U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

98–886 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–77] 

EFFECTS OF REDUCED INFRASTRUCTURE 

AND BASE OPERATING SUPPORT 

INVESTMENTS ON NAVY READINESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JANUARY 8, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

MICHAEL MILLER, Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN GARRETT, Professional Staff Member 

KATHERINE REMBER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 2 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Smith, VADM Dixon R., USN, Commander, Navy Installations Command; 

accompanied by RADM Mary M. Jackson, USN, Commander, Navy Region 

Southeast, and CAPT Louis J. Schager, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval 

Air Station Oceana ............................................................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Smith, VADM Dixon R., joint with RADM Mary M. Jackson and CAPT 

Louis J. Schager ............................................................................................ 36 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J. .................................................................................. 35 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 47 

Mr. Russell ........................................................................................................ 48 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 47 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 47 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 51 

(1) 

EFFECTS OF REDUCED INFRASTRUCTURE AND BASE 

OPERATING SUPPORT INVESTMENTS ON NAVY READINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Friday, January 8, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:01 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. Wittman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WITTMAN. I will call to order the Subcommittee on Readiness, subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. I 

want to welcome everybody this morning. Thank you all for being 

here for today’s readiness hearing on the effects of reduced infrastructure and base operating support investments on Navy readiness. 

This is the second of three hearings on this topic. In December, 

the Army and Marine Corps testified to increased readiness risks 

due to reduced installation investments. I look forward to hearing 

the views of the Navy today and the Air Force next week. 

I would like to welcome our Navy panel of experts. This morning, 

we have with us Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, Commander, Navy Installations Command; Rear Admiral Mary Jackson, Commander, 

Navy Region Southeast; Captain Louis Schager, Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Oceana. 

Over the last several years, the subcommittee has largely focused 

on operational readiness recovery since the drawdown of forces in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, the Department of Defense assumed risk in infrastructure investments and reduced mission support services by redirecting funds from installation programs to other operational and training budget priorities. 

Uncertain funding levels stem from repeated continuing resolutions [CRs], and sequestration exacerbated these risks. The purpose of this hearing is to clarify the Navy’s choice for infrastructure 

and installation services, to address funding priorities and mitigation strategies, and to gather more detail on the current and future 

impact of these decisions on operations and training from the commanders’ perspective. 

As witnesses testify, I would ask you address existing risk in the 

infrastructure and installation support program and impacts to 

readiness; also, how will the recent 2-year budget reshape those 
2 

risks and impacts; and what will the level of risk and impacts over 

the next 10 years be if budget levels remain constant or return to 

sequestration levels. 

I would like to now turn to our ranking member, Madeleine 

Bordallo, for any remarks that she may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for being here this morning. 

I do thank you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this hearing on our 

infrastructure investments and their effect on our Navy readiness. 

This hearing continues the series of hearings that we are conducting to look into how reduced infrastructure investments impact 

the readiness. 

To the witnesses, I thank you all again for your service and for 

being here today. 

Over the years, this subcommittee has held hearings on the state 

of our military infrastructure and the impact that budget decisions 

have had on the Department’s ability to maintain and recapitalize 

that infrastructure. This subcommittee has closely examined issues 

impacting the state of our military’s readiness and the devastating 

impacts that sequestration have had. 

As we receive testimony from each service—Army and Marine 

Corps in December and the Navy and the Air Force this month— 

I believe this is the first time that we have held subcommittee 

hearings where we attempt to understand the impact that budget 

decisions regarding military infrastructure and installation support 

are having and will have on training and readiness in the future. 

We have heard evidence from several military installations that 

is indicative of adverse impacts to training and operations due to 

degraded infrastructure and installation support, and if this is the 

case, there are indications of a broader trend. The subcommittee 

needs to understand what the impacts are and what needs to be 

done to address this situation. 

We often hear that the Department is accepting risk due to the 

budget constraints that Congress has placed on the Department. 

For the Navy’s infrastructure program, this can be seen in funding 

FSRM [Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization] 

below the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] model of 90 percent and in a decrease in military construction funding compared 

to pre-sequestration levels. We also hear that the Department is 

managing that risk and still performing the mission. 

We understand and appreciate the military’s can-do and makedo attitude, but I hope that today our witnesses will provide specific examples of how this risk in the infrastructure enterprise has 

impacted military readiness or could impact military readiness. 

