• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I first would like to tell you what an honor it is each time I appear before a body such as this. As I have said before, I never in 32 years of service envisioned myself here representing our great Army. It is a tremendous responsibility, and one that I do not take lightly. I appreciate the invitation and look forward to working with each of you in the future to make our Army even better.

As many of you already know, I was sworn in on June 23. I think it is worthwhile to note that Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki gave me very simple instructions back then. He asked me to get out among our soldiers and their families, to understand their needs and issues and be their number one advocate to him, the Army, DoD's senior leaders, the Congress and others throughout our government.

I have tried to do that. In the last 12 months, I have traveled 136 days, logged nearly 100,000 miles and addressed thousands of soldiers on nearly 50 trips from Egypt to the Balkans to Korea to Europe in addition to repeated trips to 20 states.

What I would first have you and our citizens understand is that we have a great Army - it is one we should all be proud of. I've stood in Bosnia with young soldiers from all of our components and shared their pride in accomplishing the hard mission and making the world a safer place.

In South Korea, I shared Thanksgiving Day meals with a number of soldiers who, although far from friends and family, spoke mostly of their unit, its mission and their proud contributions to it. 

The Army is doing well and ready for any mission given it, but our soldiers are as busy now as they've ever been.

If I may, I'd like to share a few numbers with you. Right now, there are more than 28,000 soldiers deployed away from their homes, barracks and families to 69 locations around the world. Aside from well-known locations like Kuwait and the Balkans, our troops are working and training in places that include Nepal, Eritrea, Kosrae, Bangladesh, East Timor, Guatemala, Djibouti and Latvia. This includes nearly 3,700 Army National Guard soldiers and more than 2,900 U.S. Army Reservists serving alongside their active duty counterparts.

Those numbers, I would add, are not out of the ordinary. During this fiscal year, the weekly averages show we have continuously kept more than 26,000 soldiers deployed to nearly 60 locations around the world. I should also point out that these numbers do not include the nearly 113,000 Army personnel routinely forward stationed in 108 locations - a number that includes more than 9,000 U.S. Army Reservists.

It is obvious that we are busy, but let me assure you we remain the best Army in the world, both in my opinion and that of many others. We are not perfect, however, and I would like to discuss some of our concerns with you today.

In my own words and based on what I have seen and heard, I would tell you it is apparent that - in past years - we have fallen behind, both in new construction and in the maintenance of all of our existing facilities. Concerns about our installations and facilities are almost without exception among the top four gripes our soldiers and families share with me.

Earlier this year, I shared a few stories with your colleagues on the Military Construction Subcommittee. I told them that while visiting South Korea in November, I was shocked to see many of the same buildings still in use that had been considered old, dilapidated and outdated when I served there as an armor first sergeant in the late 1980s. Even more shocking was the obvious fact that little had been spent on upkeep and renovation. Money put toward repairing the damage from the widespread flooding of 1998 has helped out on some posts, but I can tell you we have a ways to go toward getting soldiers the facilities they deserve there. 

Since offering that testimony, I have traveled to, among other places, Hawaii and Colorado's Fort Carson. Also, I recall that our Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management - Major General Robert Van Antwerp - testified before this subcommittee last month. I read his remarks and believe he gave you an excellent, service-wide take on our needs. In light of that, I would like to share with you what I saw in my recent travels and I feel it is fairly representative of the entire Army.

Let me start with Hawaii, which is one of the areas I happened to visit recently. It was immediately apparent to me how hard both Congress and the chain of command in Hawaii have worked in recent years to improve housing there. I saw how much has been done to improve barracks for single soldiers in recent years, and the troops there are grateful. All have done their best with the resources they have. The command is saving money where it can and working with local civic and business leaders to improve quality of life both on and off base.

Worth pointing out is the fact that what I saw in Hawaii comes after some $65 million was spent over the last five years, and both myself and the families there are deeply appreciative of the help. That money was used to replace 322 homes for junior soldiers, junior NCOs and junior officers.   

Still, as I was driven around, my escorts - senior enlisted leaders from Schofield Barracks and Fort Shafter - lamented the historical lack of base operations funds that would have allowed them and their predecessors to renovate older quarters.

