[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A CALL TO ARMS: A REVIEW OF BENEFITS FOR DEPLOYED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-103 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
------ ------
Ron Stroman, Staff Director
Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
William Miles, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 16, 2009............................... 1
Statement of:
Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Marilee
Fitzgerald, Director, Workforce Issues and International
Programs, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense;
Steven A. Browning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State; Jerome
D. Mikowicz, Deputy Associate Director, Pay and Leave
Administration, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; and Shelby Hallmark,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards, U.S.
Department of Labor........................................ 9
Browning, Steven A....................................... 43
Farrell, Brenda S........................................ 9
Fitzgerald, Marilee...................................... 29
Hallmark, Shelby......................................... 57
Mikowicz, Jerome D....................................... 51
Shay, Jonathan, M.D., Ph.D.; and Susan R. Johnson, president,
American Foreign Service Association....................... 77
Johnson, Susan R......................................... 82
Shay, Jonathan........................................... 77
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Browning, Steven A., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State,
prepared statement of...................................... 45
Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, prepared statement of............... 4
Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 12
Fitzgerald, Marilee, Director, Workforce Issues and
International Programs, Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S.
Department of Defense, prepared statement of............... 31
Hallmark, Shelby, Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment
Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, prepared statement of. 59
Johnson, Susan R., president, American Foreign Service
Association, prepared statement of......................... 84
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 2
Mikowicz, Jerome D., Deputy Associate Director, Pay and Leave
Administration, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of. 53
Shay, Jonathan, M.D., Ph.D., prepared statement of........... 79
A CALL TO ARMS: A REVIEW OF BENEFITS FOR DEPLOYED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gerald E.
Connolly presiding.
Present: Representatives Norton, Cummings, Connolly, and
Bilbray.
Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; Jill Crissman,
professional staff member; Daniel Zeidman, deputy clerk/
legislative assistant; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of
outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk
and Member liaison; Alex Cooper, minority professional staff
member; and Lt. Glenn Sanders, minority Defense fellow.
Mr. Connolly. The hearing will now come to order. And I
welcome Ranking Member Bilbray of California and members of the
subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all those here in
attendance.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine existing policies
and the range of employee benefits available to Federal
civilian employees serving in designated combat areas. The
Chair, ranking member and subcommittee members will each have 5
minutes to make opening statements, and all Members will have 3
days in which to submit statements and additional questions for
the record.
I would like to welcome everybody here to this afternoon's
subcommittee hearing intended to explore critical yet
frequently forgotten issues relating to the pay, protection,
and other personnel policies of Federal civilian employees
serving in high-risk environments abroad.
Although our chairman, Congressman Stephen Lynch, could not
chair this hearing, his interest in this policy area is the
motivation for this hearing. Chairman Lynch has requested that
his full statement for the hearing be submitted for the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.001
Mr. Connolly. As an advocate for the Federal community
myself--I represent 56,000 Federal workers and maybe as many
retirees--I'm especially pleased to serve as Chair of today's
hearing, ``A Call to Arms: A Review of Benefits for Deployed
Federal Employees.''
Today's hearing affords us the opportunity to examine a
host of benefit challenges and discrepancies currently
confronting deployed Federal employees. Federal workers who
serve our Nation in the combat areas of Iraq and Afghanistan
and other war zones deserve assurance that the Federal
Government has a uniformed strategy in place to handle both
pre- and post-deployment issues no matter the employing agency.
With tens of thousands of Federal employees having served
overseas in combat theater in this decade, it greatly disturbed
me to learn this from comments a former deployed Federal
employee, made who was gravely injured by enemy fire last year
in Iraq, that: The military saves your life, gets you home, and
then it's totally up to you.
In addition to ensuring seamless medical care upon return
and efficient and straightforward processing of Workers'
Compensation claims, I believe Federal agencies need to do more
in support of these individuals stateside, following their
deployment, in the areas of medical screening, mental health
support services, and then dealing with their home and other
agencies when filing for benefits and seeking treatment.
Unlike their military counterparts, deployed Federal
employees do not operate within an established framework, and
often have to navigate bureaucratic hurdles to get their health
care coverage, unaided. Given the expanding role of Federal
civilian employees in support of ongoing military operations
and statecraft endeavors, agencies are in a position of needing
to recruit Federal workers who are willing to serve in hostile
environments. As a result, addressing pay inconsistencies,
leave flexibilities, and holes in post-deployment medical care
and Workers' Compensation are key to guaranteeing such an
abundant and dedicated work force.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here
today as we take a hard look into what's being done and what
options may need to be considered to guarantee that deployed
Federal employees, brave men and women who serve their country,
and their family members are receiving the proper support and
treatment they deserve from a grateful Nation.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.003
Mr. Connolly. I now call upon the ranking member, Mr.
Bilbray, for any opening statement he may have.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask for unanimous consent to introduce
a written statement.
Mr. Connolly. Without objection.
Mr. Bilbray. And basically you said it very appropriately.
I think that we've just got to understand that the rule of law
has always been a cultural given, at least we assumed to have
been, since Mesopotamia started using a concept on clay
tablets. So I think that we need to have some kind of
understanding of what is the restraints, where are the limits,
and where are the opportunities. And people should know that up
front. We shouldn't be making the rules as we go on. And I
think the concept of written law and regulation is just not
only a cultural given in our society, it's common decency. And
so I will look forward to this hearing.
I think that the new Obama administration's commitment to
creating a civilian surge in Afghanistan really is an example
of where we need to get our act together on this, we need to
set out these lines. The new administration obviously expects
this to be a critical part of our national presence around the
world, so we need to make sure that presence is under the rule
of law.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman from California.
I now call upon the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the chairman for calling this
hearing today. And certainly I thank our witnesses who have
come today to examine policy disparities that exist across
Federal agencies that deploy civilian employees to serve our
country in deployed environments.
Since 2001, more than 41,000 civilians have served or are
currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the realities
of fighting concurrent wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan is
that our military cannot conduct its missions alone. The
military has to use every available soldier on the front lines.
Additionally, the nature of how we fight our current enemy has
caused us to rely more heavily on civilians not only to provide
assistance in service-support roles, but also to be actively
engaged in the day-to-day stability and reconstruction efforts
alongside our troops.
Rightfully, we go out of our way to ensure that our
deployed military troops receive the proper medical and
compensation benefits while they fight for our Nation. Well,
our deployed civilian population should be no different, as
they face dangerous situations also.
Studies have found disparities with approving Workers'
Compensation and post-deployment medical screening affecting
benefits. Regardless of whether a deployed civilian originates
from the Department of Defense, State Department, or the U.S.
Agency for International Development, these volunteers are
placed in harm's way and deserve equitable treatment when it
comes to medical care benefits and compensation.
DOD and State already have the infrastructure to provide
medical care while civilians are deployed in the theater of
operations; but unlike the military, when our civilians return
home, their medical wellness is forgotten. We mandate that the
military complete post-deployment health assessments to
identify symptoms related to posttraumatic stress disorder;
yet, DOD and State are the only agencies that require medical
screening of civilians upon return from deployments. Therefore,
we need to do a better job of communicating the policies that
govern medical care, benefits, and compensation for our
deployed civilians.
As we have learned from casualty reports, there are
numerous risks that a civilian accepts when he or she decides
to work in a combat zone. It is no secret that money and
benefits are lucrative enticements for agencies to attract
individuals willing to deploy. As such, individuals should
receive comparable compensation commensurate with their skill
levels and the amount of risk involved in their daily
functions.
Finally, understanding that Federal agencies operate under
different pay systems, compensation packages will differ to a
degree, but the Office of Personnel Management should provide
overarching compensation and benefit policy for deployed
civilians and the authorities given to the agencies for
implementation. Given the course of our military, I do not
foresee a change in the near future on our reliance of
civilians on the battlefields. As we continue a ``whole of
government'' approach to stabilizing and reconstructing other
regions around the world, we must be creative in utilizing
existing systems to meet our current challenges. I think that
it would be worthwhile to expand DOD and State procedures to
incorporate the civilian aspect.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that I thank you again for calling
this hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, I would ask the witnesses to stand. It is
committee policy that all witnesses before this committee are
sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Connolly. Let the record show that each witness
answered in the affirmative. I thank you.
If I may give a brief introduction to our panelists.
Brenda Farrell was appointed Service Director in GAO's
Defense Capabilities and Management Team in April 2007. She is
responsible for military and civilian personnel issues,
including those related to GAO's high-risk area personnel
security clearances. Ms. Farrell began her career at GAO in
1981 and has served in a number of issue areas associated with
national security issues.
Marilee Fitzgerald was appointed as the Director of
Workforce Issues and International Programs in the Office of
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy
in June 2005. Ms. Fitzgerald is responsible for the oversight
and approval of the Department of Defense human resource
policies and programs that affect over 700,000 employees
worldwide. She also serves as the Principal Deputy to the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel
Policy.