For example, we need to know if training opportunities are being 

lost, scaled down, deferred, or canceled because our range safety 

and training functions are not adequately funded. We need to know 

if training sessions or mission functions are not realistic or ade-
3 

quate to meet current operational needs because the facilities in 

which such training is conducted are not serviceable. 

Already, our full-spectrum readiness recovery timelines extend 

beyond 2020, and even that can be accomplished only with stable 

funding. 

So this has resulted from a series of financial decisions to defer 

spending on preventive maintenance in favor of more pressing 

readiness elements and, frankly, with the Navy for shipbuilding 

and other capital asset priorities. However, we cannot afford to 

continue neglecting critical installation maintenance projects without seeing readiness being significantly affected. 

Without fully equipped, functioning, and well-maintained installations, we cannot generate the readiness that is needed, and our 

men and women in uniform as well as our civilian personnel performing their duties around the country and the world deserve 

that. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madeleine. 

Admiral Smith, I have been told you will be making one opening 

statement on behalf of all the witnesses, so please proceed. And, as 

a reminder, your written testimony has already been made available to our members and will be part of our official record. 

Admiral Smith. 

STATEMENT OF VADM DIXON R. SMITH, USN, COMMANDER, 

NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND; ACCOMPANIED BY RADM 

MARY M. JACKSON, USN, COMMANDER, NAVY REGION 

SOUTHEAST, AND CAPT LOUIS J. SCHAGER, USN, COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA 

Admiral SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bordallo, and distinguished 

members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss 

the impact of reduced infrastructure and base operating support investments on readiness with you today. 

I am proud to represent the more than 52,000 military and civilian personnel and their families who are dedicated to the shore 

mission, sustaining the fleet, enabling sailors, and supporting our 

Navy family. 

Joining me today, Mr. Chairman, as you said, Rear Admiral 

Mary Jackson, Commander, Navy Region Southeast, out of Jacksonville, Florida, and Captain Louis Schager, our commanding officer at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach. 

I would also like to introduce my Force Master Chief, Andrew 

Thompson, who, while not part of this panel, is here with us today. 

I rely heavily on his insight and counsel. He plays an integral role 

in our ability to manage our shore enterprise operations, particularly when it comes to the quality-of-life programs for our sailors, 

civilians, and families. 

With 70 installations worldwide, the Navy shore enterprise is 

much more than buildings, piers, and runways. Our shore installations provide the platform to train and enable our sailors, sustain 

our ships and aircraft, and support our military families. They are 

the backbone, launch platform, safe haven, and home of our fleet. 
4 

The shore enterprise is complicated and vast, with a mission that 

spans from operating ports and airfields to security, child care, 

counseling, housing, food service, just to name a few. We are constantly juggling multiple priorities to support emerging fleet needs 

and requirements. Our fleet relies on us. 

Yet budget shortfalls have compelled the Navy to reduce our investment in shore readiness to preserve the operational readiness 

of our fleet. Looking at our existing facilities, we are currently 

funding the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of our facilities only enough to maintain the overall condition of our most 

critical infrastructure for the short term. We are funding facility 

sustainment below the Department of Defense goal of 90 percent, 

and our facilities are deteriorating at an accelerated rate. 

Regarding the operation of our installations, we remain committed to adequately funding fleet operations, sailor and family 

support programs, and child development. However, due to funding 

shortfalls, we continue to accept a deliberate level of risk for the 

remainder of our base operating support functions, such as facility 

services, ground maintenance, and administrative support. 

While these situations are not ideal, they are necessary in today’s fiscal environment. I realize this hearing is not the first time 

you have heard about the strain that is put upon our shore leaders 

across all military services and the challenging decisions we make 

every day. Navy’s challenges are very similar to the other military 

services. Shore infrastructure and support services are enablers to 

training and operational capabilities, readiness, morale, and health 

and well-being of the overall force. 

Having served as a base commander, regional commander three 

times, and now as Commander, Navy Installations Command, I 

have experienced firsthand the challenges and the opportunities 

across the shore domain. I have made it a priority to connect with 

our operational commanders and sailors to witness firsthand the 

direct impact our installations have on readiness. I have been impressed by the dedication and commitment to delivering the quality 

support we provide to our fleet, our sailors, and the Navy family. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Smith, Admiral Jackson, and Captain Schager can be found in the Appendix on page 

36.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Admiral Smith. I appreciate that perspective. 

I want to begin by asking, what categories and types of installation services are most important for the Navy in raising and sustaining readiness? 