In one area, I saw row housing where only about half of the units looked as if they were occupied. I asked about this, and my escort paused a moment before quietly telling me that nearly all of the empty units had been condemned, often because of termites or a lack of funds needed to bring these decades-old quarters up to an acceptable standard. Soldiers living alongside these empty units voluntarily mow the grass occasionally, but the taller-than-normal lawns and appearance of these homes gave the entire area a decidedly run-down appearance. I would tell you honestly that I wouldn't feel good about my family living there.

After getting a good feel for the Army's housing situation, my host drove me toward a neighboring base where many troops regularly use the commissary and post exchange. He pointed out that the route most soldiers use takes them from their own aging housing areas through those from other services. When making this short trip, the differences were obvious.   

Despite everyone's best efforts in Hawaii, the difference between there and what I saw the following week at Fort Carson, Colorado, was nothing short of astounding. It was like night and day, and - to me anyway - a testament to the success of the Residential Community Initiative (RCI) or family housing privatization.

As many of you know, Fort Carson is one of four posts currently covered by the RCI program. My trip there in April was an eye-opener. I'd heard and read about the success of RCI, but what I found far exceeded my already lofty expectations.

If I may, I'd like to draw from the note I sent to General Shinseki after my trip to Carson.

Hands down, I told our Chief of Staff, the biggest impression made on me during the visit was the apparent success of RCI. I spoke of one family housing mayor - whose husband serves at Carson - who approached me and shared how proud she is, as a spouse, to be "on the cutting edge of this new way of taking care of soldiers and their families." Those were her words, and it was easy for me to see where they came from.

The new housing was among the most impressive I'd seen in more than three decades of service. I added that I would be delighted to live in any of the new quarters I saw, noting that they were being occupied by junior enlisted soldiers and junior NCOs.

I also said the news on existing housing was equally encouraging. While noting that there is only so much that can reasonably be done with older quarters, Carson's RCI contractor was sprucing up existing units and dramatically increasing their appeal to newly arrived families.

Perhaps just as importantly, I shared some good news about housing repairs being made under RCI. One major complaint throughout the Army in recent years has dealt with the age of existing facilities and the time needed for the post engineers to make routine repairs.

At Fort Carson, where family housing maintenance is handled by the RCI contractor, the number of maintenance workers has increased from 17 to nearly 40, and they average a 30-minute turnaround time on emergency work orders.

That might not seem like much to a great many people, but to frustrated families accustomed to waiting days for repairs, it must border on the miraculous.

If there was a downside to my Fort Carson visit, it was the use of borrowed military manpower to perform tasks once taken care of by civilian employees and contractors. Historically, if a particular base doesn't have enough infrastructure dollars, service suffers and soldiers sometimes take up the slack.

When I was a division command sergeant major in Germany in the 1990s, we had the same problem. The result was cutbacks in on-base bus service for families and young single soldiers and operating hours at places like gymnasiums, recreation centers and other morale- and quality-of-life enhancing facilities. 

I've also noted an increase in units operating their own "repair and upkeep" sections. Years ago, these were common, but they largely went away about a decade ago. Now, because of infrastructure funding issues, units are taking a few soldiers from their normal jobs and having them do "self-help" projects to keep barracks, offices and motorpools repaired. This takes them away for their normal duties.

Due partly to budget-related downsizing and a lack of infrastructure money, tasks such as cutting grass in common areas are now taking up soldiers' time. At Fort Carson, I was told that more than 100 soldiers from various units are tasked at any given time to support these key but mundane garrison functions.

In the closing of my report, I emphasized to General Shinseki my firmly held belief that the Defense Department's current three-pronged approach to solving family housing needs is the right one. 

Besides championing the Residential Community Initiative, we need to work to ensure a steady flow of new construction money as well as funds for Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) increases. In this regard, the Army appreciates the President requesting an additional $400 million in his fiscal year 2002 budget to make quality housing available to military personnel and their families.

Currently, the Army can house about 109,000 families, with the other 64 percent of our married force living off base. Additionally, more than 5,000 single troops live outside of our posts. I can tell you that the Defense Department goal of increasing BAH payments to eliminate soldiers' out-of-pocket housing expenses by 2005 is noted throughout the ranks. It is exactly the kind of specific, sustained and immediate support our troops take note of as they consider their re-enlistment options.