Steven Browning is Ambassador Steven Browning, a career
member of the Senior Foreign Service, holding the rank of
Career Minister. Ambassador Browning assumed his duties as
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of
Human Resources in August 2009. Most recently, Ambassador
Browning served as Ambassador to the Republic of Uganda. Prior
to that, he served as the Minister Counselor for Management in
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Robin Heard. Robin Heard is the current Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Administration at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Ms. Heard also served as Acting Budget Analyst at
OMB. She is not with us today, but I believe that there is
somebody here from the Department of Agriculture who can answer
some questions. Is that correct?
Voice. I am here.
Mr. Connolly. OK. Jerome Mikowicz is the Deputy Associate
Director for Pay and Leave Administration with the Strategic
Human Resources Policy Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management. He is a career member of Senior Executive Service
and manages the Center for Pay and Leave Administration
responsible for administering dozens of governmentwide
statutory authorities related to pay, leave, work, and--work
schedules for civilian Federal employees.
And finally, but not least, Shelby Hallmark. Shelby
Hallmark is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
Standards Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and
Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, and
is also the permanent OWCP Director.
Welcome, all of you.
Before we begin hearing from members of the panel, Ms.
Norton, the Delegate from Washington, DC, has joined us. And I
now call on the gentlelady for her opening remarks. Welcome.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
be here for as long as I could.
This subcommittee has done an excellent job of taking care
of Federal employees at home, but our own work indicates that
we've not been nearly--the Congress, at least, has not been
nearly as vigilant when we deploy--and that's the right word
for it--civilian workers abroad.
Whenever I visit abroad, in fact the first people we come
in contact with are Federal employees, just like the ones who
are our own constituents here, except there they are far away
from home. And more and more of them have been deployed to
combat zones and serve under what can only be called, Mr.
Chairman, hardship posts. Try going to parts of Africa and
Iraq, other parts of the Mideast which are under fire, and you
are categorized as civilian, something happens to you there,
and you don't have the same access that those who courageously
serve us in the Armed Forces have always had, and so
unintentionally there is a distinction among our Federal
employees. We are responsible for them not just in this
country, but most especially when they are abroad.
And, Mr. Chairman, I recall speaking with employees who had
been deployed for some time in various parts of the Mideast,
and were astounded to learn--one of the complaints indeed was
that there has to be turnover. There's too much turnover; that
our employees come for a while, and then they go. Well, the
reasons are very clear. This is hardship with capital letters.
They are away from home, from family. And then they have
uncertain benefits, particularly when they incur unexpected
events in their own lives.
We have to make it attractive to go abroad. We have to make
it less of a hardship to go abroad. This is not Paris, my
friends. These are not posts in the great cities that are
legendary in history where in your off hours you can go
sightseeing. I have seen Federal employees in places where
there was nothing in the evening. I hope they like books. And I
think because our employees tend to be fairly bookish and
intelligent and intellectual, they use the time, of course, to
good effect. We need to pay the kind of attention you, Mr.
Chairman, and this subcommittee is paying now.
And I will stay for as long as I can, but I wanted to be
here to thank you and the subcommittee, and particularly to
thank the witnesses who come to educate us about these out-of-
sight, out-of-mind employees of the United States of America
serving their country. Thank you again.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, and thank her for her commitment to all of the
employees of the Federal Government.
Witnesses have been sworn in. I want to just say to
everybody that your entire statement has been entered into the
record. Everybody has 5 minutes in which to summarize their
testimony. The green light will go on to indicate that your 5
minutes has begun; the yellow light means you have 1 minute
remaining to complete your statement; and the red light
indicates that the hook is coming.
So if we can begin with you, Ms. Farrell.
STATEMENTS OF BRENDA S. FARRELL, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES
AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; MARILEE
FITZGERALD, DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; STEVEN
A. BROWNING, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEROME D. MIKOWICZ,
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PAY AND LEAVE ADMINISTRATION,
STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY DIVISION, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND SHELBY HALLMARK, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
STATEMENT OF BRENDA S. FARRELL
Ms. Farrell. I can project, but I think this will be
better.
Mr. Connolly, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to discuss our recent report on actions needed
to better track and provide timely and accurate compensation
and medical benefits to deployed Federal civilians.
As DOD has expanded its involvement in overseas military
operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its Federal
civilian work force to provide support in times of war or
national emergency. Other Federal agencies also play an
important role in the stabilization and reconstruction of at-
risk countries and regions consistent with the collaborative
``whole of government'' approach. Therefore, the need for
attention to policies and benefits that affect the health and
welfare of these individuals becomes increasingly significant.
My main message today is that, given the importance of the
missions these civilians support and the potential dangers in
the environments in which they work, Federal agencies need to
take additional actions to ensure that the compensation
packages associated with such service are appropriate and
comparable, and that these civilians receive all the
compensation and benefits to which they are entitled.
My written statement is divided into three parts. The first
addresses compensation policies for deployed civilians.
Although policies concerning compensation are generally
comparable across the six selected agencies that we reviewed,
we found some issues that affect the amount of compensation
that they receive depending upon such things as the pay system
and the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the
compensation.
For example, two comparable civilian supervisors who deploy
under different pay systems may receive different rates of
overtime pay, because this rate is set by the employee's pay
system and grade or band.
In April 2008, a congressional committee asked OPM to
develop a comprehensive benefits package for all deployed
civilians and recommend enabling legislation, if appropriate.
At the time of our review, OPM had not done so.
Also, implementation of some policies may not always be
accurate or timely. For example, we estimate that about 40
percent of the deployed civilians we surveyed reported
experiencing problems with compensation, including not
receiving danger pay, or receiving it late, in part because
they were unaware of their eligibility or did not know where to
seek assistance.
The second part of my written statement addresses the
medical benefits. We found some issues with policies related to
medical care following deployment and with Workers'
Compensation and post-deployment medical screenings that affect
the benefits of deployed civilians.
For example, while DOD allows its treatment facilities to
care for non-DOD civilians following deployment, in some cases
the circumstances are not always clearly defined, and some
agencies were unaware of DOD's policy. Because DOD's policy is
unclear, confusion exists within DOD and other agencies
regarding civilians' eligibility for care at military treatment
facilities. Thus, some civilians cannot benefit from the
efforts DOD has undertaken in areas such as posttraumatic
stress disorder.
Also, civilians who deploy may be eligible for benefits
through Workers' Compensation. Our analysis of 188 such claims
revealed some significant delays resulting in part from a lack
of clarity about the documentation required. Without clear
information on what documents to submit, applicants may
continue to experience delays.
Further, while DOD requires medical screenings of civilians
before and after deployment, State requires screenings only
before deployment. Prior GAO work has found documenting the
medical condition of deployed personnel before and after
deployment was critical to identifying medical conditions that
may have resulted from deployments.
The third part of my written statement addresses the
identification and tracking of deployed civilians. Each of the
selected six agencies included in our review provided us with a
list of deployed civilians, but none had fully implemented
policies to identify and track these civilians. DOD, for
example, had procedures to identify and track civilians, but
concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented.
While other agencies had some ability to identify and track
civilians, some had to manually search their systems. Thus,
agencies may lack critical information on the location and
movement of personnel, which may hamper their ability to
intervene promptly to address emerging medical issues.
Mr. Connolly, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased
to take questions when the committee so desires.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.020
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF MARILEE FITZGERALD
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cummings,
and Ms. Norton. I am here today representing the Secretary of
Defense and all of our civilian employees who deploy to austere
environments like Iraq and Afghanistan. On their behalf, let me
thank you for your strong support of our programs and benefits
that help compensate and provide incentives for our deployed
work force.
The Department of Defense civilian employees play an
integral role in supporting our military members around the
globe in all types of operations. Since 2001, more than 41,000
civilians have served or are currently serving in direct
support of our U.S. military operations, including 26,000 to
Iraq and 7,900 to Afghanistan. We are proud of our brave men
and women who have served. Their sacrifice, service, and
experience are valued, respected, and recognized as career-
enhancing.
Regrettably, our work force is not immune from the inherent
risks of these missions. Some of our employees and their
families have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. For
these brave injured and fallen civilians, for all their
colleagues who have answered the call to serve, and for all
those who will answer the call in the future, the Department is
committed to ensuring these employees have the highest level of
support and care as may be needed to serve our noble mission.
The Department has learned that the dynamic and asymmetric
21st century mission challenges require greater and more
expeditionary capability within our work force. In response to
these expeditionary missions, the Department developed a new
framework through which an appropriately sized subset of the
Department of Defense civilian work force is preidentified to
be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that
facilitates the use of their capabilities for these operational
requirements. These employees are collectively known as the
Civilian Expeditionary Workforce [CEW].
We have learned that our employees volunteer for these
types of assignments primarily because of a desire to serve our
country, to witness their results on the ground, to make a
difference, and to engage in this type of work. They believe it
is an honor and a privilege to serve our country and to support
our warfighters, and, in return, they bring back broadened
perspectives, critical experiences, and a deeper understanding
of their role in support of our expanding missions. The men and
women who answer this call are making a critical difference.
