82nd Airborne
Division has done this--where I go in the barracks, and then:
Where is the crime happening?
So that is how we are looking at it from a holistic point
of view from the barracks, if--and crime being someone broke in
in the car in the parking lot. The leader was in that building.
Okay. Why didn't you check the parking lot? So----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
Sergeant Major Grinston [continuing]. We can see this, and
that is how we are using data informed in our barracks. It is
as simple as putting a QR code. Then it is backboned into the
system and giving the crime reports. All those mesh together.
So that is the innovation that we are looking at. We have
not been doing that all Army-wide, but that is in a prevention
so that we can see where our leaders are in the buildings, and,
if there are crime in that, then how do we adjust where we are
going that matches the crime?
But we have to keep doing this, and we have to have data
informed when we go look at the barracks. And that is one of
those initiatives that we are trying to do Army-wide.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am certainly glad to hear
that.
We used to do this hearing with all of the sergeant majors
and enlisted leaders and the Assistant Secretary, but we wanted
to focus on the individual services and your problems, your
challenges, you know, and how we could more sharply focus on
each individual service.
When we did have the conversation about sexual assault in
the military generally when we did the multiservice hearing, my
recollection is that the Air Force, the Navy--really the Air
Force--not the Navy so much, had made a difference--had moved
the needle, had a program in place that actually reduced sexual
assaults.
Do you all talk to each other? Have you--and I have asked
this question, too. Do you consult with other branches of the
service who have effective programs in place that seem to be
making at least some difference so you can make sure that you
can limit those?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. Jo
Bass, the chief master sergeant for the Air Force, and I talk
frequently.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
Sergeant Major Grinston. We have even established the
monthly meeting to actually go--we find we have similar issues.
We are constantly talking, and I am willing to--any thoughts
and services on how we could do this better, and we are
constantly learning from other services.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
I laid a bridge down in anticipation of your arrival.
Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. They always have you
running around in this place.
I want to thank you for mentioning the sexual assault
stuff, because it is extremely important. You know, my wife is
a servicemember, and I will tell you. I mean, there is not a
servicemember that doesn't have a story of some sort or
another, so it is absolutely a critical area.
You know, Sergeant Major, on that note, you know, Fort Hood
Independent Review Committee provided 70 recommendations to
improve the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Prevention
Program. Last year, in a similar committee, or a similar
hearing like this, it was stated that 23 of those
recommendations were implemented.
When can we expect the Army to implement all 70
recommendations?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for your
question.
Right now, the update is we have 45 of those 70
recommendations have been fully implemented. I can't give you
the exact date that we will get through. We would hope to do
that as fast as we can.
We established the People First Task Force to actually look
at every one of those recommendations. As you know, there were
9 findings, 70 recommendations, and the Secretary at that time
accepted all those.
Our goal is to be complete by fiscal year 2024 with all the
70 recommendations, and some of this is caveated on the
independent review by the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that update. And, you know, it
is clearly important to the chairwoman. It is important to this
committee. I would suspect to ask that same question next year
when you all come forth. It would be great if we could say all
70 have been implemented, and then a--you know, what is that--
what benefits--you know, what is that outcome? What does that
outcome look like?
My next question is for Assistant Secretary Jacobson.
You know, I had the pleasure of visiting Vicenza, and
General Evans spoke about that earlier. You know, I recently
visited Army Garrison Vicenza as part of a bipartisan
congressional delegation. The family housing there was built in
the 1950s and inadequate for today's military families.
It is my understanding that base housing there is being
completely rebuilt. The Army included several costs to complete
requests in fiscal year 2023's unfunded priority list.
Can you provide an update on this project? Being stationed
abroad is already difficult. The Army needs to ensure these
families have safe and adequate housing.
Before you answer, I will just add, you know, we have got--
we have got over 100,000 soldiers, Army, or soldiers, sailors,
Marines, airmen deployed in Europe--100,000. That is a lot of
people. And a lot of times we think of bombs and BBs and all
these other things, but healthcare and housing and child
development, all that is critical to a family.
You know, and one of these facilities that I visited in
Vicenza, you know, 700 square feet for a family of four. I
mean, it is just not ideal living conditions. I know there is a
plan in place, several different projects. I was mostly
concerned with the third phase of that project, but I would
love to get an update.
Ms. Jacobson. Certainly, Congressman Gonzales.
I will start, and then I will ask General Evans to
supplement.
Obviously the Army is directly responsible for Army-owned
housing, and the housing in Italy, of course, is our
responsibility.
This budget request for fiscal year 2023 includes $95
million for Vicenza, and another $57 million, by the way, for
Germany. And, in the past several years, three fiscal years, we
have invested close to a billion dollars on construction
improvements and maintenance for Army-owned housing.
So I am going to ask General Evans to supplement that.
General Evans. Sir, to your point, that construction will
basically replace about 280-some units and replace it with over
400 units, which will provide more space for the family
members. And we put it in a cost-to-complete because it is a
priority for us.
Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. I don't want to see that project
slide in any form or fashion. This committee is certainly
committed to ensuring that not only our bases at home are
adequate, but also our bases overseas.
I mean, oftentimes there isn't a Member of Congress that is
looking out for, you know, Japan or Korea or, you know,
wherever it may be, you know, Italy, or wherever it may be, and
just know that we want to do those things. But please provide
us any of those inputs.
If there is other facilities that may be worth us visiting
or learning more about, I think we would be welcome to hearing
that as well.
General Evans. Yes, sir. We will keep you updated on the
timeline of the construction project.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me a second round.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. My pleasure.
The gentleman yields back.
Judge Carter, I understand you have another question.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Sergeant Major, would you speak to us about Project Athena?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Carter, absolutely.
Project Athena is a Total Army analysis, assessment of an
individual soldier all the way from the beginning of service
until they end service.
So we didn't have a complete analysis of assessments on how
we look at soldiers, and we learned this from the Battalion
Commanders Assessment Program and the Brigade Commanders
Assessment Program. You come in and you do these cognitive,
noncognitive assessments.
Project Athena starts that all the way from the--you know,
when a soldier comes in the Army, they will do some kind of
assessment. And then you will get to the basic leader course,
and you will do an assessment.
And these are nonbinding. So it is--we want them to be
truthful about how they see the world or how they are feeling
and what is going on.
And I will give you an example of this assessment. What you
get back from the basic leader course is two things: Am I self-
aware, or am I socially aware?
So, if you fill out the assessment correctly, it will give
you some feedback and say: Well, you are maybe lacking in
social awareness or self-awareness.
And then you can be assigned a coach. And that is all
throughout.
So, if you are honest with your assessment--it just goes to
you to tell you those are the two things that it is assessing,
social awareness and self-awareness. And you say: Well, I am
lacking in social awareness. You can say, I would like a coach.
And then what we are doing, the Army coaching program,
having some of the NCOs out of the basic leader course go to
the coach--coaching, and then ultimately is to make our
soldiers better throughout.
And then, at some point, those assessments will be binding.
As an example, if you get to--and we are starting the First
Sergeants Assessment Program. In other words, if you go in and
you have a poor assessment as a first sergeant, we are not--
before you be a first sergeant--won't let you be a first
sergeant. So it is helpful in Project Athena if you are honest
with yourself on the assessment program all through your
career. And then, when you do those assessments--and they are
binding. It shouldn't be any surprises for you. If you have
used the coaches, you will have--it is ultimately to make the
soldiers better and see themselves, and also, at some point, to
make better leaders in the Army.
Mr. Carter. And I may have this wrong, but, after the bad
situation we had at Fort Hood, it is my understanding that Fort
Hood--and maybe corps-wide, they are doing a program where they
basically talk to every soldier about not only what the rules
are, what the consequences are, and also, if something is
happening to you or you think something is happening to you,
how you deal with that situation. Is that true?
Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, yes. It actually was
expanded all the way to the FORSCOM units and pretty much I--
the way I explain that, it is inside the continental United
States, all those allocated forces, not Army National Guard,
Army Reserve, following Forces Command, and that is called
Foundational Days.
It may be a topic on what to do with sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and what are the rules, and how do you deal with
that?
They set aside a day where leaders--going back to This is
My Squad, leaders have a time that they have got allocated by
the FORSCOM commander to just talk to their people. It is like
find out what is going on with your parents? But that is--or
just say: You know, what is--what is going on with you?
So the Foundational Days are FORSCOM-wide. If you are just
talking about sexual assault and sexual harassment, those
programs at Fort Hood, what is--what they do is called the--
they brought all the resources in one location, and they have
all the company unit elements, as they go to Fort Hood, will go
through their people first center that is right there on Fort
Hood, and then they will explain all the rules and what to do
exactly if you are harassed in sexual assault and sexual
harassment.
Mr. Carter. You know, when I was a judge, we had a juvenile
program we put together called Know the Truth, Know the
Consequences. Don't Choose Crime.
And everybody laughed about it, because it said truth or
consequences, you know, is--but the real world was it worked. A
lot of kids did things--stupid things because they were just
stupid. And, if you actually told them what the stupid acts
they were doing, it may--our numbers changed substantially.
It scared a lot of kids, like we would send them a birthday
card when they turned 17 and say: Congratulations. You are now
eligible to go to prison if you commit a crime. Happy birthday.
Mr. Gonzales. That is a great idea.
Mr. Carter. And, you know, it is a real wake-up call for a
kid. You are no longer a juvenile at 17. As far as we were
concerned, you are going to prison. Happy birthday. And it
shows a picture--you see this birthday cake behind bars. It was
a great--kids never forgot it. Fact. Okay. But those things
work.
So telling--a lot of people do things because they just
don't know any better, to be honest with you. And that is--from
a man's point of view, worldwide. That goes on, that they don't
know--we don't always know the things that offends women. I
think that is a--that is a clear--not just in the Army.
Everywhere.
People just don't--they make light of things that a woman
may not think is light. And that is just--I don't know how you
change that culture, but you have got to--you have got to
educate somebody that, no, no, no, that is offensive; you may
not think it is offensive, but that is offensive. And most
decent human beings will change their behavior if they know it
is offensive.
So we need to know the truth and know the consequences for
American males all--well, for males all over the world, quite
honestly.
But our program worked. It is just a thought. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is an appropriate note on which
to close out this hearing.
And that does conclude today's hearing.
Thank you to all our witnesses for participating. Your
testimony here today will allow us to better craft the fiscal
year 2023 appropriations bill.
As always, we appreciate your service and look forward to
continuing this important work with you and to hearing back
from you on the questions that were unable to be answered for
the record.
Our staff on the committee will be in contact with your
budget office regarding those questions for the record, and I
know we have several questions to submit. And I would imagine
other members of the subcommittee do as well.
If you would please work with OMB to return the information
for the record to the subcommittee within 30 days of receiving
them, we will be able to publish a transcript of today's
hearing and make informed decisions for fiscal year 2023.
I want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing is
the Navy and Marine Corps Installations and Quality of Life
Update on Wednesday, May 18th, at 10:30 a.m.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, May 18, 2022.

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE UPDATE

WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL EDWARD BANTA, DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF INSTALLATIONS AND
LOGISTICS FOR THE MARINE CORPS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
MEREDITH BERGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENVIRONMENT,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SERGEANT MAJOR TROY BLACK, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS, U.S.
MARINE CORPS
MASTER CHIEF RUSSEL SMITH, MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
VICE ADMIRAL RICKY WILLIAMSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR
FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
subcommittee will come to order. Thank you all for
participating in this hearing about the Navy and Marine Corps
installations and quality of life update.
Before we begin, 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,
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 a 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 e-mail address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or
markups. That e-mail address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
The subcommittee has come to order. Good morning. Today we
welcome Navy and Marine Corps installations officials and
senior enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal year 2023
budget, quality of life issues, as well as receiving update on
installations.
Today we have before us, Ms. Meredith Berger, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Environment, Installations and
Energy, Vice Admiral Ricky Williams--Williamson, excuse me,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and
Logistics, Lieutenant General Edward Banta, Deputy Commandant
of Installations and Logistics for the Marine Corps, Master
Chief Russel, Master Chief Russel Smith, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Navy, and Sergeant Major Troy Black, Sergeant
Major of the Marine Corps.
Thank you all for joining us today to provide testimony on
some very critical issues. We as always have a lot to discuss,
and I look forward to a productive conversation.
Today we look forward to engaging with the Department of
the Navy on a host of important subjects that impact our
sailors and Marines. I was very pleased that the fiscal year
2023 President's budget request was delivered to Congress early
enough to allow us to discuss the request in depth at this
year's hearing, and I was also happy to see the fiscal year
2023 request is larger than what we saw as inadequate last
year.
However, as with other services, I'm once again concerned
with the budget request's perennial reduction of funding for
military construction compared to the previous year's enacted
levels. This trend not only directs impact--directly impacts
the mission readiness of our forces, but also the quality of
life of service members and their families.
The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of
the Navy and Marine Corps is $4 and a half billion, which is
$399 million less than the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
That's an 8 percent cut.
Now, I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill
offered a particularly high mark compared to recent years,
however, with so much important MILCON work to be done, higher
funding should be the norm, not the anomaly.
This is especially important as we continue to see enormous
cost increases in projects due to inflation, supply chain
issues, and labor shortages. MILCON needs are rapidly
increasing, and the budget should be a reflection of the best
way to address those needs.
While the Navy and Marine Corps don't have the most
egregious cuts below last year's levels, you still should not
rely on Congress to continuously bail you out.
I shouldn't have to remind everyone that the military's own
estimate is that nearly a third of our military infrastructure
is in fair or poor condition. And repeatedly, whenever I ask
people who are in front of our subcommittee why the cuts
continue to be proposed, the answer is just a, well, it's a
matter of priorities.
Well, the quality of life of our service members should be
a high priority, and the readiness of our troops should be a
high priority. And, toys, for lack of a better term, should not
be a higher priority than making sure that the quality of where
our troops live, the readiness in terms of preparing them
through training centers and other infrastructure investments,
caring for their children, all of those things impact a service
member's ability to do their job, and it shouldn't be an
afterthought or just discarded the first time something else
becomes more important.
You know, even though defense spending overall has
increased every single year, military construction continually
faces attempted reductions. MILCON isn't just about weapon
warehouses and warfighting.
It's about constructing modern, resilient installations
that can withstand increasingly more powerful natural
disasters, and no one knows that better than Judge Carter and
I, and other members on this committee.
It's combatting climate change and reducing environmental
impact. It's building child development centers, schools and
hospitals. It's remediating land and water contaminated by
harmful chemicals like PFAS. It's providing quality housing for
our service members and their families.
As all the services has said in these--have said in these
hearings, and I assume the Navy and the Marine Corps will say
today, that the most valuable asset they have is their people.
Well, you know, as the expression goes, words matter, but
action matters more. The recruitment, retention, comfort,
health, protection, and readiness of those people starts with
MILCON. And there is a more colloquial way to say that as well,
which I will spare you in a public setting.
Reducing military construction funding when there is an
overwhelming backlog of required priorities is not only a
threat to our nation's security, but it's just bad government.
