STATEMENT BY
MAJOR
GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FIRST SESSION, 107th CONGRESS
HEARING ON FACILITY CONDITIONS IMPACT ON
READINESS AND QUALITY OF LIFE
APRIL 26, 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the effects of facility condition on Army readiness and soldier well-being.
I would like to start out by thanking you for all the support you have provided in the past. We have benefited from congressional support of our Real Property Maintenance (RPM) budgets and the Quality of Life Enhancements funding. Your continued support of our RPM budget will allow us to further our efforts to improve facilities affecting soldier well-being and Army readiness. Let me add that the President's priority on military housing is most welcome. My comments later in this testimony on housing do not reflect the additional funding the President has proposed for housing. At this time, we do not know how much of this funding will be allocated to the U.S. Army.
The Army plays a vital role in the execution of the National Military Strategy. It provides flexible military capabilities across the full spectrum of military operations - from humanitarian assistance to theater of war combat. The Army must sustain a force of high quality, well-trained people; acquire and maintain the right mix of weapons and equipment; and maintain effective infrastructure and power projection platforms to remain ready. Our installations are the platforms supporting that readiness. They provide the places where soldiers live, work and train.
Today, we are a mission ready military that is living, working and training on installations with serious infrastructure problems. However, quality facilities and robust power projection platforms are essential to fully meet our combatant force requirements and soldier expectations.
Annually we conduct the Installation Status Report (ISR) survey of the condition of Army facilities. The Fiscal Year 2000 ISR results show two-thirds of the Army's facilities are rated either C-3 (have some functional deficiencies and impair mission performance) or C-4 (have major functional deficiencies and significantly impair mission performance) indicating that these facilities' mission performance capabilities are seriously impacted, putting Army readiness at risk. Although the majority of these facilities are rated C-3, at current funding levels the number of C-4 facilities will increase rapidly. By Fiscal Year 2017, over 50% of Army facilities are projected to be rated C-4.
The poor facility condition is the result of many years of under funding real property maintenance (RPM) needs. The average RPM funding over the last 10 years has been approximately 60%. In Fiscal Year 2001 the RPM requirement was $2.46 billion, but available funding was only $1.75 billion or 70% of the requirement. A good example of this under funding is Fort Sill, where 10 years ago it had a budget of $178 million to support training and operate and maintain the installation. Today it has the same missions but is funded at only $100 million. This means that Fort Sill, like many other installations, has stopped doing preventive maintenance and only does facility breakdown and emergency repairs.
The effects of under funding only get worse as our facilities age. The average age of our buildings is 40 years. Our utility systems are even worse. Many of them are older than 50 years and have more than exceeded their expected life span. Failures are frequent and may be catastrophic should a gas line fail causing an explosion or water line fail such that water or water pressure is not available for emergencies. Fort Hood, TX, in one week this year alone has had four major water line breaks in their 10-16 inch water lines. At Camp Carroll, Korea, last year, there were 20 major power outages severely impacting quality of life and could have major mission impacts if not corrected. This all adds up to the Army having facilities and infrastructure that are only marginally mission capable and their condition continues to get worse.
Poor facilities inhibit mission accomplishment and degrade readiness and soldier well-being. The Army works in maintenance facilities, training facilities, supply and storage facilities, airfields, and deployment facilities that are rated C-3. Army families live in housing that is generally in C-3 condition. Enlisted unaccompanied personnel housing and associated operational, dining, storage and common use facilities are C-3. Many community support and morale, welfare and recreation facilities are also rated C-3. These conditions affect soldier morale, efficiency and effectiveness, which, in turn, adversely impact soldier readiness.
Some examples of this are the deteriorating vehicle maintenance facilities in which soldiers are expected to keep their equipment operationally ready. Soldiers have to work in poorly lit and cramped maintenance bays not designed for maintaining today's equipment. In many cases they have to work outside in the weather to perform vehicle maintenance since the facilities are not big enough to handle their equipment. One of our primary power projection platforms reported over 160 bay doors currently need repair or replacement and more than 1300 bay lights are inoperable which is having an impact on the installation's ability to perform its mission.