Building a strong civilian expeditionary work force,
however, also requires promoting the right incentives and
benefits to help compensate for the inherent risks of these
missions. Thanks to the strong support from Congress, we have
been able to offer many additional financial incentives. They
certainly include the 35 percent danger pay allowance and 35
percent post differential, and allowances and benefits and
gratuities comparable to those provided by the Foreign Service.
That benefit was offered to all Federal civilian employees.
They include such benefits as enhanced death gratuity,
travel, home leave, and emergency visitation travel, and rest
and recuperation trips. Our DOD civilians singled out the
authorized R&R trips and the Foreign Service benefits as
particularly critical to maintaining a level of effectiveness
during these extended months of employment.
We've have enhanced FEGLI options from the Congress,
approved premium pay cap waivers, elimination of the aggregate
pay caps. This incentive permits our deployed civilians to
maximize their earning power in the year in which they are
serving. In these economic times, this incentive has been most
valued and appreciated.
The Secretary of Defense Global War on Terrorism medal and
the Defense of Freedom medal for those who are injured or
killed in theater. This one is similar to those of the
military's Purple Heart.
In terms of medical screening and medical care for deployed
civilians, the Department does take seriously the need to
protect the health of our deployed civilians and to medically
assess all those who serve our expeditionary requirements. And,
as was stated earlier, prior to deploying all DOD civilians are
required to obtain a physical examination. In addition, they
are required to have a pre-deployment health assessment within
60 days prior to their departure. These two pieces of
information combined provide a baseline for wellness. Upon
their return from deployment, the DOD civilians are required to
have a post-health assessment within 30 to 60 days following
their return from deployment and a health assessment and
reassessment within 90 and 100 days from their return.
We have also established the Armed Forces Health
Surveillance Center, which now collects these data and is able
to track and monitor the completion of both the pre- and post-
health assessments.
The Department of Defense-established medical treatment
policies assure civilians who become ill, contract diseases, or
who are injured or wounded while deployed in support of U.S.
military forces engaged in hostilities receive medical
evacuation and health care treatment and services at our
military facilities at no cost and at the same level and
service.
The Department looks forward to the opening of the National
Intrepid Center of Excellence on the campus of the National
Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, which will be the premier
health care resource in the Department of Defense for
psychological disorders as well as PTSD and traumatic brain
injury.
And, finally, we must address the critical role families
play in support of our DOD civilians who deploy. The Department
continues to strengthen its capacity to serve families of DOD
civilians better. We require family care plans to ensure that
there are powers of attorney in effect, designated
beneficiaries, to ensure that our families are aware of and
understand the benefits and entitlements provided to them
through their spouses' employment.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fitzgerald follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.032
Mr. Connolly. And then we will get on to a round of
questions and answers.
Ambassador Browning.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. BROWNING
Mr. Browning. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bilbray, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Cummings, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify
before you today. I appreciate your interest in the State
Department's efforts, as well as those of our sister agencies,
to support our employees serving in difficult and dangerous
places, including Afghanistan and Iraq. I look forward to
sharing with you some of the concrete steps we have taken to
address the critical needs of our employees and their families.
Under the leadership of Secretary Clinton, our men and
women are working to renew America's leadership through a
diplomacy that enhances our security, advances our interests,
and demonstrates our values. They are doing inspiring work
under difficult conditions.
Currently there are over 900 positions where no family
members or only certain categories of family members may reside
because of dangerous conditions or other severe hardships. In
2001, there were approximately 200 such positions. This steady
increase in assignments to difficult and dangerous regions
reflects the Department's concerted effort to send the Foreign
Service wherever it is most needed. Our men and women are
answering the Nation's call to service and putting their lives
at risk for the American people.
The call to serve has been a hallmark of the Foreign
Service. We have fully staffed our missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan with volunteers, volunteers who have stepped
forward to serve in these highly dangerous yet critical
missions.
In recognition of their service, we offer a broad package
of benefits, incentives, and support structures. This package
has improved greatly since when I served in Iraq in 2004 and
2005.
Mr. Chairman, let me share with you some of the benefits we
now offer to our employees serving in Afghanistan and Iraq that
other agencies may also be able to extend to their employees:
hardship and danger pay allowances, overtime or an equivalent
payment, rest and recuperation or R&R trips, pay cap increases,
and onward assignment preferences.
Mr. Chairman, we also know that the medical and mental
well-being of our employees is critical, as is support for
their families during and after their assignments. To address
those needs we have expanded the medical services available
pre-departure, at post, and after completion of the assignment,
and we expanded the scope of our Family Liaison Office to
provide support to employees and family members during an
unaccompanied tour. All employees assigned to Afghanistan and
Iraq attend pre-departure training that familiarizes them with
security issues unique to combat zone assignments. It alerts
them to the causes and the signs of stress-related conditions,
and it provides them with techniques for managing the stress of
being in a war zone.
Following any high-stress assignment, we conduct a
mandatory high-stress outbrief that helps employees recognize
posttraumatic stress disorder. Our Office of Medical Services
established a Deployment Stress Management Program with a
board-certified psychiatrist to serve as director, two social
workers, and an administrative assistant. Additional mental
health personnel have been assigned to the health units in
Baghdad and Kabul.
Employees who are identified as possibly suffering from
stress-related disorders and who require treatment that is not
available locally are assigned to a 6- to 7-week program of
treatment conducted by our medical office. To support essential
continued monitoring, we have developed an assessment system
for Department of State employees who have served in combat
zones to screen for PTSD through our Deployment Stress
Management Program, and our Family Liaison Office has expanded
in size to work with our families while the employee is serving
in an unaccompanied tour.
We are currently working with our colleagues at the Office
of Personnel Management and the Department of Defense to
examine the compensation benefits available to deployed
civilians to ensure that it meets our needs for recruiting and
retention. If changes are needed, the administration will put
forth a comprehensive proposal to address the issues identified
with the goal of regularizing authorities across the agencies.
This interagency approach has made considerable progress, and
we look forward to working with Congress to support all Federal
civilian employees serving in zones of armed conflict.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that our employees
and their families deserve comprehensive support before,
during, and after their overseas assignments. The need is
particularly great for those serving at our most difficult and
dangerous posts. The Department of State has worked hard to
provide benefits and programs that support our employees, but
we recognize that our work may never be truly done as we adapt
to a changing world. Thank you for providing me with this
opportunity to appear before you and the members of the
subcommittee, and I look forward to receiving your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Browning follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.038
Mr. Connolly. Just an advisory. I am hopeful that we can
hear the last two pieces of testimony before we break for
votes. Votes are going to be called very shortly, they are at
the last votes of the day, so we will take an appropriate break
when we are notified of that and come back. Forgive the
imposition, but it is the way of the world here in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Mikowicz.
STATEMENT OF JEROME D. MIKOWICZ
Mr. Mikowicz. Representative Connolly, Delegate Norton,
Representative Bilbray, on behalf of our Director John Berry, I
want to thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel
Management at this hearing today and for your commitment to
Federal pay and benefits. We are deeply grateful for the
service of Federal civilian employees deployed to areas of
armed conflict. They put their lives in danger, and they work
under extraordinary challenges to get the job done. OPM is
committed to ensuring the government has fair and accurate
compensation necessary to attract and retain an effective
civilian work force.
Federal civilian employees who are deployed to work in Iraq
and Afghanistan and other overseas locations are entitled to
compensation that is controlled by three factors, and these
three factors influence the application of pay and benefits.
First, deployed civilians continue to serve under normal
pay system, and most pay and benefits are across the board, but
some are entitlements, and some are discretionary
flexibilities, but the flexibilities are determined on a case-
by-case basis. Entitlements include things like annual pay
adjustments, step increases, overtime, and leave. Flexibilities
are applied on a case-by-case basis. For example, the use of
recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives are
discretionary and may vary based on staffing needs.
The rules provide for some exceptions overseas. For
example, since deployment to a war zone is considered a life
event, employees have an opportunity to elect different health
insurance coverage or enhanced insurance coverage.
The second factor is that multiple pay systems exist at
home and overseas, and employees working side by side in close
quarters in combat zones become very aware of these
differences. These differences are often based on different
mission and work force requirements and are the result of
separate laws that have been authorized over many years.
However, current law does allow agencies not otherwise covered
by the Foreign Service Act to provide certain Foreign Service
benefits to their employees serving in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and this has been very helpful.
The third factor is that the standardized regulations
administered by the Secretary of State do provide a common
framework for payment of allowances and differentials to all
civilian employees overseas. Such payments include danger pay
and post hardship differential, which, combined, are worth 70
percent of basic pay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
OPM itself administers two special temporary provisions
affecting most civilian employees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
we are grateful that Congress has provided them. First, OPM
administers a waiver that allows a higher premium pay cap
ceiling on the amount of basic pay plus overtime and other
premium pay. The higher cap permits the payment of premium pay
that otherwise would not have been payable.
Second, OPM also administers a waiver of the aggregate pay
limitation, which means that in addition to base pay, employees
can receive all of their Title 5 payments the year they earn it
instead of having it rolled over to following calendar year.
Normally the limit is the rate for Level I of the Executive
Schedule, which is 196,700 currently.