That being said, this hearing will also go beyond just this
fiscal year's budget request. Today, the subcommittee also
looks forward to discussing quality of life issues and an
update on installations.
Sexual assault is still rampant across all services,
including the Navy and Marine Corps. The subcommittee will seek
out answers as to why it's still such a significant problem and
what the Navy and Marine Corps are doing to remedy it.
We'll talk about child development centers, a high priority
of our committee members, which strive to provide young
children of our service members safe and comfortable childcare
but are still not receiving the attention they deserve from the
Department.
We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance,
including the ongoing fraud scandal by one of its leading
housing companies, and ask what the Navy and Marine Corps is
doing to ensure it supports its service members while holding
its housing partners accountable.
We'll talk about what the Navy and Marine Corps plans on
doing about the concerning rise in suicides among sailors and
Marines, as well as the worrying discriminatory state laws that
impact, impact all service members.
And additionally, we look forward to hearing how the Navy
and Marine Corps are addressing the ongoing remediation of PFAS
contamination and the transfer of closed installations to their
local communities.
As you can see, we have many important issues to discuss,
and as it's the ongoing mission of this subcommittee this
hearing is yet another great opportunity to identify how we can
do more to, to serve those who serve us. We look forward to a
candid and fruitful conversation.
And now, I'd like to recognize my friend and colleague,
Ranking Member Judge Carter for his opening remarks.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to
everybody. Welcome. We're glad to have you here. We're glad to
see the Navy and the Marine Corps witnesses here today. It's--
today the hearing is going to conclude a review of the
services' fiscal year 2023 budget requests.
As we prepare to write our bill, we face many challenges,
including cost increases, inflation, and how to address the
large backlog of the inadequate military facilities and
infrastructure. We didn't arrive at this situation overnight,
and there's no one thing, one thing or one group that is
responsible.
While I regrettably must agree with--that the Defense
Department has underfunded military construction, I believe it
is incumbent upon this subcommittee to rectify that. And
therefore, as my wife told my son when he had chosen to play--
go to spring practice instead of go to baseball his junior
year, and she said--and then he wanted to play baseball, my
wife said, ``If you don't ask, the answer's no.''
Well, you got to ask if you want something and tell us
these things, and we'll fight the fight.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for leading this subcommittee. I
look forward to continuing to work with you and our colleagues
to do our best for our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines and guardians and veterans in fiscal year 2023.
Be sure and ask if you got something we need to know about.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't--thank you. The gentleman
yields back. Thank you, Judge Carter, for your remarks. I don't
see either Chairwoman DeLauro or Ranking Member Granger.
Appreciate all the witnesses taking the time to be here and
sharing your expertise. For opening testimony we'll start with
Assistant Secretary Berger and move down, move down the list as
follows, Vice Admiral Williamson, Lieutenant General Banta and
Master Chief Smith, and then Sergeant Major Black. Without
objection, all written statements will be entered into the
record, and you'll be recognized for 5 minutes to summarize
your opening statements.
Assistant Secretary Berger, you are now recognized for your
opening statement to summarize your remarks.
Ms. Berger. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you Ranking
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the committee. It's
my pleasure to be here today to testify on the Department of
Navy's' installations and qualities of life.
Secretary Del Toro has identified three enduring priorities
for the Department of Navy, maintain and strengthen our
maritime dominance, empower our people, and strengthen our
partnerships. And we've requested priorities that support--
excuse me, we have requested resources that support these
priorities.
Our 95 Navy and Marine Corps installations across the
country and around the world play an integral role in enabling
the capacity, lethality, modernization, and readiness of our
Naval forces. They are the shore platforms that support and
project our maritime dominance.
The Department fiscal year 2023 budget requests nearly $3.8
billion for military construction projects, a $1 billion
increase over our 2022 request.
With these resources, we'll continue to optimize our Naval
shipyards, enable operating capability of platforms such as the
Columbia-class submarine and the F-35, modernize our support
infrastructure, and support the relocation of Marines from
Japan to Guam.
This budget also invests in facilities that empower our
people and improve quality of life for our sailors, Marines,
and their families through the construction of new family
housing in Guam, a new child development center in San Diego,
and barracks complexes in Japan.
This budget request also continues our commitment to
improve oversight of our privatized housing for families. I
appreciate this committee's persistent attention in this area,
and I am committed to working with you to ensure our service
members and their families have the safe and healthy homes that
they deserve.
With an eye towards partnerships and alliances, Marine
Corps and Navy installations are uniquely situated to build
relationships in the local communities that host them. We work
together to collaborate on shared challenges, to develop
regional plans that enable military readiness and support
community priorities, and to partner with local Governments to
obtain installation support services.
Finally, as members of this committee know and, and the
chair acknowledged in her opening remarks, we've all seen how
climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather directly
impacts the readiness of our installations. This budget request
continues the Department of Navy's longstanding approach to
incorporate resilience into how we operate, plan, construct and
recapitalize our installations.
We are also building resilience to flooding and storm surge
through shoreline restoration projects, and deploying nature-
based solutions across our ranges and installations.
I'd like to thank the committee for your steadfast support
and attention to issues most critical to our Marines and
sailors and for your partnership with the Department of Navy. I
look forward to answering your questions and engaging today.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Secretary Berger,
appreciate your, your remarks and, and your service.
Vice Admiral Williamson, your full written testimony will
be entered into the record, and you're recognized for 5 minutes
to summarize your remarks.
Admiral Williamson. Thank you, ma'am. Congresswoman
Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, in conjunction with the other
members of the panel I appreciate the opportunity to provide an
update on the quality and resilience of our Navy installations.
On behalf of our sailors and their families, thank you for
your continued support of the Navy, its military construction
program, and our 71 installations around the world which enable
us to strengthen readiness and to support the delivery of more
lethal platforms.
Additionally, thank you for your ongoing focus on the
Navy's quality of life programs, which are critical to the
overall success of our Navy.
In December of last year, the chief of Naval operations
issued a call to action for every Navy leader to apply a set of
Navy-proven leadership and problem-solving practices that
empower our people to achieve exceptional performance.
For my organization we have fully embraced this call
because this is how we have always done business, constantly
self-assessing and benchmarking as part of an effort to get
real, and self-correcting our discrepancies to get better.
To meet the challenges of strategic competition in an
evolving threat environment, we must enable global logistics
with a resilient shore infrastructure and be honest about our
current performance. Maintaining our advantage at sea requires
transformational change ashore to support and sustain the fleet
of the future.
We recently released the Naval Global Strategy Ashore,
which is the Navy's strategic direction for the Navy shore
enterprise aligned with the National Defense Strategy. Our Navy
requires shore platforms to be capable of supporting full
spectrum, multi-domain conflicts with near peer competitors,
while also protecting against and responding to and recovering
from attacks or disruptions intended to degrade operations.
This strategy provides a roadmap for identifying and
resourcing all shore operations, activities, and investments
enabling fleet warfare capabilities that are aligned with the
CNO's navigation plan.
Navy installations located in the United States and around
the world are essential shore platforms from which Naval forces
train, deploy, maintain forward presence to enable geographic
combatant commanders to meet operational requirements.
A modernized and ready organic industrial base is a vital
component of readiness. The Navy is leading the efforts to take
an enterprise-wide approach to optimize infrastructure at
shipyards, depos, and logistic complexes, which repair and
modernize our ships, submarines, and aircraft.
The shipyard infrastructure optimization program, SIOP, is
a critical program to prepare the nation's four public
shipyards to meet the future needs of the Navy's nuclear-
powered submarine and aircraft carrier force.
Funding applied to our installation also supports climate
resilience, which is an important component of the installation
mission readiness. The Navy works to ensure installations and
infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of challenges,
including extreme weather events.
It is a privilege to testify before the committee today and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Admiral Williamson,
appreciate your remarks and your service.
Lieutenant General Banta, your full written testimony will
be included in the record, and you're recognized for 5 minutes.
General Banta. Good morning, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz,
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Marine
Corps fiscal year 2023 military construction budget request
today.
First, I'd like to thank you for the funding for last
year's budget request and our unfunded priorities list. That
funding, which totaled over $2 billion, accelerates our
commandant's force design initiative, supports quality of life
projects, and invests in the Marine Corps' ability to fulfill
its Title 10 obligations now and in the future.
Our installations play a key role in meeting the challenges
facing our nation. The Marine Corps' overseas installations are
especially critical as advanced Naval bases in support of Naval
and joint operations. We need modernized infrastructure that is
resilient against threats ranging from kinetic attack to
cybersecurity breaches to damage from extreme weather.
To meet these challenges, the Marine Corps has requested
over $1.2 billion for military construction projects in fiscal
year 2023. This year's request has a broad focus and includes
projects that invest in several key areas, including life,
health, and safety issues, quality of life projects, and
infrastructure support for new platforms.
Over half of this request is focused in the Pacific,
including four projects on Guam that will help posture the
22,000 Marines located west of the International Date Line in a
fighting stance.
The quality of life for our Marines, sailors and their
families is integral to the readiness and effectiveness of our
force. A new child development center at MCAS Miramar will be
complete this summer, and three more projects are planned in
the fit-up.
The Marine Corps is in the process of renovating 12
barracks in fiscal year 2022, and we plan to renovate 15 more
in fiscal year 2023, which will improve the lives of
approximately 4,000 Marines.
Last year the Marine Corps' focus on family housing
included implementation of the remaining provisions in the
Tenants Bill of Rights. The Marine Corps continues to work with
its housing partners and the other services to ensure that our
housing is safe and meets the needs of our residents.
This year, we plan to invest over $230 million in family
housing construction and operations, including building family
housing units on Guam.
The Marine Corps strives to invest in, in resilient
installations that enable operational readiness. Recent
infrastructure investments include projects that reduce our
reliance on fossil fuels and off-base energy grids.
For example, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany is the
first Marine Corps net zero installation. The base generated
more power through green energy sources than it consumed in
calendar year 2021 and provided about 8 megawatts back to the
local grid.
The Marine Corps has also invested in microgrids at five
installations that can power mission-essential functions for
more than two weeks, ensuring continuity of operations.
Finally, the Marine Corps is investing in the modernization
of its organic industrial base. These projects optimize
existing facilities, construct new facilities, and improve
workflow processes and productivity at the Marine Corps' two
depots.
The Marine Corps is currently undergoing a significant
transition in how it is organized, trained, and equipped to
meet current and evolving threats from our peer adversaries.
Our operational capabilities are adapting to meet threat
changes, and we need to invest in next generation
infrastructure to match the Marine Corps' evolving
capabilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
and for your oversight, input, and support as we determine the
infrastructure requirements that will best position the Marine
Corps for mission accomplishment.
I look forward to working with you to sustain our
warfighting capability and the readiness of our--of our power
projection platforms, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General Banta, and thank
you for your service.
Master Chief Smith, you're recognized for 5 minutes to
summarize your opening statement, and my apologies for not
greeting you properly when I came in. You're recognized for 5
minutes.
Master Chief Smith. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
I'm honored to speak to you on behalf of the sailors who serve
our United States Navy. I've appreciated this opportunity over
the past four years as an enlisted sailor unique to my position
to speak to Congress with very unambiguous language.
Our budget request will perpetuate our readiness to fight
near peer competitors, and my testimony allows me to highlight
our greatest priorities.
Continuous fleet engagement with sailors and their families
indicates that mental health, childcare, competitive
compensation, continuing education, and sailor quality of life
issues are at the forefront of concern.
An increasingly unstable geopolitical environment has led
to greater demands for our Naval forces. Sustained, adequate
funding ensures that we stand ready whenever and wherever our
nation requires it.
Our people are the X factor, the decisive advantage that
cannot be seen when comparing forces on paper. To attract and
retain a capable force, we must invest in them on par with our
investment in aircraft, ships, and the submarines we trust them
to operate.
While our ships have deployed at a consistent pace over the
past 34 years, we do so today with just over half the sailors
we had then and just--and less than half the ships.
This Optempo has significantly increased challenges to
mental health and quality of life for our sailors. You
rightfully expect our sailors deliver--to deliver, and they
absolutely endeavor to, but they need critical support.
Emerging from pandemic constraints, we face some of the
perennial challenges, such as critical shortfalls in childcare
and mental healthcare capacity.
The post-COVID environment has also created some new
challenges, most formidably with recruiting. An abundance of
altruism amongst this generation portends continued success in
meeting recruiting goals, but the cost of that effort is, is
climbing.
John Paul Jones once said, ``Sailors mean more than guns in
the rating of a ship,'' implying that the value of combat units
lies in the quality of the sailors.
Sailors' living and working conditions directly equate, and
their living conditions directly equate to combat readiness,
and are as important as technical training, parts availability,
and operational sets and reps, the flight hours and steamy--
days we need to be ready.
The pandemic exacerbated an already critical need for
greater mental healthcare capacity, as it has for many
Americans. We've closed some gaps with creative approaches, but
still battle to better support our sailors. Except for the most
egregious cases, those at the precipice of suicide, appointment
times average five weeks.
I can personally attest to this as I sought care last year,
last spring, and I had to use a private provider at my own
expense, something our sailors should never have to endure.
We are leveraging the most successful models to maximize
efficiency. An example of this is the San Diego Base Mental
Health Operational Outreach Division or the MHOOD clinic, which
serves as a hub for regional resource coordination between the
chaplaincy, fleet and family support, and many levels of
clinical treatment caring for approximately 100 walk-ins each
week.
Scaling this success and increasing close access to support
services, including on board ships and at the waterfront
optimizes readiness. It builds trust with units and commanders
and reinforces that there is no wrong door for sailors seeking
care.
We've had some success, but few outcomes remain achievable
through efficiencies alone. Mental health programs must
continue to receive support and recognize we are in a fierce
competition with the civilian sector for the talent that
facilitates it.
A shortage of quality--of affordable quality childcare
remains a significant issue. Today the demand is as high as
ever, and the pandemic reduced available options and led to
cost for private care practically unaffordable for the junior
sailor income.
Military construction generated over a thousand new spaces
and increases to the subsidy assistance programs have defrayed
the cost, however, the demand still far outstrips the supply,
leaving a shortage of 4,700 spots in fleet concentration areas
and an average of 128 days on the waitlist for childcare.
A key component of combat readiness is retaining our
workforce. The U.S. Naval Community College will grow critical
thinking skills and advance fleet performance yield warfighting
advantages and increase job satisfaction and retention.
We also continue to improve our advancement and assignment
processes. The detailing market assignment policy great--places
greater emphasis on sailor desire, comparing available billets
with optimal assignment timelines and eventually paying
compensation. By better recognizing and promoting true talent,
we are ensuring our best performers feel incentivized to stay
Navy.
To fight and win across the maritime domain will always be
the Navy's top priority best served by ensuring sailors are
trained, equipped, and their critical needs met able to focus
on the fight. Our equipment is amongst the best in the world
but requires trained and resilient sailors to operate it. Our
sailors will enable victory over an enemy of superior numbers
and cannot be taken for granted.
Years from now I believe we will look back and, and--on
this time and understand this to be an inflection point for the
Navy. The demands on our service are high, as are the stakes.