And, as you point out, with infrastructure investment being 

below target goals, being below OSD goals, what does the Navy do 

to prioritize where the limited dollars go as far as sustaining Navy 

readiness? So if you can give us an idea, across which types of facilities, which areas do you target the dollars that you do have in 

order to do the most to sustain readiness? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

So our top priorities are sustaining that fleet readiness and also 

our strategic deterrent triad. So we focus and make sure that we 

are funding our nuclear weapons facilities, making sure that they 
5 

are fully where they need to be, and then also things that take care 

of that fleet readiness, so our shipyards and depots. We ensure that 

they are getting the resources they need to bring them back to 

where they need to go. 

We also focus on other critical operations, so our communications 

stations, our runways, supporting facilities for our airfields and our 

ports. At the same time, we also need to make sure that we are 

taking care of our fire and security assets. 

And then we go look at our quality-of-life programs, again, making sure that we are funding the first ones that I mentioned in my 

opening comments—child care and the quality-of-life programs. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Admiral Smith. 

I am going to go down to Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you said in your testimony, Admiral, the fiscal constraints 

have required commanders at the Pentagon and the field to 

prioritize critical maintenance and operational readiness needs 

against deferring less pressing restoration projects. So, as you note, 

that is not a sustainable solution in the long term. 

Could you elaborate on the broader impacts on future readiness 

and quality of life for our sailors that result from deferring noncritical costs? 

Admiral SMITH. So, when we take risk now, we are pushing that 

risk out. And so we keep an eye on that very closely. And that longterm risk, as we move towards that, that becomes then what we 

focus on. So what we are putting ourselves into is a reactive mode, 

and we don’t as much look forward and are ahead of the problem 

and prioritize. We become reactive. 

So we get to the point now where we don’t fix things, repair facilities, infrastructure that we know is coming required until it 

breaks. And so that means we take money away from things that 

we program for to fix the now. 

If it is an operational necessity or if it is an air conditioning system in a child development center [CDC]—I mean, we just had, 

this week, a boiler system go down for a child development center. 

And so we weren’t expecting that, so we took those funds from 

something else to get that facility back up to take care of our families and get those kids back in that CDC. 

Lou, I don’t know if you want to extrapolate on that down at the 

installation level. 

Captain SCHAGER. Yes, sir. 

I agree with Admiral, in that oftentimes it feels like we are treating symptoms and not the root problem. 

And I think the long-term sustainability of, for example, hangars 

at Oceana, we have a project that is correcting some issues at one 

of our hangars currently. That will be done within a couple 

months. All the hangars have issues and challenges. A lot of roofs 

are leaking. We have some fire protection challenges, some—AFFF, 

which is a foam used to fight aircraft-specific fires, we have some 

challenges in the hangars for that. 

And so we have mitigated that risk by having maintainers aware 

of those challenges. They communicate with the fire department, 

our own fire department, before they do specific kind of mainte-
6 

nance that could affect that. And so that is how we mitigate those 

kind of risks. 

However, if I had enough money to repair all of the hangars 

right now, I couldn’t do it, because right now we shifted squadrons 

to other hangars, so there is not room, there is not capacity to 

move all these squadrons around while repairing hangars. We can 

do one at a time. 

And so that is why it is really crucial to have a plan laid out 

where it is predictable and the commodore can count on this hangar being repaired at this time, so when the squadron returns from 

deployment they can get back into their training cycle. 

And so I think, segueing or continuing on with admiral’s 

thoughts, I think if we don’t have that sustained programmatic 

funding, I think it will exponentially get more difficult to manage 

those risks as we continue on. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, Rear Admiral. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, if I could just also add, from a regional perspective, our process by which we are aware of the 

projects that are needed, either because of life cycle or because of 

degradations over a period of time and our condition indexes are 

low, we have a process by which we know that and we rack and 

stack and we work very closely with our warfighters, our warfare 

enterprises, to make sure that we have that awareness. 

But, as the installation commander pointed out, there is only so 

much to go around. And so what happens is, although we have a 

plan, for example, to change out an entire system, a chiller system 

at a dry dock or HVACs [heating, ventilating, and air conditioning] 

at missile processing plants, we end up dealing with the breakages 

that occur. 

So we will fix pieces and parts rather than holistically, when the 

whole system needs to be fixed. And so we then get hit twice, because we do the small repair, but then we still have to do the 

longer, big repair to get us back to where we need to be. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I certainly couldn’t agree with all of you 

more, because the minute you neglect maintenance, you are in 

trouble. 