Now I would like to comment on some OPM initiatives. In
June 2008, we issued a memorandum to Agency Chief Human Capital
Officers, describing the existing pay and benefits available to
civilian employees working in combat zones. OPM strongly urged
Federal agencies to become informed of and to take full
advantage of those authorities.
In September 2008, OPM wrote to the Committees on Armed
Services in the House and Senate concerning the National
Defense Authorization Act. OPM supported providing appropriate
benefits to employees in combat zones and the extension of
existing temporary authorities. We continue to work
collaboratively with DOD and State and other agencies to
determine how we can provide better and more consistent pay and
benefits, and this is a work in progress.
So, in conclusion, for the changes that we find are needed,
the administration will put forth a comprehensive proposal to
address the issues identified. We believe that the outcome of
this process will also help assure greater consistency in the
compensation of employed civilians. We want to do all we can to
ensure that the civilian employees who put their lives on the
line for the American people are appropriately rewarded and
supported by the Federal Government as their employer.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important
issue. I will be happy to respond to your questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikowicz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.042
Mr. Connolly. And finally, Mr. Hallmark.
STATEMENT OF SHELBY HALLMARK
Mr. Hallmark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bilbray.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Hallmark, you're going to have to speak
into the mic. We can't hear you. Thank you. And if you can
speak directly into that mic. I don't mean to suggest my
hearing is going, but it would be helpful.
Mr. Bilbray. So people hundreds of years from now can hear
your sweet words.
Mr. Connolly. None of us are getting any younger here.
Mr. Hallmark. It's my pleasure to appear here today to
discuss the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs' role in
providing benefits to the brave Federal civilian employees who
serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dangerous areas around
the world. We deliver services to these employees under the
Federal Employees Compensation Act [FECA].
Starting at the top with Secretary Solis, all of us at the
Department of Labor are fully committed to ensuring that our
deployed Federal colleagues and their families receive the care
and compensation they deserve. We know they have undertaken
assignments that involve significant hardship, substantial
risk, and that their work is critical to the success of
American efforts in the Middle East.
OWCP has reached out to the Departments of Defense, State,
and other agencies to see that Workers' Comp claims from these
deployed civilians are handled promptly and appropriately, and
to coordinate on related issues such as pre- and post-
deployment counseling. We will continue to work with our sister
agencies to make further improvements in the administration of
the FECA in this respect, and to assist where we can in the
overall delivery of services and benefits to these deserving
Americans.
To ensure that claims from deployed employees are handled
expertly, we have assigned that work to a special unit located
in our Cleveland FECA district office. This unit has received
special training and experience in dealing with various types
of extraordinary claims, including those resulting from
overseas injuries. They've developed ongoing relationships with
their counterparts at the major overseas agencies, and they
work closely with them.
For example, as a result of a recent specific agreement put
in place following an interagency meeting last year, our
Cleveland staff now notify the employing agency whenever they
find themselves at the point of needing to deny a claim because
they haven't received the information they need to pay it. That
allows the agency the chance to investigate, determine whether
there is more information that they can help to provide, or if
perhaps the injury is simply resolved.
Cleveland has also relaxed their normal FECA timeliness
standards for receipt of such documentation so that there is
adequate opportunity to obtain that medical or other
information that may be difficult to track down from an
overseas location.
As noted in my written testimony, FECA coverage for
deployed individuals, although universal, extends to an
extremely wide range of circumstances beyond the normal
workplace nexus. This includes while eating, sleeping, and
during travel and a whole range of other circumstances.
In practice, the great majority of claims received from
Iraq and Afghanistan are quickly and accurately handled and are
approved. Of those that are not approved, the great majority
involved injuries for which OWCP simply never receives any
followup medical. On more severe cases, OWCP engages closely to
address ongoing disability or complicated medical conditions,
and assigns occupational nurses to assist such workers in
navigating the medical delivery system and in returning to work
when medically able to do so.
GAO recently conducted a review of our FECA claims process
for civilians injured in war zones. Their report included only
two recommendations: One, suggesting that we provide a better
explanation of the type of medical evidence required to support
a claim for compensation, and another to speed the issuance of
our regulations concerning the death gratuity which was enacted
in the Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2008. That new
FECA death gratuity provides $100,000 in benefits to specified
survivors of workers killed while supporting a contingent
operation such as Iraq or Afghanistan, and our interim final
rule was published with respect to that gratuity on August
19th, this past month, making that benefit fully operative for
deployed civilian workers.
With respect to the medical evidence issue, we agree with
GAO's recommendation that we review those instructions that
accompany our claim forms, and, in fact, we expect to issue a
separate instruction form for use by deployed Federal employees
within the next few weeks. This fact sheet will address
coverage issues as well as the type of medical documentation
needed in certain circumstances, and will be distributed
through the key employing agencies as well as via the OWCP Web
site.
I would like to end by commending the actions reported by
my colleagues today at Defense and State and at other agencies
with respect to the overall health and safety of their
employees. Complex issues such as PTSD need to be addressed in
comprehensive ways, and many key services must come not after
the fact from Workers' Compensation or medical assistance, but
in advance via enlightened preparation and assistance on the
part of the employer. In ensuring that workers get, for
example, pre- and post-deployment screening and counseling,
these agencies are serving their employees while they're
maximizing their ability to perform both in the stressful
environments and when they return, and they are reducing the
likelihood of serious injury and trauma.
Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer your questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Hallmark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallmark follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.051
Mr. Connolly. And that buzzing you're hearing is a call for
votes. I am going to start, and then we will--if Mr. Bilbray
wants to go, he can, or we will recess and reconvene after the
series of votes. And thank you all very much for your
testimony.
By the way, before we begin my 5 minutes, I know that if
Chairman Lynch were here, he would want to announce that a
wonderful bill has been introduced by myself and my colleague,
my friend from California, Mr. Bilbray, H.R. 3264, the Federal
Internship Improvement Act, and that this subcommittee would
want to hold hearings on that act. And I know were he here, he
would join Mr. Bilbray and me in committing to that and urging
our staff to prepare for those hearings.
Mr. Bilbray. And this was an unpaid advertisement.
Mr. Connolly. That will teach him for putting me in the
chair.
OK. Let me ask first, Mr. Mikowicz, a little earlier an
interagency working group was put together for Federal
employees, civilian employees deployed overseas in combat
areas. OPM at that time declined to chair that interagency
working group. Why is that? And is that decision now up for
reconsideration?
And, Ms. Farrell, welcome your comments as well if you have
any.
Mr. Mikowicz.
Mr. Mikowicz. Thank you.
From the way I would characterize it is that we've had a
very collaborative approach all along. One thing that you
always have to consider is what's going to be your vehicle for
introducing legislation. DOD Authorization Act certainly has
been the vehicle for the premium pay cap and the waiver and for
other provisions that are in there. The Foreign Service Act
sometimes is another vehicle.
DOD, obviously having the most employees that are directly
affected in any single agency across government, took the lead,
and we attended all the meetings. We were working along with
them. The GAO report did come out, did recommend that we form
an executive group or that we submit a legislative proposal.
We have continued to work with the agencies. All of our
meetings have not been at Department of Defense. Some have been
at State. And we are all working for the same end product. So I
think, from OPM's point of view, we will be looking at interest
governmentwide, just as DOD and State are, but we will have a
special role.
Mr. Connolly. But given that fact, Mr. Mikowicz, doesn't it
make sense for you to chair it?
Mr. Mikowicz. I am sorry?
Mr. Connolly. Given that fact that you're looking at it
agencywide--Federal agencywide, does it make sense OPM chair
that interagency working group?
Mr. Mikowicz. I would say OPM needs to have a leadership
role, and we will do that. We will vet proposals with the
agencies. Some of our proposals might be guidance, but if
there's a legislative proposal--obviously we work with OMB, and
all agencies get a chance.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Farrell.
Ms. Farrell. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Our report had 10 recommendations, and the first
recommendation was directed at OPM to lead such a comprehensive
review as requested last year by the Oversight and
Investigation Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee to determine if legislative changes were needed. And
we don't want to not give credit to OPM and especially with DOD
for the meetings that they have had to try to organize such a
review, but we do think it's time for OPM to step up and have
the leadership role.
As you may know, strategic human capital management has
been on GAO's high-risk list since 2001, and it has remained on
that list. Our most recent list was January 2009, where we
noted that leadership was needed in this area of human capital
reform to make sure that there was a level playing field. And
there is much concern about the number of pay systems that we
are talking about today that often result in differences, and
the amount of pay or what pay one receives, and this is a
responsibility of OPM where they could step up and show the
leadership role.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Fitzgerald.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Yes. I would like to add to this. I think
the spirit of that recommendation is now in full play, because
OPM, Department of State, and the Department of Defense are
coming together, and including OMB actually, jointly. It is
almost a triumvirate of leadership. So I think your concerns
about having OPM in the lead have been addressed through this
interagency working group. They're working as full partners,
full leaders in this, and issues such as the disparities in pay
systems are being addressed through the proposals that we'll be
sending through Congress.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Let me ask again, Mr. Mikowicz and Ms. Farrell--and we're
probably going to have to break after this. Increasingly, we
are using term-limited employees, Notice 3161 employees. One of
the concerns I would have and I think the subcommittee would
have is, with the best of intentions, what happens to those
folks should they suffer a medical condition in the service of
their country and/or should PTSD, posttraumatic stress
syndrome, occur or make itself manifest long after the 5-year
term is over? We know that if you were in the military, we'd
deal with that. But if you're a limited-term employee of 3161,
presumably we would not unless there's special provisions for
that. So I wonder if you would comment on that.