I am grateful to the Congress for their continued strong
support to ensure sailors are equipped to defend the nation, as
we can all agree that do more with less is no longer a viable
course of action in today's security environment.
It's an honor to be here before you, my final time
representing our sailors, and I thank you for your unwavering
support for the men and women of the United States Navy.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Master Chief, and thank
you for your service, and really wish you Godspeed on, on the
way to your next endeavor.
Last, but certainly not least, Sergeant Major Black, your
full written testimony will be included in the record, and
you're recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your remarks.
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, thank you. Chairwoman
Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I'm honored to speak to you today
on behalf of your United States Marine Corps. Your care and
attention to our Marines and our families is not lost on me,
and we all appreciate all the endeavors and efforts you have
provided to us in order to meet our challenges.
As you know, warfighting is the single most important thing
to our corps. The Marine Corps is your crisis response force
because we're required to be a nation's most ready when least
ready.
And since I met, last met with you last year, the Marine
Corps has been called upon to respond to many crises. From
aboard amphibious ships the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit,
along with special MAGTF crisis our Central Command responded
last year in Afghanistan, conduct the largest non-combatant
evacuation operation in U.S. history.
We lost 11 Marines, one Navy corpsman, and one soldier in
that operation and 16 other Marines were wounded, but we
brought to the United States 100,000 people from Afghanistan.
The Marines also supported in, in CONUS the assistance to those
refugees.
Simultaneously, a 7.2 earthquake hit Haiti, and Marines
responded aboard the USS Anchorage in support of that,
delivering security and 113,000 pounds of support to the
Haitian people.
Last year, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit again aboard
Navy ships simultaneously provided full combat logistics and
combat support to Central Command and Africa Command.
Our 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit operating in the Indo-
Pacific in support of deterrence against our adversaries and
providing support and security to our partners and allies. In
Southern Command the Marine Corps took part in exercise UNITAS,
an annual exercise involving 19 partner Marine and Navy
organizations.
And most recently, the United States Marine Corps 2nd
Expeditionary Force was deployed in support of exercise Cold
Response in Norway strengthening alliances in Europe.
And today, like every day, there are over 30,000 Marines
forward deployed and forward stationed in support of our
nation's defense. Your Marines are currently engaged with our
partners and allies across the globe, and we thank you for
their support.
In addition to the stressors that are associated with these
deployments and the operation commitments of the Marine Corps,
life stressors continue to impact our Marines. Marines are
subject to the same exact stressors as all Americans.
With regard to suicide, this past year we had a 30 percent
decrease in deaths by suicide, however, with this decrease we
were still focused on getting even lower in impact--and how we
impact suicide prevention. Our education and training in those
aspects and the leadership that's provided to mitigate the
suicide behaviors is paramount.
Sexual assault, sexual harassment remain a challenge within
the military and the Marine Corps. These behaviors all affect
the quality of life of our Marines, and they are not tolerated.
I'd like to thank this Congress for your continued support
with prevention programs and resources to help us mitigate
mental health challenges, suicidal behaviors, and sexual
assault cases, however, we are always looking for ways to
improve.
Our Marine Corps doctrinal publication on warfighting talks
about the human dimension. Success in the battlefield is
through the moral, mental, and physical success of our Marines.
As such, one of the things the Marine Corps has taken on in
the last couple years is develop a holistic human performance
program that addresses all of these issues in one holistic
program.
This strategy is ongoing, and I look forward to bringing
you updates in the future of how we've collected all of our
resources, placed them in one strategy that would impact the
moral, mental, physical, spiritual, and social fitness of our
corps.
As mentioned previously by, by my peer, the master chief
petty officer of the Navy, our true advantage against our
adversaries is our people, not equipment, not things. It's time
for us to begin to treat our people like we do those equipment,
like we do those things.
This Congress continues to support and gives us advice on
how to best do that, and I personally thank you. I thank you
also for the recent resources to construct new child
development centers, barracks, and privatized military housing
that do improve the quality of life for our Marines.
However, one of the top reasons that Marines leave our
service is due to their poor living conditions. We must
continue to seek resources in order to approve--improve those
conditions.
The Marine Corps is also thankful to the support to our
commandant with force design specifically, talent management.
This is the recruit and retention conversation that we
continually have, how we continue to find the very best Marines
to serve, how we continually find ways to retain those very
best Marines, train and educate them to be able to compete and
overwhelm our adversaries, and this is only through our talent
management procedures and practices that we are conducting.
Lastly, we want to continue to foster healthy commands with
leaders of irreproachable character and then make it known to
our friends and partners that war is what we do best. We are
the Marines. We train, we fight, and we win period.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, thank you for your
continued support. For all members of this Committee, I look
forward to your questions and discussion. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major
Black. Thank you for your service, and thank you all for your
testimony. We will proceed in the standard five-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 to
answer within your five-minute turn.
I want to begin today, Assistant Secretary Berger, by
welcoming you to your first MILCON VA hearing, and I recognize
that the fiscal year 2022 MILCON, the whole appropriations bill
and the Omnibus was only enacted in March. But every single
year the president's request seeks to increase overall defense
spending, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, but I would say
for some reason, but I really kind of know what you are likely
to respond, military construction is consistently neglected.
The Navy and Marine Corps have requested $4.5 billion.
That's $400 million less than fiscal year 2022 enacted level of
$4.9 billion. That is an 8 percent reduction from one year to
the next, and given the testimony of Sergeant Major Black there
are really significant quality of life needs, and those quality
of life needs when not addressed affect retention. And we want
to make sure that no matter what branch of the service that we
recruit and retain our best and brightest, and they don't feel
very respected or appreciated or as prepared as they should be
without making sure that they don't have distractions from
their quality of life.
So can you talk about what impact the level of funding that
we provided in fiscal year 2022 had and then explain to the
Committee why the Department's request for fiscal year 2023 was
dramatically lower than what was enacted in fiscal year 2022?
And does that indicate, because it's certainly in the message
that we would receive, that the Navy and Marine Corps simply
have less needs in fiscal year 2023?
Ms. Berger. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, first thank
you for the additional funding that you were able to put in
last year. It is funding that we will use and use well and
purposefully. The request that we put in this year while lower
than enacted is higher than the request that we put in last
year. And so as ranking member said, we are telling you more of
what we need, and so we did put in that higher request for that
reason.
Some of the highlights that you will see in the ways that
we are using this funding are for SIOP, which will give us a
once in a lifetime opportunity to recapitalize our shipyards.
This is important for our people and our quality of life
because this is how we will make sure that they are equipped to
succeed in terms of mission. We have barracks that are coming
in at Kadena in Japan. This goes straight to the heart of what
you talked about, making sure that people have the places to
live that are in a place that is comfortable for them and
supports their ability to live, train and be equipped to fight.
We are looking across at other opportunities as well to
ensure that we are providing people with the things they need.
The childcare center that will go in at San Diego is one of 12
across the FIDAP, and so as we look to make sure that people
have what they need so that they can focus on their work those
are some of the highlights in the way that you will see us
spending.
We are also taking a hard look that MILCON as one of our
tools and making sure that we are using resources wisely and
well in both the Navy and Marine Corps.
Now I turn to my colleagues to give them an opportunity to
expand but are looking at how we look at our portfolio as a
whole so that we are using our MILCON wisely and well and along
the other types of funding that we have to make sure that we
are taking care of our installations and supporting our people.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you. As we turn to the
vice admiral and the general I would like you to give the
Committee a sense of how you are held back by--and I realize
the requests are not--they are sent up, and you are here
defending what was ultimately in the president's budget, but
how are we going to actually make sure we protect the quality
of life and address the needs of the military, particularly
your branches of the service, with continually seemingly lower
requests than what you actually need? For both of you, the
admiral and general, whoever wants to go first.
General Banta. Chairwoman, thanks very much for the
opportunity to comment on this. So as Secretary Berger
mentioned we are making investments this year in our quality of
life to include maintaining our CDCs, investing in family
housing and renovating barracks. And we had barracks----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't have much time.
General Banta. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if you can answer my questions
specifically because it is a lower request, 8 percent lower.
You definitely have more needs than what was in your request.
General Banta. Yes, ma'am. It is part of the balanced
approach that we take across our portfolio. So it does meet our
immediate needs. We recognize that there is more to do, and we
would certainly appreciate continued support from the Congress
as we go forward.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. As I said in my opening
statement, we can't budget where you ask for less than you need
counting on us to give you more that is more closely aligned to
your need. That is not fair, and it is not fair to your service
members, and it is not fair to us in terms of how we prepare
our mark for consideration. Admiral Williamson.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. As Secretary Berger said
and General Banta, the same hold true for us. Not to give you
the prioritization but one thing that I want to emphasize to
you is obviously we take the care of our sailors and their
families very seriously. One of the things that we have
implemented and is I believe reflected in our budget submittal
you mentioned it. My chief taught me a long time ago a ship is
just a hunk of steel. What makes it lethal are the sailors that
go in it.
So having that discussion and applying that to our
operational outcome has forced us to look internally and make
the choices necessary, as we will discuss, in childcare,
housing, some of these other things where you see the increase
in our budget request.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And just before I yield to the
ranking member, if Master Chiefs Smith and Black can both
answer how these requests impact the quality of life of the
people you represent.
Master Chief Smith. Madam Chairwoman, I think both Sergeant
Major and I both very clearly stated in our opening statement
that we place the highest premium on people. And to the ranking
member's comment in the beginning about ask, I have been
bringing it up at this Committee every year I come in here. We
need money for a firefighting trainer to ensure our ships are
ready to prevail in combat because the next fight is going to
be--it is going to start there, and we are going to need that.
But getting that built, getting that on the list and staying on
the list because of the low threshold of what gets built with
the small budget that we have has been painstaking.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, first I concur with the Master
Petty Officer of the Navy, but in every conversation I have
ever had when it comes to our people one thing, need to put
more resources towards quality of life for our Marines and
their families. Installations are large. I think we all know we
are dealing with a lot of infrastructure that has aged. So how
do we get rid of some of that infrastructure? How do we replace
it or just not replace it?
The cost to maintain however is not part of that resource
that we have, so it becomes a case of too much, too little to
sustain it and then what we need to deal with it. That rolls
over on how the workspaces our Marines work in, the spaces that
our families live in, their recreation. All those things are
impacted by these decisions. Just reinforcing what the Master
Chief Petty Officer of the Navy said. In every conversation I
have ever been I have said we need more to get after that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, this is why we have the chief
enlisted leaders here as well because we need to make sure that
we get a balanced perspective, and that helps us prioritize. So
I appreciate it. My time has expired, and the Ranking Member is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Did you give us information about what--did you have any
information about firefighting equipment and the cost? Get it
to us. We will take a look at it.
Master Chief Smith. Sir, I do have that information. I
think that EN-4 probably has the finite information you are
looking for with cost, but approximately $240 million is the
ask for the damage control and firefighting trainer. What we
have right now is a facility that can only demonstrate it
cannot train or qualify because it has got a crack in the
foundation, and it has to be raised and rebuilt.
They cannot put sailors on air, so they can't face fire the
way you would in a training scenario that would allow us to
qualify those sailors. So sailors go out to the Bonhomme
Richard. They arrive in the week before the fire. They are not
qualified damage control firefighters and have to be removed
from the situation rather than be contributing to a firefight
they are not qualified to be in.
Mr. Carter. Well, if you get us that information, if we get
lucky--you know, we can always get lucky and maybe can help. I
got a couple questions for you and Admiral Williamson. The USS
George Washington I just read an article about unfortunate
suicides aboard the George Washington while undergoing midlife
restoration. It appears that the living conditions aboard the
ship are a contributing factor in affecting the morale of the
sailors. Question is what is going on? Why are the living
conditions poor? What has the Navy done, and why does it seem
the ship's leadership hasn't been actively involved?
Master Chief Smith. Sir, thank you for the opportunity to
answer that. Frankly, as you probably are aware, there was
quite a bit of social media furor over a non-statement that I
didn't make, but what it did unearth was some real significant
frustration with the conditions that sailors are exposed to
there and, frankly, in a lot of other places.
I think that it is too early to tell you that there is a
problem with leadership because, frankly, that isn't what I
smelled when I walked aboard. I had a talk with the crew that
was very frank. I was very complimentary of what they have to
do and the conditions they have to endure because to be honest
with you as a sailor who has been through several dry dockings
it is the hardest thing, far harder than deployment to go
through a yard period where you are in dry dock.
I dutifully own the decisions of our service to prioritize
the way they do, and when I said things like, ``I can't get
you. I can't build you,'' it is me recognizing that there are
no resources apportioned for that. But sailors do need those
things. They do need quality places to live. They need places
to get out of the heat zone so to speak in a yard period and
escape it. There are some challenges that come with the
geography of Newport News and parking that just don't look
easily solvable, and the pragmatic answer is just to be honest
with them and acknowledge and validate how they are feeling,
the frustration that they are facing while still telling them
that, frankly, if they don't do what they do the George
Washington doesn't have another 25 years of life to defend this
nation.
So I think we will probably know more after they take a
little bit deeper look into what is going on in general on the
ship. We have already moved some folks off. There were some
sailors who did not want to leave the ship. CNO and I talked
about this yesterday. But those who are willing to and wanted
to were moved off recognizing that they are going to be in the
yards quite a bit longer than maybe they originally thought.
Mr. Carter. So is it Newport News is the problem?
Master Chief Smith. I wouldn't say that Newport News is the
problem but the geography of the base and where it is at. The
fact that there are two carriers in RCOH which does not happen
often makes it really, really pressurized when it comes to
parking facilities of all sorts and the ability to take care of
sailors the way we would choose to if we could.
Mr. Carter. Are they working on the ships, or are they just
living there while somebody else works on the ships?
Master Chief Smith. No, no, no. They are working, sir.
Everybody that is there has jobs, frankly, which is the
frustration. It is not what they were paid to do by the Navy.
It is not why we hire them. It is what they do to maintain
their equipment much like a race car driver might be very
interested in the mechanics that go on underneath the hood
before they take it out on the track. Our sailors have a job to
do that also involves maintaining the equipment that they fight
with.
Mr. Carter. Well, that is an unfortunate suicide rate
there. And the George H.W. Bush had the same issues with
suicide. It just seems to me that maybe you ought to be looking
into that and come up with some idea to save those lives.
Admiral, do you want to comment?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. I absolutely agree. In my
previous life, I was an engineer, and I have done several
availabilities, and I absolutely agree with MCPON. That is
probably some of the most challenging times we have. I also
agree with MCPON that it is not Hampton Roads itself but the
conditions. Obviously, we are looking at that in SIOP. How do
we build back better? How do we build what is necessary to
accommodate two ships and availability going forward not only
for the maintenance of the ship but also the maintenance the
sailor?
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you. That is not real satisfactory,
but at least I have got some glimmer into what is going on. By
the way, I live in Williamson County in Texas named after a
hero of the battle of San Jacinto, so you have got a good name.