But as a follow-up, facility sustainment has taken the biggest hit 

in infrastructure and base support investments since sequestration 

became the law of the land. So, as we work to restore regular order 

and provide future-year fiscal awareness, I was encouraged by 

progress in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, which took steps 

to address critical maintenance needs, particularly within the facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts. 

What steps do you see or anticipate being taken to implement 

the April 2014 OSD facility sustainment policy memorandum, particularly to meet the 90 percent sustainment requirement? 

Admiral. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. So the sustainment levels that we 

are getting right now will just reduce the decline. So, as you indicated, we are being funded to less than the 90 percent that OSD 

desires. Our facilities right now have a Facility Condition Index 

code of just over 80 percent. With the current funding level, that 

is going to decrease at .5 percent a year, so we are going to be at 
7 

a 2.5 percent decrease by the end of this FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. 

So the funding that we have received is slowing that decline, but 

we are still declining. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

We will now go to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And my question gets to demolition of obsolete buildings. How 

many buildings does the Navy currently have that are considered 

obsolete? 

Admiral SMITH. I will have to take that for the record. For the 

total Navy, I don’t know that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 47.] 

Admiral SMITH. Mary or Lou, do you know specific numbers for 

your installation or region? 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know approximately? 

Captain SCHAGER. Sir, I can tell you, this fiscal year—and thanking the committee, because I think Oceana has been a benefactor 

of identifying some needs, but we have demolition money this year 

of just over $2 million. 

We have some facilities, I think seven, that are going to be 

demoed. And those are not large facilities, you know. Those encompass a variety of things that will help create some efficiencies in 

how we operate on the installation. 

Mr. SCOTT. And I know you were taking it for the record. I would 

also like to know how many were demolished last year. 

It seems to me that a tremendous amount of money could be 

saved if we were more aggressive in the disposal properties that we 

know are obsolete instead of maintaining them to any standard 

when we are not going to use them. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. No, and I will get you that number, but 

you are correct. So, in a pressurized fiscal budget, where we have 

to make decisions, there are plenty of facilities that we would like 

to demolish. We are not demolishing those because we have to take 

that money and put it elsewhere. 

So, some years in the past few years, we have had a zeroed-out 

account. Others, we have less demolition funds than we would like 

to be able to demo. And, as you point out, while we put them in 

lay-up, there are still things we need to do to maintain them, plus 

they are eyesores and all the other things that come with dilapidated buildings. 

So we are not demoing what we need to demo. We are increasing 

and inheriting a backlog on that, and it is increasing. And I will 

get you the specifics on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think one of the things that would be helpful to the 

committee, as well, is, certainly in the private sector, what you 

would look at is how much am I going to pay to maintain that facility to any standard versus what does it cost for me to demolish it 

and how many years does it take for me to get the payback to go 

ahead and get rid of the building. And, certainly, if your return on 
8 

that is over the course of 2 or 3 years, it makes a lot of sense to 

go ahead and get rid of the building. 

But those are the issues that I would appreciate some additional 

details on. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, other than that, thank you for your service 

and—— 

Admiral SMITH. Mary? 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Thank you for being here today. 

Admiral JACKSON. Sir, if I may add, from a regional perspective, 

when we are talking about demolition—and I don’t have the exact 

numbers, and we will provide that. But, predominantly, when we 

are talking about demolition, we are in those facilities and using 

them for the requirements as best we can. And in many cases—I 

won’t say all, but the preponderance—it is because we want to demolish and then replace it. Because the requirement still stands. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Admiral JACKSON. It has evolved. Perhaps—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. 

Admiral JACKSON [continuing]. There has been a mission growth 

that we need to address. But it is not as easy as taking the building completely down to the ground and not being able to replace 

it, because the requirements are still very real. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. If it is obsolete, you would assume that it was 

vacated. If it is obsolete and not vacated, then that is a different 

scenario. So maybe you could break it down between the ones that 

are vacated and the ones that are not vacated. 

One last question. How much do we spend—you probably can’t 

quantify this. How much are we spending in addition on repairs 

and maintenance because of the bid process, where you are forced 

to take the lowest bid instead of the best bid, if you will, from the 

best contractor, when the original building, facility, is built? 

Admiral SMITH. You are correct; I am not sure how I can quantify that. And that is something I am going to have to go dig into 

and analyze. 

You are right, we go with the lowest bid. How does that impact 

the product we get and what follow-on repairs maybe we have to 

have? I don’t know. I will have to go do some analysis on that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 47.] 