Mr. Mikowicz. Well, I can say that's one of the issues
we're looking at. GAO did start with pre- and post-deployment
assessments, but obviously there's traumatic injury and other
benefits, and those are on the table for discussions. We just
haven't reached an administration position yet, but we are
concerned.
Ms. Farrell. Again, this is one of our recommendations.
Much is to be learned from DOD in this area of how they have
tracked their military personnel and conducted the pre- and
post- and now the reassessments after deployment. It is a
lessons learned, I think, from DOD of what should be with the
civilians, because, as we noted in our statement, many of the
civilians do not have assessments after deployment, and, as you
mentioned, posttraumatic stress disorder often shows up 6
months after they return.
Mr. Connolly. We are going to have to vote, and we have
five votes. The first one is a 15-minute vote. That's the one
right now. And then there are four 5-minute votes, presuming
that's it, and hopefully that's it for the day in terms of
votes. So bear with us. It is going to be about maybe
sometime--quarter after, roughly, if you can hang in there with
us, because I think there's a lot more we'd like to get to and
talk about. Forgive the interruption, but as I said, it's the
nature of the beast here. I appreciate your indulgence.
Obviously, one of the things we are going to want to talk
about is the unevenness of how we are treating men and women
who serve overseas, and what services are allowed and what
services are made available by sufferance, and what, if any,
changes we ought to make to try to move toward a uniform policy
and make sure that quality services are available to our men
and women who serve overseas. I also want to get back to the
problem of time lags on claims and complaints.
Mr. Hallmark. Before you go, though, I just might note that
if--the 3161 employees you were just referring to are, I
believe, Federal employees, so they have FECA coverage
regardless of the limitation of their appointment. And that
coverage would continue in perpetuity for the latent diseases
such as PTSD.
Mr. Connolly. OK. We will come back. This hearing is in
recess until our votes are over and we recall the hearing.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Connolly. The hearing is reconvened. I hope you had a
chance in the brief interval to address the subject at hand.
Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Welcome back.
Forgive us for the length of voting on the floor of the House
of Representatives, but it is always a little unpredictable.
So, anyway, welcome back.
We were discussing 3161 term employees, and I wonder, Ms.
Farrell, if you might comment from GAO's perspective on the
deployment of term employees and the issue, I think Mr.
Hallmark had indicated, that they had health care benefits in
the event of PTSD showing up, for example, years later. I
thought the words you used were in perpetuity; is that correct?
Ms. Farrell. That is our understanding as well. What has
been conveyed is correct about those temporary employees.
Mr. Connolly. Combat-related or environment-related.
Obviously they don't have health care benefits in perpetuity.
Ms. Farrell. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Could you expand?
Ms. Farrell. Let's take DOD's memo regarding non-DOD
employees who have compelling reasons for care would be
eligible for that at military treatment facilities. So they
would fall into that temporary, whether they served for less
than 180 days or more than 180 days. Despite the
classification, they would be eligible for certain care.
Mr. Connolly. Eligible, but let me turn to Ms. Fitzgerald
then in response to your response. It was my understanding that
is still up to DOD whether somebody who is not a DOD employee
would actually have the benefits of a DOD facility and that is
being determined on a case-by-case basis at the moment; is that
correct?
Ms. Fitzgerald. That is correct. So in the case I think
where we are, for those who are under the 3161 authority who
are not DOD employees, and even those who are DOD employees,
fall under the worker's compensation program. And so for life
they have access to medical care, free of charge, if you will,
if it has been determined to be covered by this, at their own
private medical care facilities. If they are DOD, 3161s, there
is an added benefit that they do and they can since they were a
former DOD employees have access to our military treatment
facilities.
Mr. Connolly. So let me get this straight. If I am a
Department of Agriculture employee, I am sorry, if the
Department of Agriculture hires me as a 3161 term limited
employee, I am limited for a 5-year term; is that correct?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. OK. I am deployed to Afghanistan to help in
the poppy eradication program and the crop substitution
program, and I am unwittingly witness to, and involved in,
hostile fire, some kind of traumatic incident. I am not hurt. I
get on with my business. As a matter of fact, I resume my
duties in Afghanistan, and when my term is up I feel fine. I
come home. Ten years later, out of the clear blue, I am
shopping at the mall, and all of the sudden I hear a loud noise
and I am back in Afghanistan, and all of the sudden I am not
the person my wife thinks I am, and neither am I, and clearly I
need some help.
Am I eligible still for Federal medical care and where do I
go as a non-former DOD employee who was hired by DOA, not DOD?
Anybody?
Mr. Hallmark. Well, if I can interrupt----
Mr. Connolly. You are not interrupting; you are answering.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Do you want to take the answer?
Mr. Hallmark. Sure. The individual in the example you give
would have the opportunity to file a claim under FECA if they
learn of the connection between this condition that has evolved
10 years later and their employment and they file the claim
within I believe it is 3 years of the time they knew or should
have known of that connection. So there is plenty of space for
that person to be able to come forward and file a claim. It
would then be adjudicated by OWCP to determine whether, in
fact, there was a causal relationship between that medical
condition and the events that occurred in Afghanistan. And if
there was, then that, as Ms. Fitzgerald indicated, then
benefits for that condition would be paid 100 percent by the
Department of Labor.
The issue that would arise, and that probably is of concern
to the folks at the table, is making sure that people know that
they have that capability, because if they are a temporary
employee and they have gone off to work somewhere entirely
different--they are no longer within the Federal civilian
structure--there would be a need to make sure that people, as
they are exiting out of that position, have knowledge about
what they are eligible for in the future.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Hallmark, if I could stick with the
example I had and your response to it, under the example we are
both talking about, but I would be sent--you may or may not
approve the claim I submit, but it would be a claim to a
private provider.
Mr. Hallmark. It would be a claim to the Federal
Government, and the individual's medical treatment would be
through a physician of their choice.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah, but----
Mr. Hallmark. It would not be military.
Mr. Connolly. But my physician is not an expert in post-
traumatic stress syndrome. That expertise, by and large,
resides in the military side of medicine in this country, not
the civilian side of medicine. Most hospitals in America don't
have in-depth experience with combat-related PTSD. So why would
you limit me to my private physician or a series of private
physicians who have no expertise in my problem, which was
acquired because of my experience in a military combat
environment, a civilian employee nonetheless?
Mr. Hallmark. The Labor Department doesn't limit the
civilian's ability. We simply will pay for the physician that
you choose.
Mr. Connolly. I choose to get the best expertise in the
world, which happens to be in a military health care facility.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Then, sir, this policy----
Mr. Connolly. You need to speak up, Ms. Fitzgerald.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Then the policy that Ms. Farrell talks
about would apply. Then the individual would have to come to
DOD and request a special permission to use the military
treatment facility for their continued care.
Mr. Connolly. But there is no policy going forward that
would guarantee 10 or 15 years hence, and we still have Vietnam
veterans 30 years later suffering PTSD. So right now the policy
is on a case-by-case basis, and frankly, it is at your
sufferance; it is not my right. It is at your sufferance.
Ms. Fitzgerald. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. You are being generous under those rules in
saying yes to most cases who apply, but there is no guarantee
20 or 30 years hence you will continue that policy.
Ms. Fitzgerald. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Whereas, if I were in the military and had
the same symptoms at the same time--in fact, everything I
described applied to me wearing a uniform or having worn it,
then by entitlement I would have access to military care and
the expertise of post-traumatic stress syndrome intervention.
Ms. Fitzgerald. That is true. But the Department has
always, as long as we can trace this back, has always provided
for the exception for individuals to come into the military
treatment facility if they needed care.
Then there are a couple of things that are happening that
might be helpful, too. They are not perhaps adequate
substitutes, but we are setting up the centers for traumatic
brain injury, and one of those centers is a repository of where
physicians and employees can go to get the latest information
on care and so on. So that may be helpful as a resource center,
and certainly the Department has and continues to make
available its knowledge and transports knowledge across the
civilian community in these cases.
And then--for now, that is what the policy is, that they
would come to the Department of Defense and seek special
permission to come into a military treatment facility. I have
not been aware of any that we have denied.
Mr. Connolly. Professor Browning, we have talked about a
lot of subjects. Anything you wanted to comment on in terms of
the range of questions, albeit with an interruption?
Mr. Browning. I just admit that I have only been on the job
less than 2 months, so I am not an expert by any means in the
full scope of what we as a department do. I have, in
preparations for this testimony, have been educating myself on
it, and I am learning the difficulties that are out there in
tracking former employees.