Currently, the gap between BAH payments and soldiers' out-of-pocket expenses averages about 15 percent. At Fort Carson, where 82 percent of the families reside off post, I asked about civilian housing. I was told there were some areas where rents were reasonable, but the houses weren't too nice. Nice houses were available in other areas, but the rent prices were well above most troops' BAH payments. 

One soldier told me that she and a number of others opted to live with the out-of-pocket cost not because they wanted a nicer house, but mainly because the nicer areas had better schools. In other words, they looked on it not as a quality of life investment, but as a necessary investment for their children's future.

I am also concerned about the lack of flexibility in adjusting BAH rates. Currently, they can only be changed at the same time new pay increases take effect. This flexibility is needed when unforeseen events result in a dramatic increase in soldiers' living expenses. A good example is the current California power crisis, which has driven up the cost of electricity far beyond levels factored into housing allowance tables.

If I may, I'd like to address another installation and facilities issue, specifically our barracks situation.

As it is with family housing, there has been much progress in recent years. There is, however, still work to be done, and the difference between the haves and the have-nots is glaring. Some of the new barracks and newly renovated units I've seen at places like Fort Lewis, Washington; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and Fort Bragg, North Carolina; are outstanding. But, even where great progress has been made, you only have to drive a few miles to find cramped, aging barracks with gang latrines and badly in need of renovation.

For starters, we need to continue the momentum we have achieved toward our number one well-being priority, which is single soldier barracks modernization. Progress has been made, and money has been programmed through 2008 to get all of our barracks to the desired one-plus-one standard. The lone exception will be in South Korea, which has approval to construct two-plus-two barracks. I would urge you to ensure the future dollars are there to allow us to meet this goal.

It only takes a few visits to decades-old barracks rooms originally designed for two soldiers that now hold three troops to see that help is badly needed. I would encourage all of you to make it a priority to look at barracks, and preferably not only the new ones, as you visit installations in your travels.

Recently, I spoke with one of our single soldier barracks experts. She told me facilities in South Korea; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Fort Hood, Texas; and Hawaii's Schofield Barracks continue to need the most attention, mainly because of the number of troops assigned there. While the needs of these facilities should be emphasized, I think it's important to maintain a balance and ensure no installations are overlooked.

The priority question was also put to someone on the family housing side, and I learned that, rather than concentrating on particular installations, their "worst-first" formula has prioritized enlisted family housing across the Army.

However, given current funding levels and without expanding privatization efforts, the Army will not be able to reach DoD's goal of eliminating all inadequate family housing units by 2010. I'm told that without further privatization beyond the four sites under way, 2025 is more realistic. In order to make the 2010 goal, we would need to significantly expand current privatization efforts plus receive an estimated $825 million investment to renovate old housing and build new units.

The Army, in a very real sense, is a landlord that worldwide maintains about 161,000 barracks rooms in addition to the nearly 109,000 family units previously mentioned.

If I may dwell on the obvious for a moment, I would re-emphasize how important housing is as a well-being issue. Soldiers and family members, for the most part, understand the way things are and have some familiarity with the budget process. They also watch the news and understand deficit spending. They are fairly patient as they realize there simply hasn't been enough money for the Army to have everything it wants. So, when the subject of housing comes up, they realize that progress is being made, that facilities are being built, that renovations are under way and that more help is on the way.

It is, however, a little tougher to explain why seemingly simple things such as leaky roofs, broken air-conditioners, old plumbing, peeling paint and thread-bare carpeting can't be fixed or replaced in a time of budget surplus.

The source of their frustration is evident. The Army, over the years, has attempted to juggle well-being needs and initiatives while trying to maintain readiness. As it should be, the priority has been our ability to fight and win our country's wars, but the price has been a shortfall in Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (also known as Real Property Maintenance), which is currently funded at approximately 70 percent. At the beginning of this fiscal year, there was a backlog in excess of nearly $18 billion.

As noted earlier, solid progress has been made over the years, and this encourages soldiers. But, I would ask you to keep housing and barracks on your scopes.