The issues on the firefighting equipment we got some extra
last year. You might get some this year. We always pray for it,
and maybe we could do something about that because I know fire
onboard ship is a really, really, really, really bad thing, and
you have got to be able to be well trained on that. And if we
are not getting the equipment for them to train we have got to
do it somehow. I am going to at least start to work on that for
you.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back. The Chair of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, you are
recognized for five minutes, and welcome to MILCON VA.
The Chair. Well, thank you very, very much, Madam Chair,
and I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I want to
thank our witnesses for testimony this morning.
As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Congresswoman
Wasserman Schultz and myself you know that we are committed to
do all that we can to help improve the quality of life for our
service members and their families. On February 17 of this
year, a recall was issued on Abbot Nutrition's infant formula
product due to bacteria contaminated products at the company's
Sturgis, Michigan, plant. That has related in infant deaths and
hospitalizations.
I have been closely tracking all the national infant
formula shortage as has a member of this subcommittee,
Congressman Sanford Bishop, who chairs the Agriculture
Subcommittee of Appropriations. And we were tracking that and
the recalled product with food safety at the forefront. And
while we introduced and emergency supplemental appropriations
bill to address the domestic supply of the formula we would
also to address the long-term root causes of the issue so that
we can try to prevent this from happening again.
And military families are not exempt from the challenges
that face other American families, and I am eager to hear from
you about how we can address the infant formula shortage issue
for service members and their families.
Just two questions which I would like to pose to Assistant
Secretary Berger and anyone else who might want to join. What
challenges are military stores having in restocking their
shelves? How can we better support them in securing infant
formula for service members' families, and what are your
departments hearing regarding the current experience of service
members and their families in securing infant formula?
Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, this is an issue of which I am
aware, but I also know that our senior enlisted have very good
visibility on the topic, and I would like to yield for their
expertise for our responses.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you.
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, good morning. Sergeant Major
Black here, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. This is a great
topic, and this current challenge with baby formula just
highlights a greater challenge that we are having, and I will
give you one example.
Primarily, I would use the conversations that the
Commandant and I have had on travel when we get out to our
distant locations, things that are outside the Continental
United States, Okinawa for us, Guam for us, at the end of the
supply chain, as it were. In those locations, we learned a few
things during COVID, and that was at the end of the supply
chain there is less and less opportunity for families to have
what they need. This is just another in a series of those
challenges.
Now, how that supply chain works the myriad challenges
there are to maintain that and to get supplies where we need to
be to sustain our families is a very complicated one, Ma'am. I
think that is something we should probably come back with a
more detailed description of. But what I can tell you having
visited those locations, Ma'am, there are challenges, and there
are things we need to get after. This current challenge with
the formula is just one of those.
The Chair. Well, I know, and I see Congressman Bishop on
the phone and on the Zoom. He chairs the Ag Subcommittee, and
this issue is important to that subcommittee, and to that end
there is a hearing tomorrow that he is holding with the
director of the FDA, Dr. Califf. But what we need to know from
you is how--we need to work together with you as to how we are
really providing for our servicemen and women here, and I am
sure they are frantic about being able to get a product so that
they can feed their babies.
And so we would really like to know what the situation is
with the military and then work with you as to how we can
address it so that that becomes part of the answer to this
very, very serious crisis. Families should not have to choose
between supply and safety, and we want to make sure that when
we are talking about families we are including our military
families as well.
We would very much appreciate a report from you or
information from all of you that can provide us with what
information we need to work in conjunction with addressing this
problem.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlelady
yields back.
Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate your
leadership on this hearing. I am going to focus on the USS
George Washington because when we think about housing we
traditionally think about brick and mortar but not life onboard
a ship. For me, my toughest time in the Navy was when I was in
three section duty as a senior chief on the Michael Murphy. You
are either on duty, getting off duty or about to get back on
duty, and it was very difficult for my family.
I am going to lean on you, MCPON, because, one, there is no
more stars we can give you. There is no more medals we can pin
on your chest, and I think you can give me some straight
answers. One is how many sailors have passed away during your
time as MCPON?
Master Chief Smith. Sir, I don't have the exact number of
how many have passed away since August 28, 2018. I read all the
sitrep messages that come through that discuss suicides. As
somebody who myself as a young kid was in that same situation I
can empathize and sympathize, and it is why we place the
highest priority on our people.
Mr. Gonzales. Right. Right. What about you, Sergeant Major?
How many Marines have died while you have been Sergeant Major
of the Marine Corps?
Sergeant Major Black. Over 150.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you. This is very important. Sailors
dying is the last member we want any family member to have to
deal with. MCPON Smith, out of the sailors that died onboard
the USS George Washington how many were living onboard the
ship?
Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding that four were
living onboard the ship.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. I have been told that sailors
eventually had the option of moving off the ship is what pretty
much stopped the suicides from occurring. Why did it take three
sailors committing suicide in a week to find them habitable
housing?
Master Chief Smith. The ability to--first of all, the
actions of the crew and the horrible circumstance of suicide
did not wake someone to the problem to make them say now we
need to move people offboard. Recognizing that they were going
to be in the yards a lot longer and knowing that instead of
moving them off and then trying to move them right back on a
month later that now we are projecting I think it is March of
2023 that we can put them somewhere they will be put and
minimize the churn, frankly, of moving them on, moving them
off, moving them on because that is also incredibly disruptive.
I think it is telling that some sailors did not choose to move
off.
Mr. Gonzales. I have limited time here. If you lose one
sailor or marine or airman or soldier or guardian, I mean, that
should be a wakeup call to any leadership. If there is a DUI,
if there is a sexual assault, anything in that line, that is a
red flag that says something is wrong. Three people in a week
is a glaring issue. What I am getting at is we can't just
continue to run the same plays and expect different results to
happen, finding ways around it. This isn't going to be the last
ship that is in the yards, and how do we prevent that next ship
from having these same issues?
My next question is for you, MCPON. The Navy sent a Special
Psychiatric Rapid Intervention Team, SPRINT, to the USS George
Washington in late April. These teams provide short-term mental
health short to requesting commands after traumatic events. Who
requested this team, and when did they arrive?
Master Chief Smith. Command requested the team, and they
arrived within, I believe, 48 hours of being requested. I would
have to go back and look.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. That is fair. How many personnel are on
this team?
Master Chief Smith. I can't tell you. It depends on the
size of the unit. It depends on what the need of the command
is, what the ask is. It is tailored to the issue at hand.
Mr. Gonzales. Was this SPRINT team able to connect with any
sailors--was the SPRINT team able to connect any sailors with
local resources for long-term mental healthcare?
Master Chief Smith. Yes.
Mr. Gonzales. Do you know how many sailors?
Master Chief Smith. I don't know off the top of my head.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. To me, basically, the damn broke.
Sailors were dying. The SPRINT team to me is what stopped that,
and it took the leadership a while to figure out to use a
SPRINT team. I would love to learn more about it. I would love
for us to study how we can get ahead of this. Do you know the
cost? How many SPRINT teams could have been deployed? Do you
know the cost of the SPRINT teams?
Master Chief Smith. I don't know the exact cost because
again it's scalable. It depends on the circumstance. So it is
going to be more depending on the size of the unit and what the
ask is. What I can tell you is that as soon as the ask was made
the team was put together, and they were sent down there to
talk to the crew. It is not the only thing that was done, and
it was not the third suicide that prompted it because we always
make the offer for help and assistance as soon as something
like that happens on a unit. There is an investigation that
will I believe look into the command climate and other things
that may have been contributing factors, but it is too early to
tell, and I don't have the results of that. So I can't----
Mr. Gonzales. And I know I am out of time, but I will just
say when we think of housing we traditionally think of brick
and mortar. It isn't that way in the Navy. It isn't that way in
the Marine Corps. It isn't the way in services, and I want to
prevent--how can this committee help prevent the next suicide,
the next death from occurring regardless of service?
Madam Chair, I am out of time, and I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Would you like a response, or are
you finished?
Mr. Gonzales. I am finished. Second round.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The Gentleman yields
back.
Mr. Case, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Case. Master Chief, I do want to follow on my
colleague's questions because we can talk installations and
buildings and a lot of things, but when you lose three sailors
like that it breaks your heart, and it makes you ask the
question that I have asked, which is what are we doing or not
doing in this Congress?
I had a very long talk with Sergeant Major Black yesterday
about this, and I asked him the simple question what are we
missing? Are we missing that conditions are different or that
personnel are different or that command is different or that
installations are different? Why are we still losing good
people? And let me just make one other point. And I am asking
it not only broadly as a member of Congress, not only as a
member of the Appropriations Committee but today as a member of
the Military Construction Committee.
So I think from that perspective is, well, take care of
housing and childcare and facilities that can actually maintain
and improve the quality of life. But I have to ask myself the
question is that it? I mean, is that all I can do on this
subcommittee at least? So I need that same straight answer.
What am I missing?
Master Chief Smith. So the best answer I can give you, sir,
frankly, sailors are no different than we were. We have
different priorities. We have different skills and attributes,
but sailors are no better or worse than we were when I first
came in. They still have the same basic human needs. When a
sailor takes their own life, it breaks my heart because there
are a lot of things that we do to try and keep people on the
team, and we need every member we have on our team.
I have myself been in a place where I struggled, and I had
teammates who swelled up around me. I lived on my first two
ships. We don't do that anymore. We have home port ashore. But
there are lots of things that have to converge. Some of it is
on our end. Our chief petty officers, our senior NCOs need to
do more to lean in and be that first care provider, to be that
first compassionate shoulder that says what's going on that
recognizes a change in pattern that lets you know that
something is different, and something needs to be done.
I had a friend, Commander Joe Price, who was one of my
junior officers when I was at SEAL Team 4 in the mid 1990s, and
when I ran into him again he was getting ready to take over as
the CO of SEAL Team 4, and we met over in the Far East, and I
had a great couple of days with him, and when I left and went
back to the fleet as a command master chief on the destroyer
and I heard that he had taken his own life as the CO of that
team in theater, it blew me away because I had just seen him.
And I still to this day wonder, did I miss something? Is there
something I didn't see?
Suicide is a massive problem for us because it's the one
thing we can prevent absolutely by getting inside people's
headspace and connecting to them. And we talk a lot at the deck
plate level about the connectedness. There's no app, there's
no--honestly, better barracks will help. Quality of life issues
absolutely make a difference. But the way we need to get after
this is mostly on our end. We need to connect in a way that we
haven't done in a couple of decades, because electronics have
taken us away from that human interconnection that helps us
understand what's going on in a teammate's head.
But to the point that you asked: What can you do? Sir, I
have to be honest with you, the priorities, as the Chairwoman
pointed out--and the Sergeant Major and I prioritize people--
it's really hard for the Navy because they're not toys, they're
weapons. These are the things we use to fight. We are--a navy
can't fight without a ship or an aircraft, a submarine, or the
things we use as implements of war. And that's a conundrum
because we have to buy those things, and the technology that
comes in them matters.
But a ship is not--when you commission a ship, they say,
now bring her to life. And it is when the sailors rush in that
that actually happens. And we do place the highest premium on
people. I would probably make different puts and takes to make
sure that I had the shore facilities. We had a secretary who
used to say constantly, infrastructure equals readiness. If you
look back to the shore and there's no pier, if you look back to
the shore and there's no logistics team like we have been
experiencing on both--in both theaters, we are not able to
fight.
The Truman, after they got the RAS that--I went out to the
Truman last week and one--right before I got there they had a
RAS that brought them up to 32 percent. They have 600 pallets
on the way that will make them whole on about the 1st or 2nd of
June. But it has taken that long to get supplies because of a
confluence of problems and issues, some preventable, a lot of
them not. But nobody cares, I promise you, more than the
quality of life of our sailors and Marines than the two of us
sitting at the ends of this table.
Mr. Case. Thank you for your honest answer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
our witnesses today for your time and testimony.
I want to echo what my colleagues have said today that
regarding suicide and mental health, in preparing for today's
hearing I was reviewing some of the questions from last year,
and my first question was on mental health, and I am obviously
incredibly concerned again. We need to discuss these tragic
losses of life.
I don't know if the problem lies in funding, culture,
access or that we are simply just not asking the right
questions. But from some of the testimony today, obviously it
is all of the above. But we need to do more because what we are
doing is obviously not enough.
On the George Washington, there was 2,700 soldiers from
what I--or sailors on there from what I understand. Four
hundred of them were staying on the ship itself. And from what
I've read, almost 300 have been given accommodations off the
facility or off the ship. There's still about 100 left.
What is the situation with those 100?
Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding there is about
184 that still reside on the ship, and what I got in the
conversation I had indirectly, because I was not there
yesterday, is that they chose to stay on the ship. So to be
honest with you, as somebody who does not like a long commute,
I have suffered through conditions on ships because I would
rather not deal with a longer commute. But it is my
understanding also that those sailors were all offered a place
to move off to.
Mr. Valadao. So they do have access to some facility if
they wanted to--if they chose to leave the ship right now?
Master Chief Smith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. And then you mentioned a review of the
situation there. From what I have read, it looks like it might
not be ready till March of next year. Is that accurate?
Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding that March of
23, but I will find out and I will get a better answer back to
you.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. Is there any way we can speed that up if
it is accurate that it is March?
Master Chief Smith. I would probably have to defer to a
whole lot of other folks that do ship maintenance to answer
that. But I will get you an answer. We will take that for the
record, sir, and answer that.
Mr. Valadao. And then my colleague here mentioned having
people on--having access to folks to talk to, that our sailors
have the ability to talk to. I married into a Navy family, and
obviously I have a lot of friends, Naval Air Station Lemoore
being in the district, a lot of constituents and friends who
are sailors and have spent a lot of time away from family not
having access to ways of communicating with their family.
Has that changed much over the years? Is that something we
are looking into?
Master Chief Smith. The ability to communicate with----
Mr. Valadao. With their own family. Obviously we want them
to have access to people who are experts, but if they have--if
they don't have that, at least having access to talk to their
own family to give them some sense of home.
Master Chief Smith. So over Thanksgiving I went out to the
USS Carl Vinson, served them Thanksgiving dinner, and when we
were out there noted that they have something called O3b, which
provides near constant access to the internet. Obviously
operational concerns, they do shut if off from time to time.
But sailors could Facetime from their personal device at
sea. And we have something called Star--Starlink? Starlink
which is going to be far cheaper and we're able to put it on
smaller platforms, and that is going to be coming in the--and
incidentally, the Carl Vinson saw a dramatic drop in suicide-
related behaviors after they installed O3b.
Mr. Valadao. And so with people having access on--you
mentioned it, but that--making sure that sailors are not giving
away any sort of critical mission details is obviously a
concern. But we have not seen any concerns on that front yet.
Master Chief Smith. Well, to be honest with you, as a CI
person, there is always risk and that scares the crap out of
me. But frankly, the way the ship has managed it with what we
call missions control, MCON, they have done a great job.
Mr. Valadao. And the Starlink you mentioned is the one that
I think we have all heard about from the private side, right?
Master Chief Smith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that, and that
is something obviously that there is a lot of concern from all
of us.