When an employee at the State Department retires, we give
them a copy of their medical records if they ask for it. They
sign the papers, they go away, and we don't hear from them
again. We don't track them, we don't keep in touch with them,
and they have no benefits accrued to them that we would have to
offer them for their continued service.
It is an excellent point that the expertise in dealing with
PTSD is centered around veterans hospitals in Washington, DC,
and quite frankly, the number of cases we have seen are so
small--I think the total is six for the universe of our
population--that we right now haven't set up a program to
address it beyond our tracking the employees.
Ms. Fitzgerald. In terms of what the Department is doing to
track our 3161s who have left us, we know that this has been a
problem, those who leave us after short periods of service, how
do we stay connected with them, and we do feel the obligation
to do that, take that very seriously. When we stood up a new
civilian readiness unit, we have built in the capability there
to track those folks. So now all these post-deployment
physicals, we have a place to track those who take part in
these assessments. So we know who they are, and then we are
taking on an outreach effort so that we stay in touch with them
through their period of departure, even if we do it annually
through a note that says, hi, we are still worried about you,
we care about you, any services that you need, please feel free
to contact us, to be very deliberate about it. But we had to
install a separate organizational capability to do that.
It still remains a challenge once they leave here.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Fitzgerald, let me ask you a question
then, and I think in some ways it does come back, Mr. Mikowicz,
to, frankly, OPM's abrogation of leadership in not chairing the
Interagency group. But we have found that some Federal agencies
were unaware of the fact that their employees could avail
themselves of DOD services when they come back with service-
related medical problems, including injuries, which is a little
stunning given the fact that they served, too, and why wouldn't
they have available to them the same services as anybody else.
So what proactively is DOD doing or planning to do to make
sure that all Federal agencies are aware of the availability on
an equal basis?
Ms. Fitzgerald. We did three things. When the report first
came out about making the communication more widespread and
known and the benefit more known among our communities, we sent
out a communication to our Federal agencies, and we did a
briefing. We brought our Federal agencies in, and we provided a
briefing to them about the benefits that are available. That
was the first thing we did.
The second thing we did, we institutionalized that
communication effort and put it on our Web site so they could
have access to it.
And the third thing that we are doing is we have developed,
or I am developing, ready to launch by the end of the month--
the end of October, I am sorry, it is a short PowerPoint
presentation that takes someone through the process sort of in
a way that speaks to them in more easily understood terms than
perhaps the policy would. So that this PowerPoint presentation
could be used in any forum where our Federal agencies are
orientating, giving a pre-deployment orientation to their
folks.
We think the combination of those three efforts may be
helpful in showing that this knowledge is institutionalized in
all of our Federal agencies. We will be ready to roll out that
training module, as I said, sometime in October.
Mr. Connolly. I am sure that will be helpful because I am
sure you are aware of the fact that the two individuals to your
left actually represent agencies that were not aware of that
fact. State Department and Department of Agriculture were not
aware of the fact apparently, based on our information, that
DOD offered this service and it was available to their
employees when they came back. So I mean we have work to do.
Ms. Farrell, from GAO's point of view, I think--I ask you,
is this not a weakness in the system: lack of communication,
lack of uniformity, different policies, different benefits,
sort of a hodgepodge and even problems tracking how many of our
employees, or as Mr. Mikowicz indicated, former employees, have
in fact served and may or may not over some period of time
needed to be tracked because, even if they don't need it today,
they may in the future need medical help and services that is a
future claim on the Federal Government?
Your comment.
Ms. Farrell. I think you have hit upon several of the
issues that our report brings to light, especially that of
identification and tracking. You probably noticed, and our
report will note, according to DOD and State Department
officials, over 10,000 employees have been deployed since 2001,
and DOD has a more current number now, stating somewhere in the
neighborhood of 41,000. This has been a challenge that DOD has
been working on since 1995, and they have made some progress in
trying to get a handle on it, but we still need to know about
the other agencies, and you are exactly right. You need to
identify them, track their movements. Issues can develop years
after the deployment, and in order to have that communication,
you have to be able to identify them and know where they are.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And Mr. Mikowicz, I think--I hope
that is a message to be brought back to OPM leadership because
if OPM isn't going to take the lead in trying to create some
sense of equity and uniformity across the board for our
civilian work force serving in dangerous environments, who is?
It can't be DOD. They have their hands full with their own
challenges. I just think it has be somebody like OPM, and that
is why I would hope that with the new administration, new
leadership, the issue of chairing that interagency group would
be revisited and swiftly.
Mr. Mikowicz. We will certainly take this information back.
Mr. Connolly. And because we have time and we have one more
panel, I have one more question, and that has to do, Mr.
Hallmark, among the GAO findings was one that is pretty
stunning. Approximately 80 percent of deployed civilians who
filed a claim with the Office of Workmen's Compensation
reported experiencing problems. By the way, much higher
satisfaction among those filing claims with DOD, nowhere near
80 percent. What kinds of changes do you think are going to be
necessary to try to bring that number down to something more
satisfactory?
Mr. Hallmark. I am not aware of the 80 percent satisfaction
finding, but we are working, as I said in my comments, every
day to try to improve the performance. FECA process is a joint
interactive process that involves OWCP at Labor and the
employing agency, and that is true wherever the injury occurs.
I know it is something that we need to work together
increasingly well to make the outcomes appropriate.
As I said, one of the things that we have done is set up
processes whereby we communicate out of our Cleveland office
with the employing agencies where a claim has reached the point
where we don't believe we can accept it so that we give the
agency a chance to help us come to the right outcome. I think
that is working. That may result in some cases the case taking
a little longer than it would in the normal course, but we
think that is the right outcome in that circumstance to make
sure we get to the right answer.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Farrell, can you confirm for me, Mr.
Hallmark indicated he was not aware of that 80 percent. That is
a finding of the GAO study, is it not?
Ms. Farrell. Yes. You are referring to the 125 of the 188
claims that took significantly longer than the goal of 45 days,
in some cases 20 percent longer than that. So, again, it dates
back to the person filing the claim not having a clear
understanding of what documentation is required so that when
they do submit it, it is facilitated, and those particular
claims that we broke down also were related to TBIs, which
someone has a TBI it is very difficult I think for them to put
the package----
Mr. Connolly. Do you know what the comparable statistic
would be for DOD?
Ms. Farrell. No, I do not.
Mr. Connolly. But not 80 percent?
Ms. Farrell. Not 80 percent.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Fitzgerald.
Ms. Fitzgerald. I don't know what the satisfaction rate is
with the services at DOL. I can tell you that we have had by
our statistics, in 2008 there was about a 50 percent increase
in the swiftness in which the documentation was processed and
received at DOL, and part of that goes to what Mr. Hallmark
talked about. Some things have changed since the day the report
was done by the GAO to fix the problems that were found at that
time.
Obtaining the appropriate evidentiary documentation is very
difficult in a war zone and early on we learned that. These
folks would come back and the physicians who even attended to
them in the beginning were no longer even a part of the Federal
Government. And so it was hard to go back and try and
accumulate the documentation that was needed. So today there
are systems in place to try and help gather that documentation,
and with the intervention of the Federal agencies by allowing a
little time for us to intervene before they deny a claim,
allowing us to get in, help assemble that documentation, we
have been able to help improve the processing and I think the
outcomes for the individuals.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And let me just say to all of you
and to Mr. Hallmark in particular, you know, this is the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We are at war. We
are running two wars right now, and irrespective of how one may
feel about that, the men and women who serve, whether they are
in uniform or they are civilian Federal employees, are brave
men and women who have answered the call of their country.
In theory, you could have two people in a vehicle who are
hit by an RPG or they hit an IED, one is in uniform and one is
a civilian employee of Federal agency X. Both of them lose
their left arm. Both of them are treated in field combat
medical facilities with expert care. But one of them comes home
to a military medical system, and the other does not
necessarily. And over time, we have two different approaches to
two different individuals who served the same purpose and were
involved in the same accident with the same injuries.
And there are issues of equity that flow from that, and
fairness, and we want to make sure that at the very least there
isn't a delay and that if we need to facilitate their having
the evidentiary documentation they need, then let's help them,
but 80 percent doesn't cut the muster.
Final point, Ms. Fitzgerald, we get complaints from a lot
of civilians who do have access to military medical care in
these circumstances who, because of a bureaucratic snafu,
however, cannot get the necessary credentialing to, in fact,
have access to the base.
Now, when I was chairman of Fairfax County, I had my own
stickers on my car by virtue of that capacity for Fort Belvoir,
and I wasn't seeking medical care daily or weekly. We need to
facilitate these brave men and women's access to the base
without bureaucratic hassle. And security is one thing; these
people have been through hell and back. We need to help them.
So I am going to count on you to please take that back to
DOD. We don't want to be hearing about those kinds of problems.