Mr. SCOTT. I spoke to a contractor in an airport one time, and 

he suggested that he was making a very good living doing the repairs on buildings because of the DOD [Department of Defense] 

rules forcing the cheapest bid to be accepted instead of the best 

contractor being allowed to do the job. 

And I just wonder if there is a way that we could put some flexibility in there, where, when we had contractors that we had 

worked with, that we knew delivered a high-quality product, that 

we could select them based on their product and their quality that 

we knew they had instead of being forced to take the lowest bid. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I appreciate that. 

I know that Chairman Thornberry, especially in the hearing yesterday, is very committed to that exact concept of best value as 
9 

part of acquisition and making sure that we are looking at lifecycle 

cost, not just the initial cost, but the lifecycle cost. So I think that 

is an important point. It is certainly something we are going to continue to focus on. 

Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

We will now go to Mr. Peters. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses. 

I want to give my special greetings to Admiral Smith. San Diego 

sends its warm greetings to you and to Kiki, as well. So, good to 

see you. 

You know, just speaking of my hometown, we have been battered 

through this El Nin ̃ o storm by amazing records of levels of rain and 

weather patterns. We had a tornado warning in central San Diego 

for the first time that anyone can remember. 

It occurs to me that there are always challenges in all the waterside properties that you have, but I wonder if you feel like we are 

where we need to be with respect to storm water and maintenance 

in the face of these kind of extreme weather events, if there is anything we should be doing together to help you with these kind of 

sudden, unexpected weather events that we seem to be seeing. 

Admiral SMITH. Thank you, sir. And I will ask the skipper at 

Oceana to go to a tactical level here in a second. 

But you are talking to our utility systems and storm water falls 

in our utility systems, or whether you are talking steam plants or 

energy or electricity, and that is an area that has been neglected 

over the years. And so we now have a process where we, enterprise-wide, rack and stack those from each of the installations and 

then prioritize those at the enterprise level to start getting those 

recapitalized across each of the installations. 

As you know, back at Coronado several years ago, we lost a 14- 

inch water main. That was a World War II water main. And that 

caused some challenges there at Coronado several years ago. And 

that is another example where we weren’t expecting that and had 

to shift funds that were programmed to go fix something else and 

get that waterline fixed so we could get that base up and operating. 

Lou, do you have specifics down at the installation? 

Captain SCHAGER. Good morning, sir. Thanks for the question. 

At Oceana, I am also responsible for Dam Neck Annex, which is 

about 21⁄2 miles of beach line, and so we regularly think about the 

effects of major storms, including hurricanes. This last year, we 

have spent over $7 million on a shore protection system, fortifying 

and bringing sand from a couple miles out, providing that barrier 

that we need for our installation, as well as doing small things like 

planting trees. My natural resources director, I think, has planted 

over 40,000—not herself, with other folks—along the beach line 

that help prevent that erosion. 

Further inland, with our infrastructure, it is—you know, Oceana 

came about in 1943, so I imagine a lot of the piping and the sewer 

is quite old, and that is something we are going to keep a close eye 

on as we continue. 

Mr. PETERS. You know, one of the first things we did after I was elected to Congress, we voted $60 billion off budget to deal with 

Hurricane Sandy. No one likes spending that kind of money. You 
10 

sort of get to a point where, when you are reacting, there is nothing you can do; you have to react. But we looked a lot into, you 

know, what to do about that and how to be prepared. And, in general, we found that for every dollar you spend on preparedness you 

save about $4 on cleanup, whether it is FEMA [Federal Emergency 

Management Agency] or the Small Business—probably the Navy 

too. 

So I guess what I am interested is, do you feel like we have a 

plan going forward, sort of, in general to prepare for these kinds 

of things to make sure that our bases, in particular, are prepared 

for these kinds of things so that they don’t cost so much on the 

back end for cleanup? 

Admiral SMITH. We have a plan, and we try to get after that 

plan. When you go down to the discussion we had up front of what 

our priorities are, those priorities for resiliency of the base from a 

utility perspective, while obviously very important and critical, 

don’t rise to the same level of making sure we get ships underway, 

aircraft off the deck, submarines away from the pier, and making 

sure that our strategic assets are properly protected. 

And so they are important; we work at them. We are not working 

at them at the rate we would like to, but we have a plan to get 

after them. 