Training facilities that are inadequate and in poor condition cannot be used to effectively train our soldiers. Soldiers are distracted by the condition of the facilities, which detract from the soldiers' ability to learn. Training ranges are in need of repair. Many have berms that require regrading and are becoming unsafe. Wiring to targets needs to be replaced. Firing points are deteriorating. Live fire exercises are becoming less effective. All these factors hinder the effective training of our soldiers and thus impact on readiness. Despite this, our units are currently achieving their readiness levels. Overall, the Army's training ranges and areas are rated C-2 for quality and C-4 for quantity.
About 40 percent of Army soldiers are still living in substandard conditions even with the ongoing barracks modernization program. This includes both permanent party soldiers and trainees. The Army still must house soldiers in barracks with gang latrines and two or more per room. As we work through the barracks modernization program, soldiers must make do with existing facilities many of which are 1950s vintage and in poor condition. Fort Campbell, KY, for example, is using Korean War Era barracks with leaking hot water recirculating lines. Inadequate funding is available to replace the system and damage is occurring to the buildings. Because of lack of RPM funding, barracks that were renovated prior to the current modernization program but should still be in good condition, are not. At Fort Hood, of 44 barracks renovated during the period Fiscal Year 1990-1995, 25 (67%) are now rated amber or red (overall poor condition). Moreover, the barracks modernization program does not address trainee barracks. Trainee barracks must compete for the limited resources available for rehabilitation of all other facilities. Such conditions do not meet soldier expectations of a world-class, high tech, quality Army. The good news is that the Army is committed to upgrading its barracks. Between MILCON and O&M Army, about $750 million per year is needed. Through FY 2001, the Army, with the assistance of Congress, has funded about 92,000 upgraded barracks spaces, with another 69,000 spaces to go. Army long-range plans program sufficient funding to complete the job by the 2008 deadline.
Army Family Housing is also in poor condition. Much of the housing is old and built to standards that met life styles of 30 to 50 years ago. They do not meet soldier and family expectations for housing, but there is inadequate funding available to modernize our housing in a reasonable length of time. On base housing is still preferred by many soldiers with waiting times averaging 10 to 15 months.
A majority, 56%, of today's soldiers are married. We have 720,000 Army family members around the world including an average of 2 children per family. A common Army saying is that "you enlist the soldier, but you re-enlist a family." Therefore quality of life becomes significantly more important for retention of the force. Money spent on quality of life is money partly saved when we reenlist soldiers rather than train new soldiers to replace the outgoing. Housing, both unaccompanied and family, child development centers, post exchanges and commissaries, schools and medical facilities and accompanying family/community support services become the metrics by which soldiers and families judge the Army. We must respond positively to their expectations and provide quality facilities.
The Reserve Components are in no better condition. Their Fiscal Year 2000 ISR Mission, Mobility and Housing Area facility ratings are C-3 or C-4. US Army Reserve (USAR) Centers and Army National Guard (ARNG) Readiness Centers are important. They are frequently what the public sees as representing our Armed Forces. The reserve components are large organizations important to the Army's ability to fulfil its Title X responsibilities in defense of our nation. But both the ARNG and USAR have large backlogs of maintenance. The federal government has not provided its portion of adequate RPM funding for ARNG facility maintenance and repair. From ISR data 67% of National Guard facilities are C-4 and the RPM backlog is $5.2 billion, the estimated federal government contribution. The USAR fairs better with approximately 67% of their facilities being C-3 and a RPM backlog of $1.4 billion. An example of the poor condition of many of our reserve centers is located at Fort Leavenworth, KS. The building has extreme structural deterioration with hand wide cracks. The roof system has failed and leaks occur throughout the building. The electrical system presents a hazard to soldiers and the heating and ventilation systems do not work properly. Can we expect citizens to join the reserves or remain in them if we force the use of such buildings?