They have enough to manage without that.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Absolutely. I think you will be happy to
hear that we are going to be modifying the credentialing card
that we give so that the back of it--they can have swipe access
to the bases and so on. So hopefully we fix that problem.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you all so much. Thank you for your
forbearance in the schedule of the House of Representatives,
and thanks for serving your country. We may be submitting some
additional questions for the record and would appreciate your
getting back to us. Thank you all very much.
Our second panel--and I am going to read this while you are
shuffling seats. We have two members on our second panel, Dr.
Jonathan Shay, who is a clinical psychiatrist who recently
retired from the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient
clinic in Boston, MA, my hometown, where he garnered eminent
expertise in the treatment of combat trauma suffered by Vietnam
veterans. In 2004 to 2005 he served as Chair of Ethics,
Leadership and Personnel Policy in the Office of the U.S. Army
Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel. Dr. Shay is also the
renowned author of ``Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the
Undoing of Character'' and has written more recently a book,
``Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of
Homecoming,'' and he promotes the adoption of policies to
minimize future psychological trauma.
Also serving on this panel is Ms. Susan Johnson. Ms.
Johnson is the current president of the American Foreign
Service Association and has served in Iraq as senior adviser to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Office of the High
Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina as Deputy High
Representative and Supervisor of BrckoDistrict, and she
recently served as senior coordinator in the front office of
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
Welcome both and if you would rise to be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Connolly. I thank you. Let the record show both
witnesses indicated in the affirmative.
We have your prepared testimony, and I would ask that you
summarize in the space of 5 minutes the basis of that
testimony. Dr. Shay.
STATEMENTS OF JONATHAN SHAY, M.D., PH.D.; AND SUSAN R. JOHNSON,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SHAY
Dr. Shay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that the ranking
member is no longer here, so--I am, as you so kindly pointed
out, someone who learned his chops from combat veterans as a
psychiatrist in the VA. Veterans have been wonderful teachers.
You were kind enough to mention my two books, and as much of an
obsessed author as I am, I don't have to mention them again.
The veterans have made me their missionary to the military
forces on prevention of psychological and moral injury in
military service, and it has been an amazing trip for me. In
the course of it--and you mentioned that I have worked for
General Jim Jones, now the President's National Security
Adviser; for the Army G-1, the Lieutenant General Hagenbeck;
and, most recently, an interesting gig at the Army War College.
I am not a universal expert. I believe that what I have
learned about soldiers and veterans probably has applicability
to other populations, other folks who are going into harm's
way.
My riff to the military people as to how to protect their
people is threefold: to provide for stable face-to-face
community when going into danger. Train them together, send
them into danger together, and bring them home together. It is
not rocket science.
The second is expert, ethical, and properly supported
leadership.
The third is prolonged cumulative training for actually
what they have to do in trade.
So my mantra is over and over: cohesion, leadership,
training; cohesion, leadership, training, as the keys to
preventing psychological and moral injury.
Now, this is an easy sell to military folks because they
are also combat strength multipliers. I do not know the world
of the diplomat or the agricultural specialist or the person
from the FBI assigned to some investigative duties in Iraq.
People would have to make these translations for themselves,
and in my written testimony I tried to use my imagination as to
how non-DOD agencies might hear my words to the military for
their own purposes.
I apologize for any way these recommendations might be off
base. It comes out of my ignorance. I am not a universal
expert, but I do feel quite confident that some of the things
that I say are of merit, and that is to always as far as
possible to be thinking in terms of teams, that you are not
deploying people to a war zone one by one by one by one, but as
work communities.
In the matter of leadership and policy or leadership
policy, if you wish, I want to emphasize something that is
probably counterintuitive, and that is that there needs to be
policy on sleep. Sleep crops up again and again as a cause of
psychological injury and something that keeps it going once it
is established.
Finally, on training, I would hope that our Federal
agencies are making use of hostile environment training. I know
that journalists sometimes get it. The BBC trains all their war
correspondents. They give them hostile environment training,
and that the teams, to the extent that they are deployed as
teams, must cross train so they know each other's jobs. That is
a very positive thing.
Now, this is really good for the agencies to do this, not
out of pure humanitarian impulse or a sense of responsibility,
but it is good for you because terrible things happen when your
employees acquire bad psychological injuries. And the worst of
these are operational paralysis, desertion. People check out
psychologically or physically, and unfortunately, there is
always the potential for recruitment to extremist causes,
people who carry these injuries.
And I am not running the riff that somehow it is the
political right that has a unique attraction. The sorry history
of Weimar, Germany indicates that both the political right and
the political left and the anarchists and the criminals are
equally capable of recruiting people who are vulnerable to it
because of their psychological injuries.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.054
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Dr. Shay, and we will come back
obviously to that thesis in questioning.
Ms. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN R. JOHNSON
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of AFSA and the
employees of the member agencies, I thank you for the
opportunity to speak before this committee on the subject of
benefits for Federal employees deployed abroad. AFSA warmly
welcomes the renewed bipartisan commitment to investing in our
civilian diplomatic and development services.
Key to that investment is ensuring that all of the men and
women who are patriotically serving our country overseas,
particularly in combat zones, whether military or civilian, are
being taken care ofand receiving well-earned benefits, making
the focus of this hearing both urgent and welcome. So thank you
again.
The GAO report on human capital highlights the major
compensation equity issue facing members of the Foreign
Service, the loss of locality pay when junior and mid-level
members of our services are deployed abroad. This overseas pay
gap represents a major inequity within our agencies. Junior and
mid-level Foreign Service members now take a pay cut to serve
at 183 of 267 overseas posts--that is 68 percent of them--which
often effectively zeroes out the hardship and danger pay
allowances for everyone except those at the senior levels.
This problem faces Foreign Service personnel across the
U.S. Government, not just at State, but also at USAID, the
Foreign Commercial Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service,
and the International Broadcasting Bureau.
I am pleased to report that the first steps to resolve this
issue through a phased approach over 3 years have been taken,
but further authorization language is needed to finish the job
by 2011. Completely closing this gap and ending a longstanding
and divisive inequity remains a top AFSA priority.
I would like to thank Secretary Clinton and Under Secretary
for Management Pat Kennedy for their dedication and efforts on
this issue and for working closely with AFSA to find a
solution. And of course, we would like to thank the many
Members of Congress that have helped correct this unintended
inequity.
Turning to the other recommendations of the GAO report,
overall AFSA supports the recommendations that GAO made to the
State Department in this report. We also agree with State's
response and its action plan to implement these
recommendations, particularly the mandatory medical screenings
upon completion of assignment in a combat zone. Members of the
Foreign Service should not have to worry about being able to
receive the medical care they need while deployed abroad,
particularly in war zones.
AFSA agrees with the GAO that this policy needs
clarification and encourages the Department of Defense and the
State Department to coordinate and communicate the policy more
clearly to employees deployed abroad.
AFSA applauds State Department's new Deployment Stress
Management Program [DSMP], a community-based program to support
psychological health of members of our Foreign Service assigned
to high stress, high threat, unaccompanied tours. We look
forward to working with the State Department to ensure that
DSMP continues to meet the needs of the Foreign Service.
One area that the GAO report does not address, and that we
would encourage this committee and the GAO to review, is
support for dependents of Foreign Service members and other
civilian employees who are deployed abroad at unaccompanied
posts. We would like to see the services provided to family
left at home brought more closely in line with those provided
by the Department of Defense to military dependents in similar
situations through the military one-source program.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your
support. We appreciate your leadership in convening this
hearing and AFSA hopes to continue to be a resource to you and
this subcommittee in representing the views of the Foreign
Service.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.058
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Ms. Johnson. I thank you
both again for your testimony and your forbearance as well with
the vicissitudes of House voting patterns. Our earlier
information, by the way, was we weren't going to have any votes
until about 4 p.m. and of course so much for that. We voted a
little after 2:30.
Let me ask you, Dr. Shay, first, and Ms. Johnson, your
comments would be welcome, to what extent do Federal civilian
employees have the same kinds of risks when they are deployed
in the hostile environments as the military for psychological
injury?
Dr. Shay. Clearly, there are certain risks that they don't
face. Every soldier faces the risk that he is going to fire his
weapon at someone that he then realizes he shouldn't have and
carries that on his soul for the rest of his life, and that is
terrible, and civilian employees, unless they are armed, don't
face that.
But in terms of the general exposure, both to personal
threat but also, so to speak, the moral exposure to witnessing
terrible things happening to other people, whether it is them
getting blown up or, A, is brutalizing, B, and nobody is doing
anything about it and the awful things that people witness in
war zones can sear people.
Mr. Connolly. Well, in other words, putting aside the first
example you gave, presumably somebody for a given department,
civilian employee is probably not armed or may not be
authorized to be armed, but the second example you gave, we
could witness the same horror and have----
Dr. Shay. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Virtually the same impact on us
emotionally?
Dr. Shay. That is right.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Johnson, your take on that.
Ms. Johnson. I would agree with the comments that Dr. Shay
has made. Naturally, in some respects, the risks differ, but
since World War II, 160 Foreign Service members have been
killed in the line of duty, the vast majority of those as a
result of terrorist attack, either blowing up of embassies,
snipers, blowing up of cars or other attacks of the sort.