Mr. PETERS. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 

And, also, you know, we are trying to figure out how to fit some 

destroyers into San Diego, too, and you have a lot of things to balance. So I appreciate that the issue is difficult. If there are things 

that we can work together on along those lines, I would be appreciative knowing, particularly around NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] time, how we can plan ahead a little bit, make 

sure that we are ready. 

And, again, thanks for coming, and thank you all for your service. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Peters. 

We will now go to Ms. Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I represent the Kenneth A. Kesselring nuclear reactor training 

site located in Saratoga County, New York, and, as you know, the 

infrastructure investment at this site is critical to DOD’s successful 

training mission, which directly impacts our national security. 

The unique training and R&D [research and development] missions of the Kesselring site demand sustainable infrastructure, facilities and equipment to train Navy sailors on how to safely operate nuclear reactors that power Navy submarines. And, thankfully, 

Congress recently fully funded this important infrastructure program, which maintains the viability of the site and enables an effective mission and distinctive capability to continue. 

But what concerns me is the method of moving funds that are 

already allocated to infrastructure and are being redirected to operations, which could be deemed a higher priority. And, as I see it, 

this can have significant impact on our Navy’s readiness. 

So, Vice Admiral Smith, my question is: To what extent do you 

anticipate the method of redirecting funds from sustainment accounts over to other priorities? How much will this continue to 
11 

occur? And is there a potential for this redirecting to directly have 

an impact on the readiness of nuclear training locations such as 

the Kesselring site? 

Admiral SMITH. Thank you, ma’am. 

As you indicated, Kesselring is funded—that is a Department of 

Energy facility, as you know and are aware, and that has been 

fully funded. 

When funds are shifted from the maintenance to the operational, 

we, again, go back to that priorities and making sure that it does 

not impact or affect the nuclear triad and the strategic facilities 

and requirements we need to meet. So that is our number-one priority. 

And up there, from a quality-of-life perspective, which we have 

right now, we make sure that the quality-of-life mission is being 

met up there at Saratoga Springs and Kesselring. 

So the funds do get shifted out; that is when we go to our priority 

list and make sure that we are meeting our top-line requirements 

and then work down our priority list. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Great. 

So, you know, you mentioned this earlier, and you sort of touched 

on this in your response. You said you have taken a deliberate level 

of risk on base operating support functions. So how are unique substantial nuclear training locations like Kesselring prioritized when 

making such a consideration? 

Admiral SMITH. They are at the—I can’t say they are at the top 

of the list. They are at the high end of the list. Specifically where 

they fall out, I don’t know off the top of my head here, but we pay 

close attention to them, because, obviously, we have to make sure 

those crews are properly trained to be able to do their mission at 

sea. And if we do not provide the resources, the facilities, the instructors, and the curriculum to properly train them, they are not 

going to be ready to do their job, their mission at sea. 

And so we focus on that very closely so when those strategic assets leave port and go to sea to do the mission they are ready to 

execute and carry that out on a moment’s notice. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Great. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Stefanik. 

We will now go to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly want to join my colleague in welcoming all of you 

here today but particularly Admiral Smith for the exceptional work 

that he did in San Diego. And I know, as you might know too, 

when you are in charge of a Navy Region Southwest, Southeast, 

you are really the Navy mayor for the city. And that makes a big 

difference to San Diegans. 

And I think that what was striking and, I think, always encouraging was the support for the men and women who serve in our 

Navy and really being focused on the quality of life. And I know, 

within that context, it must be especially discouraging when you 

say in the statement that, you know, you see some readiness disparities in the living conditions for sailors who are unaccompanied 

and those who are residing in family housing. And you note that 
12 

there are 50 percent readiness disparities for sailors living in the 

barracks and 77 percent for those residing in family housing. 

So how do we square that, I guess? What can we do to balance 

the cost of modernizing the barracks while maintaining the safety 

of our most valuable asset, and, of course, that is the sailors below 

the—above—I am sorry—the 50 percent level? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. I am going to ask the 

skipper to talk a little bit about specifics at Oceana and what he 

is doing with his barracks there. 

But before I yield to him, as we focus on those top-line priorities, 

we also need to focus on the quality of life, as you mention, with 

barracks and housing. And so we do take care of those, not as fast 

as we would like because of the funding challenges. And so that 

timeline to get them to the quality that we want is taking longer 

than we desire, but we are systematically moving through those. 

Lou has got some barracks that he has programmed to work 

right now, and so I would ask Lou to talk specifics at his installation—number of facilities you have and which ones you are getting 

fixed and what that means from a timeline perspective. 