I doubt I am alone in believing that these are readiness issues. I stressed to one of your House colleagues recently the peace of mind soldiers have when they can deploy knowing their families are taken care of back home. Knowing their loved ones are living cleanly, safely and somewhat comfortably allows them to focus on accomplishing the mission at hand and taking care of their other family - the troops they are on deployment with.

I feel we need to employ a balanced funding approach between barracks and housing in the states and overseas, and I would ask that you not overlook the importance of building, upgrading and maintaining other pieces of our well-being infrastructure. Facilities such as schools, fitness centers, community and youth centers all contribute to morale, and are especially key in overseas areas as well as isolated stateside posts.

Also, I would tell you we can't overlook the importance of both our own training ranges, dining facilities, motorpools, work facilities and deployment facilities, as well as the infrastructure of our Reserve Component units. I tell people as frequently as possible, we absolutely could not accomplish our mission today without the Guard and Reserve. I can't tell you what an outstanding job our country's citizen-soldiers are doing. I would hope you are as proud of them as I am.

In his testimony late last month, Major General Van Antwerp accurately summarized our needs in these two areas. What I would leave you with is my own take on the importance these things have on retention and readiness.   

I would tell you that, in my mind, retaining quality soldiers and NCOs is the absolute bedrock of everything we do. More times than I can remember, I have nodded my head in agreement as Chief of Staff General Shinseki has said that above all things, the Army must ensure it does two things daily: train soldiers and grow leaders.

When you break down those two simple-sounding tasks, you realize we are talking about what we call "NCO business." It is sergeants who routinely put in 16-hour days at our basic training centers working with new recruits. It is sergeants at all levels who mentor not only young soldiers and more junior NCOs, but officers as well.   

It is sergeants who, ultimately, are held accountable for soldiers' lives and their training and readiness for combat. Being a sergeant means understanding soldiers . . . knowing where they're from, where they want to go and what their hopes and aspirations are. NCOs are required to develop our troops as citizens, help them realize their goals while raising them as soldiers.

These are challenging tasks when the Army is at 100 percent of its authorized strength, but it would become unimaginably difficult if we were not able to retain the kind of leaders our Army requires.

Many times in recent years I have heard it said that that re-enlistment decisions are often made at the kitchen table. In an Army where 55 percent of the force is married and another eight percent are single parents, soldiers' spouses and children play a key role in the decision. Never in more than three decades of marriage have I ever doubted who was in charge around my house, and I know how a family feels about its collective welfare has an impact on retention. Today, 55 percent of our soldiers are married, and more are coming in that way, and - in some cases - they are enlisting a little older and with more children.

Our own surveys support the importance of quality life as it relates to retention. Twice each year, we survey 8,000 soldiers of all ranks, and the latest one places overall quality of life among the top three reasons enlisted soldiers were leaving the Army prior to retirement.

As I've said in these corridors before, I did not come here to sound alarm bells and have people believe the sky is falling. The Army is doing well, and we are recruiting and retaining the number and caliber of soldiers we need. The challenge is to ensure that doesn't change. 

As I travel, soldiers consistently voice the same concerns to me. The top concern is always pay. We've made a lot of improvements in recent years, and President Bush's extra $1 billion has been widely applauded. But, in my opinion and that of many others, there is still a ways to go before our troops are adequately compensated for their dedication, skills and sacrifice. Soldiers are also expressing deep concern about quality of life, as well as retirement benefits and medical care.

Steady improvements in the areas we've talked about here today would help immensely in assuring our soldiers that they are appreciated, and that the citizens they defend recognize their sacrifice. Our troops do not ask for a lot, when you consider everything they do for our great country. I can't tell you how heartening it is for them and me when I can travel among them and tell them about exchanges such as this. Hearing that their elected leaders are interested in their issues and concerns gives them heart.

I've also made it a point to listen to the concerns of our country's veterans and retirees. This is a population that has sacrificed again and again for the United States. I would ask that you consider their needs, both in the legislation you work on and as you travel throughout your home districts. They deserve our support, our thanks and our respect.

I am proud of our soldiers, their families, our veterans and all of our great Army civilians, and I know you are too. It is an honor to represent each of them. I look forward to your questions

---