In addition, certainly in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
civilian members who are serving in PRTs and are serving all
over the country face many, if not all, of the same risks that
their military counterparts do and certainly witness much of
the violence and, you know, danger experienced by the military.
Dr. Shay. If I may adjust that, military officers face
strain--moral strain and moral injury based on things that they
know were done by other people on the basis of their decisions
or the information that they gave to others, and I would not be
surprised if there are analogous injuries in the Foreign
Service world where people know they made decisions or gave
information that led to a horrific outcome, unintended outcome,
but they carry that with them.
Ms. Johnson. I don't know to what extent this exactly
relates to that--perhaps Dr. Shay would know better--but
certainly we saw--and I served in Iraq from July through
December 2003--and several of the Iraqis in the Foreign
Ministry that I worked with were assassinated--targeted and
assassinated directly as a result of visibly working and
cooperating with us. So that is something that you do carry
that here is someone that you have worked closely with and who
has worked with the United States who is then assassinated as a
result of that.
Mr. Connolly. Sure. You could feel terribly guilty
unwittingly putting someone in a terrible risk.
Ms. Johnson. Exactly. Those are the things that you have to
try to deal with.
Mr. Connolly. Let me ask you a question. In light of that,
the comparability of trauma exposure, when folks come home in
the civilian work force, should they have available to them
Veterans Affairs medical care? Should the VA be open to
previously deployed Federal civilian employees?
Dr. Shay. It appears to me that the VA or the vet centers
were--as I have heard about for the first time today, I was
unaware of this or the military treatment facilities. This is
an obvious opportunity for Congress, should it wish to by
legislation, to create that eligibility. That is sort of an
obvious avenue for the Congress.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Johnson, any opinion on that matter.
Ms. Johnson. Well, I think that having options generally,
you know, increases the ability to handle whatever issues that
you are facing. So I think it is good, to the extent that we
are facing a very complex, difficult problem and, to a certain
degree, some uncharted territory. So my instincts tell me that,
in those cases, having options are better than not having them.
Dr. Shay. And, as I mentioned in another option for
Congress, some entity like the GAO could do a study of what
kind of expertise is out there outside of the normal places to
find it--the VA, the vet centers, the military medicine
establishment--and where these people are. I am not suggesting
that they create a directory, but I think it is important,
given the need, that these data be gathered and analyzed so
that we know what the resources are.
Mr. Connolly. You both heard the previous discussion with
your previous panel members, and I wonder what your take is. I
mean, some of the resident expertise in the world on, for
example, brain injuries is at Bethesda.
Dr. Shay. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Some of the resident expertise in the world
on fitting of prosthetic devices, dealing with amputations and
rehabilitation related to that, including the emotional
management of both, is at Walter Reed.
Dr. Shay. Brooke Army Medical Center.
Mr. Connolly. That is right, or the Army Medical Center,
exactly.
So someone comes back from the State Department similarly
injured with similar needs. He or she is, in theory, shepherded
to the civilian side of medicine where comparable expertise
does simply not exist.
And, as you heard, the State Department and the Department
of Agriculture who were at this table weren't aware, actually
were not aware, of the fact that DOD had opened its door in
these circumstances on a case-by-case basis at their
acceptance--my words, not theirs--and they have been good about
it.
But if you don't know about it, you are not going to get
the high-quality care available to your military counterpart
who comes back a wounded warrior and veteran. I wonder what
your observations would be about that situation.
Dr. Shay. Well, it is something that one becomes very
familiar with when dealing with combat veterans, and that is
that it is a matter of luck and can be very capricious as to
whether the injured veteran and the resources get together
smoothly and quickly and effectively, or they pass each other
like ships in the night, or they collide in some terribly messy
crash and everybody gets hurt.
So finding ways that this wonderful phrase, ``seamless
transition''--that is a great line of public prayer. The hard
part is making it actually happen and happen reliably.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I think it is excellent that the committee is
focusing on some of these, I would say, over the horizon, but
actually they are closer than that now. We are increasingly
seeing civilians deployed in what we are calling, I guess,
zones of armed conflict. It is inevitable, sadly, that more of
them are going to be suffering various types of injuries,
whether physical or psychological, moral, emotional.
I think we need to be looking at what is the sensible and
effective way to provide, you know, fair and equivalent
treatment. I don't know if it is the same. As Dr. Shay said,
maybe this would be a very suitable topic for, you know, a
study to take a look at it and see what is the best solution.
But the civilian side needs to be looking at what are we
going to do to support our civilians who are serving in zones
of armed conflict along with their military counterparts.
Mr. Connolly. You all, AFSA, published its third annual
poll about a year and a half ago now. Did you pick up anything
in that poll in terms of attitudes of your members with respect
to compensation and benefits while deployed in either Iraq or
Afghanistan, on the quality of each?
Ms. Johnson. Well, if I could quickly summarize sort of the
main results of that poll--and I hope that we will have a
chance to do a followup one in the not-too-far future--
certainly the pay disparity and the locality pay and the
canceling out of hardship and danger pay was a top priority.
Iraq and Afghanistan staffing concerns of a broad variety
came a close second.
Other things relate more to internal State Department
procedures: unfair assignment and promotion policies. And one
thing that maybe relates to this is a perception that the
workplace in the foreign service is one of diminishing family
friendliness and becoming more and more difficult to, you know,
sustain or maintain family units and putting more and more
stress on them, not just the members, the direct employees, but
their dependants and their family.
I don't believe that it addressed directly the question
that you asked, but that could be something we could look at in
the future.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. On the family friendly thing, I earlier
this year was on a trip to a country I won't name, whose
Ambassador, U.S. Ambassador, was married to another U.S.
Ambassador who was in a very different country in a very
different part of the world. And it made you wonder. I am sure
that is a good thing; I am glad we are tapping into their
talent. But it has to be a strain on their marriage and their
family.
OK, Dr. Shay, I have to give you this opportunity. You have
written two wonderful books. And if you were to write a third,
``From Achilles to Odysseus,'' how would you compare the
experience you document on Vietnam? I mean, what are the
differences and similarities with the experience we are now
experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to Vietnam?
Dr. Shay. Well----
Mr. Connolly. Don't write the third book here, but give us
sort of a preview.
Dr. Shay. I have a third book that is really for military
professionals and policymakers called ``Trust Within Fighting
Forces'' that has been hanging around my neck like an
albatross, and I am trying to get it off its bottom.
But I am the guy that said war is war is war is war, and it
hasn't changed in 3,000 years as far as what matters in the
heart of the soldier. And the obstacles to returning to
civilian life, many of those haven't changed in 3,000 years. As
long as humans pursue this hideous practice of war, it is going
to hurt people, physically and psychologically. And we have to
protect them as best we can and heal them as best we can when
they do get hurt.
Mr. Connolly. Anything in particular strike you as either
absolutely similar to or absolutely different from the previous
experience in Vietnam when you are looking at it?
Dr. Shay. The climate in Vietnam is very different than the
climate in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least most parts of it.
I think there are some quite tropical parts of Iraq. But,
honestly, not much strikes me. I don't know of anybody who
talked about the dust storms in Vietnam.
Mr. Connolly. I guess I was getting at not so much the
difference in climate and geography as the similarities or
differences in trauma or injuries suffered by our----
Dr. Shay. Well, insurgencies are wicked hard on the
combatants, in that the enemy is intentionally blurring the
distinction between armed combatant and, ``legitimate''
targets, necessary targets, and protected persons, to use the
terminology of the law of warfare.
I think it is clear in this conflict, as it was in Vietnam,
that the distinction between a legitimate target and a
protected person means everything for the future mental health
and moral integrity of the person who has been in war. And
those people who glibly say, ``Oh, there are no rules in war,''
don't understand the heart of the soldier. They don't want to
know themselves to be murderers.
And I know for a fact that this is the point of view of our
military leadership today. I just, a couple weeks ago, spoke to
the commanders' conference at the 101st Airborne. And they made
it very clear that the moral dimension of what they do is
critically important to them. And I, for one, stand up and
cheer, because it is what will protect their mind and spirit.
If I can just make one comment about what we have heard in
the previous panel, I got a clarification on the fly about this
41,000 civilians number. And I am told that is 41,000
Department of Defense civilians. So this number does not
include any other Federal employees, No. 1. And, No. 2, it
totally leaves out Federal contractors who are working either
directly under Federal contracts or are working for
subcontractors.
Mr. Connolly. Right. And that number could be in the
hundreds of thousands.
Dr. Shay. So the population that we are talking about is
not 41,000; it is much larger.
Mr. Connolly. Very good point. Because we know that there
are AID folks and contractors associated with that. We know
that there are Department of Agriculture people, Department of
Labor people, so forth and so on. So there are lots more than
just the 41,000 that serve with DOD.
I want to thank you both so much for sharing today and your
thoughts. If you have additional material you want to submit
into the record, we would be delighted to have it.
And I want to thank you again for your forbearance with our
schedule today. It is very helpful to this committee and to the
subcommittee.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5103.096