Captain SCHAGER. Yes, sir. 

Thanks, ma’am, for the question. 

At Oceana, we have 13 barracks. Currently, 10 of them are rated 

substandard. I will say that we have a new barracks that is being 

built, a $30 million MILCON [military construction] project that we 

are very grateful for. That should be on line in March. Of those 10, 

we have 5 that are currently being programed and funded to get 

rectified and bring back up. 

And the moniker I use around Oceana, as far as when I look at 

public works and installations, we look at roofs, boilers, chillers, 

and fire protection. And that is kind of the mantra, and that is 

what we look at. So when we look at the barracks, those are the 

things that we are looking at to make sure are working, because 

we want our sailors and marines to have hot water in the morning. 

When it is hot out, we want them to come back after an 18-hour 

day on the fly line to be able to go back into a cool room. 

So, although we have still have a ways to go, I think that goes 

to the thought that we need to have a systematic, programmatic 

way of making sure these funding streams continue so that all of 

these barracks for the sailors and marines are brought back up to 

standard. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

Admiral. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, regionally, as the installation CO 

[commanding officer] articulated, we make sure we understand the 

condition of all of our unaccompanied housing and have projects on 

the books to be able to work through modernization of those. 

I would like to give you an example of a case where we worked 

through a situation where some of our rooms and unaccompanied 

housing—in this case, it was at New Orleans—where, because of 

some mold and some ventilation problems, we had to take the 

rooms off line. We just cannot have people in those rooms, so we 

took them off line. And we didn’t have the inventory of additional 

rooms, and it had a direct impact to the operational forces that are 

working out in New Orleans. 
13 

So we had to recode Navy Gateway Inns and Suites rooms, essentially hotel rooms, to be able to move those service members 

into those rooms, the Navy Gateway Inns and Suites rooms, until 

we were able to put a repair for ventilation and address the environmental issues in our UH [unaccompanied housing]. 

So we didn’t fix the problem, again, holistically, but we put a 

Band-Aid repair. And we did that by working very closely with our 

customer, talking to them about their throughput of personnel, and 

then also making sure that we were taking care of them. So sometimes it is about moving people and rooms around on the chessboard. The same thing occurs with hangars when hangars go down. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Admiral SMITH. So I would just add, so that is a great example 

of how we continue to meet the mission when these kind of challenges pop. So we didn’t put any single sailors out on the street. 

Admiral Jackson, her team down at the base in New Orleans, took 

care of them. What we ended up doing is folks that would have 

used the on-base hotel, if you will, now had to go to a hotel out in 

town. 

So, not optimal, but it took care of our sailors, ensured they were 

being taken care of until we got the problem resolved, and then we 

were able to bring them back into the barracks. And we do that 

in all our mission areas all the time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We will now go to Mr. Russell. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for your service and testimony here today. 

In the 2016 NDAA, we were careful to, on the overseas contingency dollars, to try to make them more fungible so that, if they 

could be directly related to contingency support, you might have 

some flexibility at your installations for that support. And you 

spoke here about hangars, COMMs [communications], airfields. I 

mean, those are mission-essential elements that we see there. 

Can you speak to the impact that that may have, or will you be 

able to make good on some of that? 

Admiral SMITH. I am going to have to go look and see exactly 

where we are spending our OCO [overseas contingency operations] 

dollars. I don’t know where we are dividing those and specifically 

where we are using that budget line, at what resources, at what 

facilities to take care of. So I owe you that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 48.] 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. 

Admiral JACKSON. Sir, in fiscal year 2011 and 2012, in my region, the Southeast Region, we were dependent on OCO. It was in 

the millions. And, last year, we were at half a million in OCO 

funds, and it went into my port OPS [operations] program, primarily for contracts to take care of some of the BOS [base operating support] support at my ports. 

So that will give you an example. I think we have worked hard 

to not be dependent on OCO, and that is where we have been moving. 
14 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yeah, we would all like to not be dependent on 

OCO, but I think, you know, in a bipartisan fashion, what we saw 

was that there was a need, and we tried to provide a little flexibility. It is baling wire and duct tape, but, you know, maybe it can 

go. 

You spoke on quality of life, and, having spent a career in the 

military, I understand how important that is, especially during 

deployments. Can you address that specifically, what your concerns 

are on the shortfalls? Because it is not often addressed; it is usually last on the list. And I would be interested in your thoughts 

there. 