Master Chief Smith. To the point, sir, that you made, the
best part about that is with O3b, Vinson saw a dramatic drop in
suicide-related behaviors. There is something to being able to
be connected when you are away from home.
Mr. Valadao. Well, and even just in the last few days I
have had at least one spouse mention that they have not
communicated with their spouse in probably four weeks. So----
Master Chief Smith. Not every unit has it, but they do have
things like sailor phones, email and lots of other ways to
communicate currently.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Berger, on base housing, it is great to hear that you
are prioritizing visiting our bases. I can personally attest to
that that you gain much deeper understanding of the issues
facing our servicemembers by seeing these facilities firsthand,
and I am sure you would agree that there is much to be done.
In your testimony you mentioned you are working on a review
of the unaccompanied housing facilities and a 10-year plan to
address those facilities that are in unsatisfactory condition.
Can you tell us about what you have seen so far?
Ms. Berger. Yes, I have had the opportunity to visit some
of the unaccompanied housing and see firsthand, and as you
noted, leadership eyes on is important. We are taking a look,
as directed under the NDA, to make sure that we have a 10-year
plan with a focus first on those that are in the worst state of
repair. So our Q3/Q4 and making sure that we prioritize those
first and will provide the report to Congress as requested with
more detail.
Mr. Valadao. Any idea when that report will be done?
Ms. Berger. I will need to check but I think it is this
summer that we will have it.
Mr. Valadao. Okay, and I appreciate that because I think
all of us are very interested in the results of that.
And I'm sorry, I didn't notice the time. I have added time,
so I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back. I'm adding leeway just because of how critical some of
these topics really are.
Okay. Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions. And Mr. Bishop is virtual.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me just emphasize the concerns that were raised by our
Chairwoman, Ms. DeLaurio. She and I introduced legislation to
try to address the situation with the infant formula, and I
understand that it is a great deal--it has a tremendous impact
on morale and welfare of our Navy personnel if they have
problems at home of feeding their babies. And of course a
shortage of the infant formula, the safety of the infant
formula is something that has got to be vitally important to
the quality of life of our military personnel.
I would like to ask you if you would just comment on
whether or not you have heard of concerns from servicemembers
and families with regard to that, and if during the last
several weeks where it has come to the forefront there has been
any response at all with respect to Navy personnel. Is AFIS and
do the commissaries have access to adequate infant formula? Is
it a problem with our military families just as it is with the
broader general public?
Sergeant Major Black. Congressman Bishop, thank you again
for the question, sir. Sir, I will just make a comment that I
mentioned before. The current challenge with baby formula
highlights a longer problem that has been going on for some
time, mostly COVID-related originally, complicated by our
supply chain challenges during that period and now it is being
highlighted once again with the baby formula issue.
Here is what I would offer, sir, as another just
reinforcement of that point. The commandant and I traveled to
Okinawa here a couple of months ago. That is about at the end
of our supply chain when it comes to support to our families,
the commissaries and exchanges in this thing. In those
locations it did not just occur in the last couple of weeks
where there was a shortage of necessary items.
So baby formula currently is an issue, but the overall
challenge, sir, is not something new. So in a greater sense,
the supply chain challenges that we have are the root cause at
this point of these challenges for our families in disparate
locations.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Please know that we are doing our
darnedest to try to get this bull by the horns and get it
addressed.
Let me turn to climate change for a moment. Could I ask you
to--the panel to comment on concerns with regard to changes in
naval operations as a result of climate change, and what has
the Navy and the Marine Corps done--what have they done to
implement resiliency for you with respect to climate change and
sea levels which have accompanies that? How is that impacting
naval operations and what are the projections and how are you
going to handle it?
Ms. Berger. Congressman Bishop, the Department of the Navy
has identified climate change and its impacts as a mission-
critical focus. It is something that impacts everything that we
do from acquisition to execution of mission, and it is a
warfighting imperative.
We have identified critically in-trouble installations on
both coasts, and we are looking across the enterprise at how we
can be more resilient. This includes our buildings, the way
that we are building and assessing the resilience. We have put
installation resilience plans into effect across the Navy and
we'll be soon complete on the Marine Corps.
This is something that touches at every point, and I want
to make sure to leave some time for my partners here to comment
specifically on how impactful it is to them.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the
question. Obviously a lot of our Marine Corps and Navy bases
are very close to coastlines, so mission readiness is
absolutely vital and being able to combat against any threat
that impacts that mission and our bases.
We work very closely with our commands. We have a climate
change handbook which allows us to better plan our base design.
We've increased work with academia and the local communities
who also in those areas suffer from the same things. And that
is a result of our--results in us looking at higher standards,
whether it be earthquake, hurricanes, whatever the case may be.
In addition to that, we also use the climate assessment
tool, which gives the commander the potential impact to his
base and also some degree of the exposure of his base.
We are also leveraging technology. The United States Naval
Academy is a fantastic example of this where they have actually
built a digital twin which shows the impact to climate--
potential climate change over time. We are looking at being
able to expand that to our other bases. And I can give you more
examples but I want to be courteous of the time, ma'am.
Mr. Bishop. Marine Corps?
General Banta. Thank you, Congressman. Just to add to what
both Admiral Williamson and Secretary Berger said, completely
concur with the impact that it has to our installations and the
importance of resiliency in the face of climate change.
I would offer you as an example the rebuilding of Camp
Lejeune in the wake of Hurricane Florence, building to all the
latest unified facilities criteria, rebuilding in areas that
are out of the 100- or 200-year floodplain, and then also
leveraging other things like installation master planning
efforts and microgrids to improve the resiliency of our power
systems and our water systems aboard our installations to
better protect against the effects of climate change. Thank
you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I believe my time is expired, but I
thank you for your responses.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Rutherford, who is participating virtually, you are
recognized for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
I would like to follow up on Congressman Bishop's line of
questioning on some of the shoreline repair projects. Assistant
Secretary Berger, I understand there is an issue where some
shoreline repair projects using sheet piling are designated as
construction projects where--that require millions of dollars
while other projects using riprap are classified as repair
projects and only require O&M dollars. And my understanding is
that the use of sheet piling is more cost effective, requires
less of a footprint actually, and is actually more--has less
environmental impact.
So last year, Assistant Secretary Shaffer said the
department was working on classifying the definition--
reclassifying, I guess, the definition so that shoreline repair
projects would be more easily accessible to installations. Can
you tell me, are these discussions still continuing and are you
going to expand the definition of what qualifies as a repair
project?
Ms. Berger. Congressman Rutherford, I first agree that
shoreline resilience is essential to making sure that we
enhance our resilience. I was remiss, as long as we are on this
theme of climate and resilience--the Navy, the Department of
the Navy is soon to release its climate strategy, and you will
see a lot of the items that you all are identifying reflected
in there as we continue to move forward very purposefully on
focusing on this type of resilience in the aggregate.
To your specific question, sir, I would need to go back and
get you a firm answer on that. I do not know where the
definition exchanges, but I am glad to follow up on that and
give you a fuller answer.
Mr. Rutherford. That would be great. I know Marine Corps
Support Facility Blount Island specifically has some work that
could certainly use a redefinition.
And so let me ask this question as well. The last time I
visited Naval Station Mayport, they briefed me on the projects
that they have developed to address resiliency issues on the
base there. And it is my understanding if they were able to
bundle all of their resiliency projects, it would cost $180
million in military construction.
However, MILCON process requires them to request each
project individually. Are you looking at ways that we can
actually bundle these projects so that we can get better cost
savings out of it?
Ms. Berger. Congressman, in terms of our acquisitions
strategies in general, we always look to make sure that we are
getting the best return on value for dollars. And so if there
is an opportunity to package any of these projects that are
pursuing, whether because they are near in geography or they
are of similarly suited need where we might be able to find an
efficiency there, it is certainly something that we pursue.
This is also a place where we can make sure that we are
considering our small business partners and taking a look to
make sure that we are connecting those opportunities which can
often be more of a challenge. So we use an eye towards that as
well to make sure that we are inclusive of the people who can
provide support services to us.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay, thank you. And I would like to jump
back to privatized military housing. I know earlier, Vice
Admiral Williamson and Lieutenant General Banta, we had a
hearing earlier this year on the issues with military
privatized housing, and quite frankly I was shocked to hear how
many children are falling out of windows. And I know in the
fiscal year 2018 NDAA, the Navy was working to implement the
Evan's Law that came out of that bill to retrofit these windows
of privatized military housing facilities.
But I understand we have even had one child fall out of the
building that had the retrofit. Is anyone looking to make sure
that the retrofit is going to be sufficient to stop children
from falling? Obviously it is not right now because we have
already had one fall out. Again, can either of you answer that,
what we are doing on that?
Admiral Williamson. Sir, this is Admiral Williamson. I am
sorry, I was not tracking that incident, but you are absolutely
right. If that did occur after we put the required compliance
to prevent that, we absolutely will have to go back and take a
look at it. So I will be happy to come back to you, do the
research and provide you any information I can find.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, I
think my time is expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. The
gentleman's time is expired.
Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you so
much to all of the witnesses. I appreciate your service and
your testimony today. I apologize, I have been going back and
forth to other hearings and have not had a chance to listen to
all the questions, but let me ask a couple of things.
I want to talk about something in the SIOP. As you might
know, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is in my district in Kittery,
Maine, and I want to address climate change issues there which
I know a couple of your recent questions have also done.
Naval shipyards obviously are very vulnerable to sea-level
rise, and a 2016 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists
found that without efforts to prevent or reduce flooding,
Portsmouth would be permanently impacted by increasingly
frequent and severe tidal flooding, and the threat of storm
surge may become intolerable for shipyard operations.
Fortunately, I know there are efforts underway at
Portsmouth to address resilience need and to mitigate flood
risk. Additionally, this subcommittee included language in the
fiscal year 2022 report urging DOD to prioritize efforts to
improve the resilience of military installations and to
encourage installations to develop plans that take into account
future and current--current and future risks from extreme
weather, including sea-level rise.
So, Admiral Williamson, as part of the SIOP, I understand
the Navy has formulated detailed area development plans
intended to guide the key improvements at each shipyard based
on modeling information developed as part of the shipyard's
data collection efforts. How is the Navy incorporating data and
modeling around climate risk, including sea-level rise, into
these plans and to what extent will the Navy prioritize
infrastructure upgrades that specifically address installation
resiliency?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the
question. Obviously, as we build the detailed plans to build
the shipyards back, the resilience of the shipyard is
absolutely a priority. I will give you a great example of the
dry dock in Norfolk that is currently being constructed. We
exceeded the NDAA language in the build-back. We went to the
300-year floodplain.
As you mentioned, using data--I talked about the Naval
Academy and the modeling they did based upon the project sea-
level rise there. How do we leverage that data and apply it to
all the shipyards to get a more holistic view of when we
develop our projects that not only are we in accordance with
the UFC standards but also in accordance with resilience as it
pertains to those shipyards.
Additionally, I think for all the shipyards we are very
dependent along--on the local community. So also looking and
partnering with the local community, local academic as I
mentioned, ODU down in Norfolk, the University of Hawaii in
Pearl Harbor, to gain better understanding and leverage their
learning so that when we put back the shipyard that it will
last for the next 100 years and also be resilient to any
potential earthquake, flooding, hurricanes, all those things.
Over, ma'am.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, and I so much appreciate that this
is part of the focus because those of us who are in coastal
communities and coastal states are certainly worried about
this.
My other question is about the Portsmouth dry dock
extension project, and I might run out of time but I am--if we
don't get a chance to answer, I will be happy to get your
answer afterwards.
In the current plan, there is the ongoing multi-mission Dry
Dock Number 1 modernization project, which I think we all know
is critical to East Coast maintenance and repair capabilities
for the Virginia-class submarines. We all know how critical
those investments are, and years of underfunding in the
shipyard infrastructure facilities and capital equipment, most
of which is past its expected service life, has left all four
shipyards in poor condition.
I want to talk about the serious challenges the Navy has
had in accurately assessing what this effort will cost. The
initial price tag of 21 billion over 20 years looks to be a
significant underestimation. The GAO recently reported that dry
dock costs alone have already exceeded the expected level by
over 400 percent.
For Portsmouth in particular, we know the naval cost
estimate for the multi-mission dry dock project was well off
the mark, and without the additional funding that this
Committee was able to provide for fiscal year 2022, the project
could have been disrupted due to the Navy's miscalculation.
I am just interested to know what specific lessons the Navy
has learned from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard dry dock
modernization project in terms of improving its cost estimates,
and how is the Navy applying these lessons learned to ensure
that cost estimates for the future improvements--the funding
for Portsmouth and other dry dock projects--are as accurate as
possible?
I just used up the last minute of my time, so I know we
will move on to another member, but I really would appreciate
if you could follow up in writing on that particular question.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much and I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentlelady yields
back, and I assume you will be able to answer her question for
the record. Thank you.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Berger, I was pleased to see in your testimony
that the Navy is investing in energy, climate and cyber
resiliency in Fiscal Year 2023. As you know, there are Navy
installations across Florida like in Pensacola, Key West,
Jacksonville, where the storm surges could inundate these
installations, and floodwaters.
You touched on this briefly in your testimony, but can you
expand on the investments the Navy is making to rapidly respond
to extreme weather events?
Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman, and thank you for the
question. Being from Florida, I know we both really appreciate
the impacts that happen when we see the impacts of climate
change.
Mr. Crist. Where in Florida are you from?
Ms. Berger. Fort Lauderdale, sir.
Mr. Crist. Excellent. Beautiful Broward.
Ms. Berger. Yes, beautiful Broward.
Mr. Crist. Please continue. Thank you.
Ms. Berger. Yes, sir. But I grew up knowing about those
impacts, and so recognize them very forcefully and sharply as I
think about it in the context of the Department of the Navy.
And so the investments that we are making go across the
spectrum. It is to harden our installations when we do have the
opportunity to be strengthening, rebuilding, repairing when we
see those impacts. It is creating opportunities for resilience
in terms of our energy so that if we do see a storm impact come
through, there is opportunity for both storage and that
resilience so that we can continue with mission.
It is making sure that we are thinking about what it means
to be operating in this environment, everything from salinity
to temperature to other impacts that we see on our
installations, and we are investing across the spectrum as we
think about this, and I mentioned the strategy that is coming
out.
We think about this as climate readiness is mission
readiness, and we see this as a warfighting imperative because
we think about our installations as the place from which we
launch, and in every way that they are impacted, we are further
challenged in the way that we execute.
And so for that reason, those are the types of investments
we are making: our energy resilience, making sure that we have
that independence when we are impacted by storms, strengthening
those installations and ensuring that the people who live
there, work there, train there and launch from there are able
to succeed in their mission.
Mr. Crist. Excellent.
Hurricane Michael caused considerable disruption to
shipbuilding operations in Panama City, Florida. There are many
shipbuilding hubs, just not on the Gulf Coast but across the
country, that face similar risks. It is only a matter of time
before we may see major damage to a shipyard from a hurricane
or similar extreme weather event.
What are we doing to improve resiliency at shipyards,
especially those where we are building vessels vital to our
national defense security?