Recognizing this, we need to take measures to stem the downward quality trend and begin to improve our facility posture. We have a three-pronged approach. (1) We have implemented programs reducing the cost of operating installations. (2) We have established focused investment programs to improve, modernize, or replace some critical Army infrastructure. (3) We strive to fully fund the minimal real property maintenance (RPM) sustainment necessary to keep facilities from deteriorating further and to protect the investment we make in new or renovated facilities. We have not been able to fully implement this strategy because limited funding within the Army has forced trading facility maintenance and facility modernization for near term readiness.
We continue to implement improved business practices to reduce the costs of operating our installations. We have reduced our facility inventory by over 170 million square feet through disposal or divestiture of non-mission required facilities and we have more disposals programmed. We are privatizing and looking to the private sector to provide more of the "non-core" Army functions for operating our installations. We are committed to privatizing our utilities systems where practical and economically advantageous. Partnering with the private sector and relying more on local economies to provide "non-core" Army support will become a new way of doing business.
We are committed to competing 61,000 personnel spaces under our competitive sourcing program (A-76). We have a lease reduction program to reduce the lease bill for office space and move activities into Army excess building space. Finally, we only provide real property maintenance (RPM) funding for needed facilities (not excess) allowing us to focus greater maintenance and repair investment on enduring facilities.
We have had great success with our focused investment programs. These programs are bringing the conditions of select facilities up to standards to meet mission requirements. The Army Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) has improved railheads, road networks and airfield facilities providing greater deployment capabilities. The current program will be completed in Fiscal Year 2003. Through the barracks modernization program about 92,000 soldiers have been adequately housed to the 1+1 standards so far. This program will be completed in Fiscal Year 2008. We have also placed a concerted effort on Child Development Centers. Over the past 5 years we have invested $136 million in 23 Child Development Center projects. Of the eligible child care centers, 98% are accredited.
This is a start, but not nearly enough to achieve the Army's goal of providing comprehensive, adaptable power projection and support platforms with quality facilities, infrastructure, and services that are integral to the readiness and well-being of our soldiers, their families and the civilian workforce.
To accomplish this goal, we developed a comprehensive Facility Strategy. The strategy leverages the cost reduction measures that I spoke of earlier to free funds for facility improvement and fully funds the annual RPM sustainment requirement needed to prevent facilities from deteriorating further. It establishes a steady, predictable and focused investment program to bring our most critical facilities to a condition that fully supports mission accomplishment and instills a sense of pride in our service members. This strategy is programmatic and covers all Army requirements - Active Component, Army National Guard and US Army Reserve.
Implementation of this strategy will require an integrated steady annual funding stream of RPM and MILCON funding for modernization of facilities. Modernization programs will be in discrete buyout packages to be accomplished within 10-year periods. The funding mix for modernization may change from year to year, but with a steady stream of funding we will improve our overall facility condition posture to C-2, mission capable, over the next 30 years. However, modernization funding must be complimented with full funding of the minimum annual RPM sustainment requirement or the degradation of our facilities, including those that have been modernized, will continue.
To improve the family housing problem, we have implemented the Army Family Housing Master Plan. This plan combines privatization of housing, traditional military construction, and adequate housing allowances. Through privatization and construction inadequate units in Europe and Korea should be eliminated by 2010 and in the U.S. by 2014. The increase in housing allowances will minimize or eliminate out of pocket expenses for our soldiers living in private economy housing.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the linkages between facility condition and Army readiness/soldier quality of life. Facility condition does matter and can be a significant factor affecting Army readiness and soldiers' decisions to remain in the Army. Findings discovered and validated by the U.S. Army Research Institute and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research showed that:
When soldiers and their spouses really believe they live in a "quality community" and their community neighborhood is a good place in which to raise children, soldier retention increases. Family perceptions of the quality of life at Army duty stations relate to quality schooling for children, safety at home and in public places, and access to valued recreational and cultural resources. These factors help to determine soldier retention. Anticipating a PCS transfer to a lower quality duty station and community reduces spouses' and soldiers' desire for future retention. Soldiers and families who are stabilized for several years in "high quality" communities report an enhanced desire for career retention and a stronger preference for the Army as a way of life.
Our facilities strategy responds to these findings, and we are making a concerted effort to improve facility conditions for the Army of the future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for your continued support.
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