Please.
Ms. Berger. Yes. As Admiral Williamson mentioned in terms
of shipyard resilience, that is a consideration as we do our
planning in SIOP. We have to plan against floodplains, storm
surges and some of the impacts that I just mentioned.
I have had the chance to travel to shipyards where we are
seeing this building, and they are considering similar
resilience efforts as we consider as the Department of Navy.
And so whether it is in our public shipyards where we are
focused in working more in our partners' private shipyards
there. Similarly looking at opportunities to share energy
resilience and otherwise strengthen there.
Also lifting things up off the ground to make sure that it
is at that higher flood plain. So, as I've had the chance to
interact with our shipbuilding partners in the private sector
as well, I have seen similar resilience measures to those types
of considerations that Admiral Williamson mentioned in his
testimony.
Mr. Crist. Wonderful. Thank you very much. As a point of
personal privilege, please give your father my regards, and I
yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back. We are
going to begin our second round. I would anticipate us wrapping
up at 12:30. Master Chief Smith and then Sergeant Major Black,
sexual assault continues to be a problem for DoD, including the
Navy and Marine Corps--I would say especially Navy and Marine
Corps.
In fiscal year 2020 in your annual report on sexual assault
in the military, 1,724 reports of sexual assault were filed in
the Navy and Marine Corps. I really would like to explore with
you why there is such an exceedingly high number.
Additionally, when breaking out the Marine Corps statistics
in fiscal year 2020 in that report, sexual assault report rates
skyrockets to 5.9 reports of sexual assault per 1,000 marines,
which is the highest rate of any service, and the highest level
since the Marine Corps started reporting in 2010.
So, starting with you, Sergeant Major Black, can you
explain to the subcommittee why that number is so high, and for
both of you, what is the problem in the Navy and the Marine
Corps and sexual assault, and you're not being--I don't feel
like in the time that I've either been the chair or the ranking
member that there has been an approachable reduction on the
contrary in sexual assault in your service.
Sergeant Major Black. Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for the
question. Sexual harassment and sexual assault continues to be
a top priority in the Marine Corps. I know you expect me to say
that.
Quite frankly, I am not satisfied with the numbers myself.
I can tell you the continued support of this and all other
members who are--who are concerned about these actions and sign
up for our services is beneficial. I'd point to some of the
recent changes that I think are going to help us, like the
change through military justice, and how we're going to now be
able to work through our sexual assault cases in particular
through the judication process and investigatory process. Those
will help. I think the continuing education that we provide to
our leaders and individual marines will continue to help.
I'm never satisfied with the conversation that because
reporting goes up, there's more trust, and because the actual
number of sexual assaults has not necessarily come down.
However, I do know there is continued trust in the chain of
command because there are more reporting. Few go unnoticed, few
go unaddressed, and few go unadjudicated. In fact, none go
unadjudicated, and I can provide separate numbers specific to
our adjudications, ma'am, if you'd like in writing at the end
of this.
I think that what we should not do is have a discussion
about what we should not be doing, and what we should not be
doing is taking our eye off this ball. I'm not giving you a
satisfying answer either, because the numbers haven't shown
that there is actually anything occurring, ma'am.
But I can tell you from me personally, and I'm married to a
retired marine, and I live every day with the experience of
what a woman's career in the Marine Corps looks like. She's a
retiree and we've got two children. We've had a whole entire
career inside the Marine Corps, and I can tell you right now
that if--that we should continue to--continue to press this
issue, because until we get the numbers going in the opposite
direction, ma'am, I'm not satisfied any more than you all with
where we're going.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant Major, what new steps is
the Marine Corps taking to tackle what is an unacceptable--
there's no sexual assault that's acceptable, but yours of any
branch is unacceptably high. How are your efforts evolving year
over year? What are you doing when you have, you know, a
problem as serious as this, then you have to do something
disruptive, and I'm not hearing you talk about any specific
steps that you're taking to try to make an appreciable
difference in reducing sexual assaults.
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, first, I'd like to offer you a
long list of things that the Marine Corps is doing, but that's
a long, extended list, ma'am, and I don't think our time
provides that. But I will tell you is that, again, as you talk
about----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Then instead answer what you're
doing to change the culture of the Marine Corps so that it's
ingrained in everyone that sexual assault is absolutely
unacceptable----
Sergeant Major Black. And the change----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And not tolerated?
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, the change in our Marine Corps
is that our leaders are telling the marines what is right and
wrong. I believe also the continued understanding of how we
respect each other, no matter what our gender, etcetera, is, is
part of the solution here, ma'am.
And I think that it's continued changes that we have--that
we've seen in military justice is--are going to help.
Culturally, ma'am, I don't--I don't--I don't see systematic
challenge. What I do see is in individuals that don't
necessarily understand what is right and wrong. We need to
continue to get after those individuals, but ma'am, I don't
want to sit here in front of you and tell you that the marine
corps has a----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant----
Sergeant Major Black [continuing]. Sexual issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Major, this isn't about
individuals, this is about your culture.
Sergeant Major Black. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you have individuals--too many
individuals that don't understand that sexual assault is
unacceptable, and that they don't have the right to do whatever
they want with another--with a woman. Then you've got a culture
problem. So, is there anything being done programmatically to
address the problem in the Marine Corps on this subject?
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, the cultural challenges as you
describe are individual issues. The culture of the Marine Corps
is not one where sexual assault, ma'am, is acceptable. These
are individual issues.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Then you're recruiting the wrong
people, and not screening--if you're saying that by individual
you mean that you've got people who don't understand that are
marines, that they can't just do whatever they want to a woman.
And so, that would--that begs the question, do you have a
screening problem, and are you recruiting the wrong type of
marine who doesn't understand that sexual assault is a really
serious problem and won't be tolerated?
Sergeant Major Black. We're continuing to look at our
recruiting process, ma'am, for many reasons. We do. I can tell
you the--we--we take the very finest that we have, and we
recruit them, and we bring them in to be marines, and they
become great marines. But there are individuals, ma'am, that
once we have them, we have to--we have to continue to change
the way that they are--the way that they think.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, we're going to really--I'm
going to need you to come in and talk with me in my office more
specifically about this.
Sergeant Major Black. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because your answers are really just
not acceptable.
Sergeant Major Black. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Master chief.
Master Chief Smith. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk. Frankly, to start with, and I'll echo what
sergeant major said, no answer is going to be good when we have
numbers that are trending the wrong direction, frankly. We
continue to drive culture and ethics lower into our leadership
training to the point where we are now discussing these things
more robustly inside the boot camp envelope. It starts actually
in the delayed entry program for sailors that are in it. And
then in boot camp and beyond, at every level of leadership
training we now talk more specifically and deliberately about
culture and ethics and getting ahead of it.
We did a task force which met with some scrutiny from
members of this committee last year when I was questioned
called Task Force One Navy, and through it we learned that do
have a lot of simmering issues, to include racism, to include
bias, to include misogyny.
And frankly, what Task Force One Navy informed us, and
frankly, junior sailors have asked for is a change to our core
values. Because as you pointed out when you started, words
matter, and bringing respect, which is already mentioned in two
of our three core values, up to the top line and making it a
fourth core value is something that the CNO has on his plate,
and he's preparing to talk to the Secretary of the Navy about.
I'm not going to tell you that just adding a word to the
core values is going to make everything better, but when we
start to institutionally talk more about--as sergeant major and
I have talked at these conferences we do on the national
discussion on sexual assault, you don't assault someone you
respect.
You don't sexually assault someone you respect, and
learning to treat our female teammates, and frankly, male on
male sexual violence happens as well, and is very unreported,
but all of these things, if you respect your teammates, you
don't hurt them. You value them, and you look to fold them in.
It's that--it all ties together with what we talked about with
regards to suicide, connectedness, and belonging, and feeling
like you have a place on the team, and you are valued. And so,
we are preaching and teaching that at every level of leadership
opportunity that we have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I'll say the same, and I
appreciate your more empathetic answer, but I'd like an
opportunity to talk with you further about this, because
culturally, there's something wrong if individuals don't
understand that sexual assault is unacceptable.
I'm just going to take one additional minute to ask this
question and then--and then I'll turn it over to Judge Carter,
as you know on Monday, May 2nd, an initial draft majority
opinion was leaked which will likely result in the Supreme
Court voting down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. If the
opinion goes unchanged in its final form, there will be massive
ramifications for women, including those in the armed services.
Women in the military already have a higher rate of
unintended pregnancies than civilian women. Currently, the
Defense Health Agency has the limited authority to only provide
abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman's
life.
For those female soldiers in states with restrictive
abortion laws, their options for safe abortions might be
completely erased if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Last week,
the Army told this subcommittee that they were drafting police
to address this situation. Master Chief Smith and Sergeant
Major Black, are the Navy and Marine Corps also working on a
policy to protect and support female service members and their
families if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Master chief?
Master Chief Smith. Ma'am, I would just say that I think
ahead of any change in the law, it would be premature for me to
comment on what the Surgeon General, the CNO, and the Secretary
may be doing within the Navy and Marine Corps.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm just asking if there's any
policy being worked on now in anticipation of that possibility?
Master Chief Smith. Ma'am, I'd have to take that for the
record and go back and talk to the Surgeon General and some
others in my chain of command to find out and get back to you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Sergeant major?
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, likewise, with no specific
change to the law, I'm not aware, but we cannot--we can come
back off the record, ma'am, and answer that question for you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, and then I would just ask both
of you, what will the department--will the department do to
offset the expected impact on recruitment and retention of
qualified female troops if this does--if the decision is handed
down, who currently make up 20 percent of the active duty
force?
Master Chief Smith. Again, ma'am, ahead of any change in
the law, I have no idea what this might do to retention or
recruitment. I think we'll have to take a hard look at that if
the law actually changes.
Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, again, likewise, I'm not
certain with what Roe v. Wade has to do with our recruitment
and how that would affect retention, ma'am. I just don't know
at this point. We have no data to support that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You already have really restrictive
policies, and in states where access to abortion care might be
completely eliminated, obviously it would be really difficult
and impact retention because the percentage of female troops
that end up unexpectedly pregnant is higher than the average
population. So, you would be disproportionate--if you weren't
aware of that already, you would be disproportionately
impacted. So, it is something that you should definitely go
back and suggest be looked at more carefully. Thank you for
your indulgence, Judge Carter. You're recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Army and Air Force
have reported that they are expecting projects for fiscal year
2023 to cause between 25 and 30 percent more. What increases
does the Navy anticipate? Why wasn't the increase factored into
the budget request? As you begin preparing for 2024, will you
factor in inflation in your request? Ms. Berger?
Ms. Berger. We, remember, are mindful of a moving inflation
target and supply chain impacts and others that can impact the
cost. We are watchful of that, and especially as we look
forward, continue to monitor it, but do see that we have had
that impact. 2022, we're seeing that impact now as we look at
the nadir, and we'll continue to be watchful of that in terms
of what inflation impacts will be considered, but we have taken
that into account, but anticipate that we'll need to be
watchful of anticipated things and mindful of that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, because that's your job. We need you
to help us keep up with that stuff. Ship yard--the shipyard
infrastructure program will cost billions and billions of
dollars, and will take up to 20 years. I understand the cost of
these--they're for big projects. However, I'm concerned about
20 years.
And we just heard in the big committee about what's going
on in the Pacific, because quite honestly, that's--that--that
20 years, that timeline is not acceptable, and what can we do
to get that better? I don't want us to lose sight of our
original goal and get sidetracked. Just tell me what you think
about the timeline.
Is it realistic, and can we speed it up if Congress can
provide additional funding in 2023, could you use it, or are
there other ways the subcommittee can support a program such as
just for planning and design funding that can speed the process
along?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the
question. As the (inaudible) matures, obviously the dry docks
were a must. We had to do that. We had the Virginia-Class in
port coming out. That, we absolutely must do. But when you look
at the other two LOEs associated with the dry docks, obviously
the recapitalization of our infrastructure, that we being
equipment, what we--what the workers actually use, but then the
actual optimization piece. As we develop our area of
development plans, and those become more mature, we're
beginning to get a clearer vision of what the critical path is.
We have to build the shipyard while we're maintaining the
ships that go through the shipyard. As we mature that process,
I do believe there are some tremendous opportunities to pull
things to the left. As a matter of fact in our budget, we have
set aside a lot of resources for PND money, as we begin to see
clearer. Additionally, I believe as we mature that, and the--we
understand better the market, obviously right now you mentioned
inflation had a tremendous impact on some of the projects.
We've looked at that going forward to keep those on track.
We've added money into the projects. Additionally, we've also
found that adding additional PND money and getting to about a
30 to 40 percent design is also very critical in ensuring that
we maintain--maintain our momentum.
We're also very grateful of the ads that you provided us
last year that helped us move. We're also looking at our
environment studies. We're looking at all the digital threads--
the digital threads that we're developing now which should add
to that maturity and allow us to come back to Congress with
full transparency and what that plan is going to look like in
the future, sir.
Mr. Carter. Well, you know, we--we could get in the future
in a situation where no new starts can be now funded.
Therefore, we need to get----
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Behind getting every one of these
four shipyards as a beginning point. So, where it's not stuck
if we're stuck with a CR somewhere down the line, well, there's
no new starts.
So, I encourage you, and I encourage the Secretary to look
hard about what we can do to assist you, and quite honestly, we
are way behind in shipbuilding as compared with our potential
enemy in the Pacific. And they're just rolling them out faster
than you can imagine. And they may be junk, but they're rolling
them out.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. And we've got to--we've got to be able to be
ready when the time comes. Have you--if anything is going to
keep me up at night, that's going to be it.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. So, put your--get your thinking cap on and
think of ways we can begin to look at every shipyard to get at
least some kind of start on the thought process so when we run
up against the CR, which we all hate, then we can still have an
issue to do some things, okay?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired. He
yields back. Mr. Case, you're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair, Secretary Berger. We've
all been through a long, and difficult and intense six months-
plus on the Navy bulk fuel storage facility at Red Hill.
Thank you for your own efforts. We obtained through this
Congress and through the President funding for fiscal year 2022
$1.1 billion-plus, which is rapidly being used. The President
came back for fiscal year 2023 in his budget coming out of DoD
with a $1 billion request for fiscal year 2023, but to my
knowledge, we don't have the details of exactly what will be
requested, and towards what so that we can make informed
decisions. At least I haven't seen it yet, but do you know
whether there is a--what is the status of the further
evaluation of the request on the Red Hill funding at $1
billion, which by the way, I completely support.
I think we're going to be north of $1 billion even in
fiscal year 2023 as we sort through this really, really
difficult process of, you know, stabilization, remediating,
defueling, and closing Red Hill, which is all happening in a
very short period of time, and locating alternative bulk fuel
storage facility, or other capabilities for our country? So, a
straight appropriator's question. Where is--where is the
detail?
Ms. Berger. Congressman, just a quick thank you for the
time we got to spend together in Hawaii. I really appreciated
your perspective, especially as we're at the front end of what
will be an enduring and purposeful focus on making sure that we
remediate and follow everything through to its end in keeping
with Secretary of Defense's direction, but also the
environmental commitments that we have there that are
critically important.
As to the funding, this is a place--and thank you for the
funding that we got this year as well to be able to get after
some of these really critically important focuses. Going
forward, we'll have environmental remediation to do. We will
have support of closure per the Secretary's direction.
We'll have community aspects to focus on, to include health
and environmental wellness and other aspects. And so, I will
take back and work with OSD who is the overall overseer of this
funding. And so working purposefully with them, but also we'll
make sure to get you the details that you're looking for.
Mr. Case. And do you have the expectation that it will be a
$1 billion--it will continue to be a $1 billion request in this
fiscal year 2023 for the totality of Red Hill out of DoD?
Ms. Berger. Out of DoD, I don't want to speak for DoD,
since it is ultimately a Department of Defense request, but it
is something I can take back to make sure you get a good
answer, sir.
Mr. Case. Okay, and also just obviously this subcommittee
has a significant piece of that, but I'll--so obviously do
other subcommittees, especially at the--thank you.
Ms. Berger. Yes.
Mr. Case. Admiral Williamson, back to SIOP, and I
appreciate all of your interaction and efforts on SIOP, on the
shipyards, endorse everything that Congressman Pingree talked
about. Looking forward to your answer to her question.
On Pearl Harbor in particular, we of course are a part of
SIOP. Drydock three, is a major improvement necessary for the
next class of subs? We're on a tight time table. We've worked,
I think, well with you. You have it in your budget, you have it
in your out years. I think we're, you know, not--I want to--I
don't want to say on track on these projects, but certainly
it's coming along. The waterfront production facility was a
critical part of SIOP for Pearl Harbor which was left out all
together of this budget, and future year defense planning.
Over on the Senate side last week, my colleague and co-
conspirator on this Congress, sorry, Senator Hirono directly
asked Assistant Secretary Stefany to commit to a review of the
waterfront production facility, which is--which is designed for
efficiencies and cost benefits over the long run, and you've
been to Pearl Harbor and you know that you can build a world
class drydock, but if you don't have the production facilities
that go with it, then you're going to lose the efficiencies of
that drydock, much less the utilization of it. And so, can I
ask for your commitment similarly to the Senate side to go back
and take a look at the waterfront production facility as to--as
to putting it back on your tracking in future years?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the
question and the support, obviously, for the Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard. As a way of an update, the plan in engineering as you
know is done this year. We're going into design next year with
construction to start in 2027. We're looking right now very
actively at balancing not only the waterfront support facility,
but also that with the construction of the drydock. It's very
critical that we don't get those two things in contrast with
each other, but you have my commitment, sir, to come back to
you with a more detailed answer.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
Valadao, you're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. Another issue that's
obviously going to have an impact on morale is inflation and
supply chain. Master Chief Smith, Sergeant Major Black, either
one can respond to this, but inflation and supply chain
concerns have driven up prices around the country, and our
service members are feeling the pain just as much as the rest
of us.
As some of my constituents have expressed concerns about
rate rising, food and supply costs at the commissaries, and our
blue star families surveyed noted that 14 percent of the
enlisted active duty families are concerned about food
security. From a quality of life and force readiness
standpoint, are there any other additional flexibilities or
resources you may need to ensure our military families' basic
needs are being met?
Sergeant Major Black. Sir, thank you for that question.
I'll go first, because it's an additional portion of what Mr.
Bishop had asked. Sir, the answer to that is all yes. Inflation
impacts all of us. It impacts us in this room.
It definitely impacts our junior service members, and our
youngest marines right now feel the hardest impact to
inflation. And inflation cost is found in our food cost,
whether it's in a commissary, which generally is below the
outside the base market, but definitely outside the base,
because while a lot of our marines live out there as well.
Challenges with BHH rates, another one impacted by--impacted by
inflation.
The challenges of flexible BHH rates that move as the
housing market does, obviously, those two things don't align.
Those are impacts to our families. The challenges in our supply
chain. I mentioned our disparate locations, which obviously
would be a concern of all of us in this room, being here in the
United States that there's more access.
When you're in a location such as--and again, I'll mention
Okinawa or Guam that's as far away as you--as you can be from
the proverbial flag pole, things get there last, and when they
get there, they're at a greater cost. So, inflation impacts--
that whole spectrum goes from childcare costs, it goes down to
all of those things we spoke--we spoke about here.
Those are costs to our families. That cost to our
families--we have a saying in the Marine Corps, and I think all
the services share it. You might recruit a marine, but you
retain a family. You know, if we can't get a handle on those
costs that are ``emburdened'' by our families, then that's
going to impact our retention. So, there's kind of a holistic
look at it, sir.
Master Chief Smith. Sir, thank you. The frankly--the danger
in going second is he said most of the things that matter, but
frankly, I can't----
Mr. Valadao. The same thing goes----
Master Chief Smith [continuing]. Overstate----
Mr. Valadao [continuing]. With our questioning here. I
mean, it's just--we got a lot of great questions, and obviously
it was (inaudible).
Master Chief Smith. I can't overstate how important the
commissaries are to our folks, because that does put affordable
food in front of them, and gives them the opportunity to
purchase it.
Mr. Valadao. Yeah, that's an issue that we've been
struggling with here, and it affects a lot of us on a lot of
different fronts, but obviously the costs is something that has
to have a huge impact on the--on all of our enlisted sailors,
marines, airmen, everyone. So, next one on the infrastructure,
Vice Admiral Williamson, is maintenance facilities' maintenance
backlog, and I know this has been touched upon already, but it
is something we really need to push on.
Our backlog is hovering around $21.9 billion. While the
fiscal year 2023 budget request includes $3.5 billion for
facility sustainment and restoration, I'm concerned that we are
critically behind in our maintenance. And while I welcome and
encourage new construction, we must prioritize facility
sustainment and modernization. Otherwise, our investments
rapidly lose their value and degrade overall readiness.
I did have a trip a few years back that we travelled to
Okinawa and Japan and saw some of our facilities, and still
surprised by the deterioration of some of the buildings, I
mean, to the point where the guys were actually having chips
and flakes of metal fall on them as they were working on
engines, because the roof was so deteriorated. What's the plan?
What's--how are we moving forward from this, especially since
the request was so low?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. And thank you very much for
the question. I absolutely concur, and part of the strategy
that I talked about in my opening comments is actually aimed at
exactly what you talk about. Our self-talk is we have so much
infrastructure we can't afford it. My first question is, okay,
what did you demo? So, how do we systematically look at the
infrastructure we have, and related to an operational outcome.
As we look at those mission capability chains, that should
give us some insight in what's needed and not needed, because
I'm not simply going to be able to get $21 billion sustaining
what I have. Additionally moving forward, our self-talk. We've
got to get innovative about this. Our self-talk is, I build a
building that has a life expectancy of 67.5 years. I have
carriers in our hangars and our inventory that are approaching
100 years of life, and yet I'm putting the brand new generation
aircraft in it.
We talked about an impact to the sailor. You know, I have
to leave and go through another hangar to use the head. I'm
working in, you know, an unlighted facility. It's time for
those to go. So, can I buy back ten of those for the same price
as a brick of mortar would cost me? Could I still meet the
fleet's requirements? Those things will also help us drive down
and better highlight which pieces of critical infrastructure we
need to sustain.
Additionally, I think, you know, we talked about SIOP.
We're about to spend a lot of taxpayers' money on SIOP. How
much is it going to cost us to own it and sustain it properly
for the next 100 years? Those are all things we're doing to get
after it. We have to drive down our footprint, and also be very
focused on our investments, and also be very innovative in our
approaches to being able to solve this problem, certainly.
Mr. Valadao. My time is up, so I appreciate it, and I yield
back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back, and Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Marine
Corps logistics base in Albany, Georgia, is a lateral component
of the Marine Corps logistical operations, and it houses the
command and has the headquarters. It's home to the Marine Corps
logistic command's maintenance center, and they recently
achieved the platinum level in the Secretary of the Navy's
Energy Excellence awards, which will be officially declared net
zero emission status I think next week. I'm very proud of their
efforts in combatting that, so I just kind of wanted to
highlight that and give them a salute. But General Banta, you
included Albany's consolidated communications facility at the
Marine base as one of your MILCON unfunded priorities.
I believe very strongly that the facility is worthy of an
investment of taxpayer dollars, as it will serve the, as the
installation service notes, to support innovation in the realm
of robotics and industrial technology. It is one of my top
priorities for the Marine Corps, and I'd like to get some
indication from you as to how we can get that moved up to your
higher priorities so that we can get that--get that done.
Another priority of mine is to support the Albany base's
agreement to co-locate an Army reserve center from the 81st
Regiment's division of government reserves. The Army Reserves
will manage the construction, but we'll be depending upon the
Marine Corps to provide the necessary oversight in project
support so that they can meet the project timelines and
milestones. It's an efficient and effective use of our MILCON
funds across services, and I'd like to have your comments on
those items if you could.
General Banta. Congressman, thank you very much for the
question, and also for acknowledging our--Logistics Base
Albany's accomplishment as the first net-zero installation for
the Marine Corps. It's certainly worth acknowledging, so thank
you for that. To your point about the relative positioning of
the projects on Albany in terms of moving it up.
Our unfunded priority list is prioritized based on those
projects that provide the greatest value back to the
commandant's priorities, particularly with force design and
with supporting the budget themes that he has. So, I could come
back to you perhaps with a more detailed discussion on that,
but right now, we feel that it's appropriately cited on our
unfunded priority list relative to the other projects. In terms
of the Army Reserve unit coming to Albany, I am aware of that
issue. I don't have that much information on it right now.
If it would be okay, I would like to be able to take that
for the record and come back, but I do agree that if there are
opportunities where we can co-locate DoD commands aboard
installations and it makes sense from both a fiscal
perspective, and is a better use of tax payer dollars, then we
should consider that. Sir, I hope that is sufficient for an
initial answer to your question. I'd be happy to come back to
you with more details.
Mr. Bishop. Well thank you very much. I would like to--I do
have some follow up with you in that regard. Maybe we have some
discussions about how we can be able to establish the
justifications for moving it up. So, perhaps the commandant can
perhaps look at--take a second look at it. And of course, it's
my understanding that there's already an agreement to locate
the Army reserve center on the base.
It's just a matter of meeting the timelines and having all
of the support in place, and the necessary logistics to meet
the project timelines. I just kind of wanted to bring it to
your attention, and lift it up to make sure that the Marine
Corps did all that it could do to make sure that the trains run
on time in getting that done.
General Banta. Congressman, thank you. I'll make sure that
we get back to you with information on both of those issues.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My time is about to
expire, so I will yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. The gentleman
yields back. I believe there are no other members who are
planning to ask a question in the second round, and so that
concludes today's hearing. I wanted to thank all of our
witnesses for participating and for their service. Obviously,
your testimony here today will help us as we begin to craft the
fiscal year 2023 appropriations bill. We appreciate your
service, and look forward to continuing this important work
with you.
The committee staff will be in contact with your budget
office regarding questions for the record, and then we'll have
several questions to submit as came up, and you have some
follow up for us as well, and I'd imagine other members of the
subcommittee will have additional questions to submit for the
record.
If you'd please work with OMB to return the information for
the record to the subcommittee within 30 days of receiving
them, we'll be able to publish this transcript of today's
hearing and make informed decisions for fiscal year 2023. I
want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing is the
MILCON VA member day which is tomorrow, May 19th, at 9:00 a.m.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Thursday, May 19, 2022.

MEMBERS' DAY HEARING

WITNESSES

HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agency Subcommittee
will come to order. Thank you all for participating in this
fiscal year 2023 Member Day Hearing.
Before we begin, as this hearing is hybrid, 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 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 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.
For members participating virtually, you will notice a
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At one minute remaining, that--the clock will turn 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 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.
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today's fiscal
year 2023 Member Day Hearing for the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
The hearing today will ensure that members have an
opportunity to provide input into this bill this subcommittee
will produce for fiscal year 2023. We are pleased that we have
three members here to discuss a variety of MilCon VA programs.
This hearing is vital for us as appropriators; it provides us
the opportunity to zero-in on the issues our colleagues are
dealing with, and help them address important issues through
our committee's work.
Every year we work incredibly hard to include as many
member priorities as possible in our bill, and hearing from
members today will help us focus on what is important to
members this year.
Last year, we were able to address many important issues
and robustly fund key programs such as mental health, gender-
specific care, and homelessness programs at the VA, child
development centers, and PFAS remediation at DOD. And for the
first time in many years, this committee brought back community
funding project requests that allow members to direct--to
direct spending to the highest priority MilCon projects in
their districts.
This year I am optimistic to continue building on the
progress we have made on the subcommittee over the past few
years. We will continue to prioritize the quality of life of
our service members and their families, and provide the
healthcare and benefits veterans have earned and deserved.
I am confident this hearing will help the subcommittee as
we begin to craft our fiscal year 2023 bill, and I look forward
to today's testimony and continuing this productive dialogue.
And now I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member
Judge Carter.
Judge Carter. Thank you. Welcome both of you. I think that
we have one more coming. This is a great job of the chairman
and we have--where we allow members to come in and talk about
the issues that affect their districts and give us some input
about their needs. We welcome you being here, and we will do
the very best, based upon the funds we have, to fund the
projects you are--you want to discuss.
We are underfunded, in my opinion, and we have been
underfunded for many years. And hopefully we will--won't stay
that way, but we will certainly do our best, and we work hard
to please the members who come in with requests.
So thank you for being here. I look forward to what you
have to say, and I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you Judge.
So without objection, all written statements will be
entered into the record. Please summarize your remarks in five
minutes or less. Our first witness is Congresswoman Veronica
Escobar. You are recognized for five minutes.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, May 19, 2022.

WITNESS

HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman
Schultz and Judge Carter, Mr. Ranking Member. I really
appreciate this opportunity to be here before you today.
I have the incredible privilege of representing Fort--El
Paso, Texas, a proud border city that is home to an incredible
veteran population and Fort Bliss. Today I want to discuss two
of my requests for the subcommittee that are critical to our
community:
The first request is regarding the construction of a new VA
health center in El Paso. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for allocating $150,000,000 for this project in
the fiscal year 2022 omnibus. That funding will be critical for
concurrent design and early site development, including
utilities and a central utility plant. I would respectfully ask
the subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2023
budget request for the final $550,000,000 that would be used
for the actual construction of the healthcare center.
The El Paso VA is critical, not only to veterans in El
Paso, but veterans in Southern New Mexico and must--much of
West Texas. For years the El Paso VA and the William Beaumont
Army Medical Center have engaged in agreements that have
benefitted both facilities because they were located right next
to each other. The completion of the new William Beaumont Army
Medical Center across town presents an opportunity for the VA
to take advantage of the move and construct a healthcare
facility next to the new William Beaumont that continues this
relationship which is critical to the health and well-being of
our veterans. This new healthcare center would allow the VA to
provide a state-of-the-art facility that delivers quality care
for our veterans who deserve nothing less.
My second request is related to Fort Bliss. Fort Bliss is
the second largest installation in the Army and serves as a
critical joint mobilization force generation installation.
Since I came to Congress, I have advocated for Fort Blisses'
infrastructure needs with senior Department of Defense
leadership. Among their most pressing needs are a new railhead
and a new permanent and transient party barracks. Unfortunately
the existing railhead is inadequate for the multiple missions
and assets Fort Bliss supports, and the barracks provide poor
living conditions for service members stationed there.
While these priorities are not included in the fiscal year
2023 budget, I am heartened by a letter I received from the
Assistant Secretary of the Army, stating that there are
investments slotted for Fort Bliss in the Army's fiscal year
2024-2028 Investment Plan.
Additionally, I am encouraged by this year's budget request
from the Department, which includes $15,000,000 for a new fire
station at Fort Bliss, specifically for the new William
Beaumont Army Medical Center. The medical center was built in a
more remote location of Fort Bliss that does not have a fire
station nearby and filling this request will dramatically
increase the safety of the medical center. I see this request
as the Department's first step toward modernizing Fort Bliss,
and I would respectfully ask the subcommittee to include
funding for this project in your final bill for fiscal year
2023.
I, again, thank the subcommittee. I thank the chairwoman
and the ranking member for their leadership, and I thank you
for this opportunity and consideration of my requests. I yield
back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Congresswoman Escobar. I
do want to--I do not have any questions, but I do want to say
that I do not know anyone who has been a more vocal and
passionate advocate for Fort Bliss, and the service members,
and their families who live there. Obviously, you know, across
all of our services, we have needs. In our subcommittee, I
think you will find, that we have probably the most unified--I
won't even see--say bipartisan--but the most unified
subcommittee where we work really closely together to try to
address, you know, as much of, if not more so, because we
generally even, no matter what party the White House is, we go
beyond generally what anyone in the White House has requested
because, as Judge Carter said, so often even the President's
budget request does not ask for enough.
So we are the subcommittee that kind of says--that kind of
understands that the other subcommittee focused on the military
maybe gets a little more attention, and so it puts a little bit
more weight on our shoulders.
So thank you for your advocacy because I know whether it is
publicly or privately, you are a constant advocate for your
people, and it is really admirable.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Judge Carter.
Judge Carter. And I confirm everything that the chairwoman
has said, and we do work extremely well together because we
have a mission that takes care of the lives of soldiers, and
that is important. And Fort Bliss is a third corps, of course I
am an advocate for third corps, so we will certainly--if the
opportunity arises, which we are always very hopeful, we will
do what we can. That is about, I guess, that is the best we can
say.
Ms. Escobar. I am grateful to both of you.
Judge Carter. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
Okay. We now recognize Congressman Hudson for a return
visit. This is becoming an annual get together and we
appreciate the opportunity to hear from you. So without
objection, your written statement will be entered into the
record, and you can summarize your remarks in five minutes. You
are recognized.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, May 19, 2022.

WITNESS

HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hudson. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman-Schultz
and Ranking Member Carter, and other members of the
subcommittee. I really appreciate this opportunity you give us
every year, and I always do look forward to it, and appreciate
very much your commitment to our men and women in uniform, and
their families, and our veterans.
I am here to talk, again, about the critical military
construction needs for Fort Bragg, North Carolina. As many of
you know, Fort Bragg is the home of the 82nd Airborne Division,
which makes up our Nation's Immediate Response Force, as well
as the 18th Airborne Corps, United States Army Special
Operations Command, the Joint Special Operations Command, and
the U.S. Army Forces Command.
If you think of any major military operation in the last
century, there is a good chance that a unit or command from
Fort Bragg was involved. In fact, just in the last three years,
the 82nd Airborne's Immediate Response Force has received four
no-notice deployments:
First on New Year's Day in 2020 when the American Embassy
was under attack in Baghdad.
Second, in August of last year during the draw-down in
Afghanistan and subsequent evacuation mission of the Hamid
Karzai International Airport.
The third and fourth were in February and March of this
year to support NATO allies in the wake of Russia's invasion of
Ukraine.
Simply put, these commands and their units are the tip of
the spear when it comes to defending our Nation and our allies.
In my previous appearances before the subcommittee, I have
discussed key investments needed across the installation and
highlighted the lack of attention that the conventional forces
have received.
This year I would like to advocate for two projects that
will benefit conventional forces, military families, and their
children:
The first is construction of a multi-purpose training
range, or MPTR, which is found in the President's fiscal year
2023 budget request. Currently Fort Bragg has a requirement for
four multi-purpose training ranges but has zero. As a result,
deploying units must travel to off-post or out-of-state
locations to complete required training for areas such as
mounted gunnery and mobile protective firepower. This means a
lack of training on certain weapon systems that are critical to
unit readiness. Especially now as we train Ukrainian soldiers
and NATO allies on key systems being used to defend against the
Russian invasion, we cannot have our soldiers unfamiliar with
the operations of these platforms.
The construction of a multi-purpose training range would
enable these units to maximize their training time instead of
wasting time in transit to off-post locations. This could
potentially save lives by preventing vehicle accidents such as
a rollover which could occur in transit. It will also save fuel
costs, as well as maintenance dollars, by decreasing the wear
and tear on their unit vehicles. I implore you to see what is
at stake here as Fort Bragg needs this investment to be able to
respond to the next global crisis.
The second project I would like to advocate for is the
construction of a new child development center, a project that
can be found in the Army's last FYDP. I think we can all agree
that the last thing members or our military should be concerned
about is being able to provide childcare while a spouse is
working, or service member is deployed.
Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, you alluded to this need in
your testimony during last week's Quality of Life Hearing, and
I appreciate your advocacy. I certainly appreciate the
attention you have given on this issue and hope the Department
of Defense will do the same. According to military families I
have spoken with, Fort Bragg's Child Development Centers have a
waiting list that can--that can span months or even up to a
year. This is because of the sheer volume of personnel at our
installation.
You know, Judge Carter and I like to talk about which--who
has the largest installation. I believe Fort Hood has more
land, but we have 53,700 troops and 4,000 civilians working at
Fort Bragg, as well as special requirements including the high
operation tempo really puts a lot of pressure on the
facilities. As you may know, Fort Bragg's Child Development
Facility and personnel are one of the few in the Army that are
capable and qualified to provide childcare for special needs
children. Because of this, many soldiers with children who have
special needs choose to be stationed at Fort Bragg, create an
even greater need for on-post childcare spaces.
I believe our military's recruitment, retention, and
overall readiness are harmed when a military's family cannot
find quality childcare for their children. The recent
conversations I have had with families at Fort Bragg has only
reinforced this. The existing deficit of childcare spaces
creates an unnecessary hardship on soldiers and civilians at
Fort Bragg. The last thing we want to do is force families to
use unauthorized childcare facilities, seek off-post
facilities, or end their service.
I understand we do not have unlimited resources to provide
for our men and women in uniform. Additionally, I do not envy
you for the tough decisions you have to make; however, I
implore you to consider funding these two projects as you begin
crafting the fiscal year 2023 Military Construction VA Bill.
Supporting our troops' readiness and their families is so
critical.
Again, I want to thank both of you, Chairwoman Wasserman
Schultz and Ranking Member Carter, for your commitment to our
men and women in uniform, and I sincerely appreciate you
allowing me to come back and testify again today. And I would
like to, again, invite you both to Fort Bragg. I know we had
trips planned and the pandemic kind of messed that up, but it
would really be an honor to host you this year if we can work
out a trip. I would love for you to come down and see it,
again, for yourself. Thank you and I yield back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Congressman
Hudson. And I know I definitely have committed to you that I
want to take you up on that offer. And yes, we did get waylaid
by two-plus years of COVID, so--although I am not jumping out
of a plane. But--when I get there--but I definitely want to
come. I will watch you do it.
Mr. Hudson. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be okay.
Mr. Hudson. That is fair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And you really have been a
passionate advocate for Fort Bragg, and I will say--I do not
have a question, but I will say that we are quite focused on
quality of life in this subcommittee, particularly for service
members' families. It was frustrating for us last year that
there were no child development centers that were requested. We
funded seven of them, so it really is a priority of this
subcommittee to make sure. I mean, if you have to worry about,
you know, who is taking care of your child, no matter what job
you have, then you are not fully focused on making sure you can
do your job. And if there is anyone in America that we need to
make sure are able to really focus on their jobs and not worry
about who is caring for their children, it is our service men
and women. So thank you for your advocacy.
Judge Carter.
Judge Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hudson, the
situation with childcare, we are on top of that. We are--this
committee is bound and determined to make sure we have good
childcare and looking for places we can get them funds to have
good childcare.
You know, something I think the American people do not
really understand is that the--today's soldier goes to war with
a phone in his pocket. And he gets his calls from--just like
all of us do--and all of us get away from home and our spouses
call us and say, ``Oh, I need this'' or ``Kid's got this
problem or that problem.'' The soldier of the--of yesterday did
not have the communication device. So this puts additional
concerns and worries on the men and women who are out in the
frontlines ready to fight, and may be in the fight; that is
unacceptable.
And so I support our chair who is an--a very strong
advocate for childcare and so am I. We will do the best we can
and hopefully we--you know, last year we--after, when the world
finally, finally got to be the real world, we got some
surprises, and maybe we will again this year. But I am not
that--not going to bet my--bet the farm on that. Let me put it
that way.
But in real life I agree with you and have when we have
talked in the past. You need the training centers very badly. I
worry about all of the posts that we have where we have--our
soldiers have to travel to faraway places to get the right
training. I think if we have the available area, and the
available money, we should build them on-post training to make
them a better soldier. I also believe that they should not have
to worry about their children.
So you have got good issues, and we will keep on top of
them, and we will do the very best we can, Richard, that is the
best I can say.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you for joining us.
Next, appearing virtually, is our colleague, Congresswoman
Mikie Sherrill of the great State of New Jersey. Without
objection, Congresswoman Sherrill, your written statement will
be entered into the record. Please summarize your remarks in
five minutes. You are recognized.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, May 19, 2022.

WITNESS

HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Ms. Sherrill. Well thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter. I really appreciate the
opportunity to speak to the subcommittee today about an issue
that we all know to be incredibly important: our Nation's
commitment to our veterans. So I come before you to speak about
certain programs which I believe, with robust funding and
strong bill and report language, will make a real tangible
difference in the lives of veterans and their families.
There is not a single member of this committee who does not
know that we need to take serious actions to address the
problems presented by toxic exposure. Burn pits have been
called our generation's Agent Orange. I know you all share my
determination to avoid repeating our past mistakes. And we have
all heard from our VSOs and our veterans' communities about the
long-term health implications of exposure to burn pits, and
about the hurdles that so many of our veterans have faced in
receiving benefits from the VA. Some members in this body have
personally been exposed, and many of us have friends or loved
ones who are suffering from chronic problems because of
exposure.
That is why I am urging you to include my submitted report
language regarding burn pit population surveillance which would
allow the VA Centers of Excellence to evaluate the emerging
technologies that use x-ray imaging equipment to create 4-D
models of lung functions, and could allow doctors to identify
respiratory illnesses and other lung ailments far earlier. This
evaluation would give us necessary data to see if these
technologies could be used by our VHA to severely cut down on
long-term illnesses caused by burn pit exposure.
I would also like to urge you to fund new construction at
the Lyons VA Medical Center, a project I submitted as a
community-funded project. These funds would allow the Lyons VA
to expand their community living center, adding 20 private
rooms for senior veterans who need longer-term care. You all
know the value of the VA's community living centers, which
provide nursing home levels of care for senior veterans in a
setting they can be comfortable in with activities, family
spaces, pets, and friends.
As our veteran population ages, the VA expects an increased
need for nursing home level of care. Funding this expansion for
the Lyons VA would allow them to grow to meet this need and
provide a greater opportunity for patient-centered care and
private room settings. This new facility would not only enhance
my region's veteran services, but it would also create steady,
long-term jobs in my community.
So I have worked closely with many of you on the committee
to ensure that our veterans receive every benefit to which they
are entitled, and that they receive the highest possible level
of care when they need it. As a veteran, I know firsthand that
caring for our veterans is not a partisan issue, but one that
we can all get behind.
Thank you for the work that all of you do to make sure our
VA is strong, and our veterans are supported. I sincerely
appreciate it, and I yield back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Congresswoman
Sherrill. And in particular, thank you for your service to our
country. I know you are a veteran yourself and served our
nation for many years. We appreciate your service to your
constituents as well.
The issue of toxic exposure is one that this committee has
taken on. We appreciate our authorizing committee, the VA Full
Committee, but the dollars come from this subcommittee, and we
are trying to make sure that we can cover the needs of all of
our veterans. And as we move forward with the PACT Act, which
certainly is an appropriate piece of legislation badly needed,
we are also going to have to make sure that we have the
resources to not undercut the other needs of our service
members and our veterans, and that is the challenge that we are
facing.
But we will definitely review your language request
carefully and make sure that we can do everything we can to
provide your request.
Judge Carter.
Judge Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair and Congresswoman
Sherrill. I am a strong advocate for having never giving any
veteran the idea that they are getting a second class of
healthcare. If we have got the--if the technology is out there,
we have then--we will bend over backwards to try to get the
funds if they are available for treatments that are world class
and in this new--well I would say epidemic that we are dealing
with on burn pits, and the lung function issues that we have, I
would love to try to get the money together for that treatment
you are talking about. I could probably use it myself. I have
got asthma.
But the real world is we are on a tight budget. Maybe the
Gods of Money out there someplace will smile upon us again this
year, and we will get some extra funds to deal with it, and
some other things.
But I really--I met you the other day. We are--really am
thankful for you and your service and how you stand up for the
right things, both in our military and their readiness, and for
our veterans and those who have served us in the past. I am
going to compliment you there on that and thank you for the
service you have given to our country. And I am going to enjoy
working on you--with you on several projects this year.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Thank you, Congresswoman Sherrill for your presentation and
we look forward to working with you as we move forward to
prepare the chair's marks for--mark for fiscal year 2023.
Well that concludes this morning's Member Day Hearing. I
would like to thank all the members for taking time out of
their busy schedules to testify. Your testimony is crucial to
better understand the issues in each of your specific districts
because no one knows our districts better than we do and we
really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
I always encourage members not only to come to Member Day,
but to talk with us in advance of submitting requests, and you
know, as they are--as we are preparing the committee's mark for
each fiscal year, because making sure that we understand each
member's priorities and our legislative process really affords
us the opportunity to talk with one another.
I am always amazed at how sometimes few members actually
follow up after the submission of their request and do not kind
of underscore and highlight. And I have definitely had this
conversation with Congresswoman Sherrill. So I am glad you are
here because, you know, in a world of a very large-mouthed
funnel, you know, we are in the--we have to make hard
decisions, as Judge Carter said, and it is--it is just really
important that we understand members' priorities, so it helps
us prioritize. So thank you all so much, and as we work to
craft out our fiscal year 2023 MilCon VA Bill, we will be sure
to reach out if we have any questions on all of their requests
to the subcommittee.
And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]