Admiral SMITH. So, when sequestration occurred, we had to reduce a lot of our quality-of-life facilities. So we reduced hours in 

the gyms. We reduced hours in our single-sailor facilities. We have 

now been able to buy some of that back, but when the budget 

starts getting pressurized more, that is where we go. So we still 

provide gym hours, we still provide the resource, we just don’t provide the volume of it. 

Just this year, we have gone back and increased our gym hours 

an additional 4 hours every day. That has been very well received. 

We are increasing right now some of our CDC hours. Our singlesailor hours have come back. 

And so we watch that closely. I really watch that in our facilities 

that, what I refer to as over the horizon, so not metro areas, where 

there is not much to do outside the gate. We also, from a prioritization standpoint, focus overseas, focus in remote areas, and then 

focus in the metro areas. 

Lou, you can probably give a couple examples at the installation 

level of how you focus on quality of life and how you prioritize what 

you do and don’t do. 

Captain SCHAGER. Thanks for the question, sir. 

I know that for Fleet and Family Support Center services, those 

are crucial for quality of life for our sailors and their families. That 

peace of mind, when a sailor or marine is deployed, that their family can go to a resource which they know they can get support. 

I know recently the Navy has initiated two programs that I think 

are wonderful—the Navy Wounded Warrior Safe Harbor Program, 

the Navy Gold Star Program—two programs that are very, very 

important, as you know. But I think it is a zero-sum, and a program that we are in the process of phasing out is the Relocation 

Assistance Program. 

So, in a perfect world, we would be able to keep all of these programs for these families, but we know that that is not the reality. 

And how do we mitigate that? Well, we ask other entities on our 

installation to see if they can assist in managing that Relocation 

Assistance Program. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And you bring up a good point on the mitigation. 

In fact, there is a lot of political hay made about, you know, why 

do we have commissaries, why do we have base exchanges, why do 

we have those sorts of things. But I don’t think there is a clear 

understanding, the impact of those dollars that come in to the 

MWR [Morale, Welfare, and Recreation] programs. And if you have 

sailors in a gym, they are fit sailors. That affects readiness. 

And so could you speak to that a little bit? 
15 

Captain SCHAGER. I know for a fact that our sailors love, and 

their families, love the activities that we have on the installation. 

My MWR team is very robust, and whether it is family fests we 

have quarterly or events around the holidays, especially for those 

families whose husbands or wives are deployed or children are deployed, it goes a long way and provides that great peace of mind. 

So I do think they are invaluable, and they are a great part in 

making sure that readiness is there. Speaking from firsthand experience, I know that when I am flying combat missions over Afghanistan what allows me to do that comfortably is know that my family is well cared for back home, both within the fence line of 

Oceana as well as outside the fence line in the community of Virginia Beach, which is wonderful. We have a wonderful relationship 

with the community there. 

Admiral JACKSON. So we have an expectation that our commanding officers are getting a pulse on what their tenant commands need. And sometimes it is hard to quantify whether they 

are happy and getting the resources that they need. So that happens through the communications, the constant drumbeat with the 

tenants, making sure through tenant command meetings, through 

the senior enlisted command master chiefs, whether or not they are 

getting what they need. 

And then we tailor it. So Admiral Smith talked about what we 

might do at an over-the-horizon location because of where they are. 

Maybe they are remote; maybe they have better resources in town. 

And so then we can also tailor that and modify it. We have the 

ability to modify maybe the hours or the services they are getting 

or provide more of one thing, like more outdoor recreational facilities because of where they are versus another. 

And then another layer to that is what we do outside with the 

community and those relationships with the community and building support so that it is not just very insular at the installation but 

it is layered. And we get amazing support from all of our communities, but it is about our team getting out there and educating and 

making those relationships. 

Admiral SMITH. If I may? 

So I have had the privilege of visiting 69 of our 70 installations. 

And if you want to just kind of bin what I focus on when I go out 

and spend a day at an installation is I look at—I go and say, I 

want to see your worst stuff, I want to see what you are most 

proud of, and I want to see your quality-of-life stuff. And so I get 

into the gyms, I go to the Fleet and Family Service Center, I go 

to Navy-Marine Corps Relief. 

I want to see that stuff, I want to understand it, because we are 

pressurized and we have challenges. And I want to know that installation X has got a challenge and installation Y has got a challenge, and I want to know which challenge is worse, because that 

is the one I am going to go out and focus on and get fixed. 

And then, you know, we also look in remote areas. So, as we go 

back to Saratoga Springs, we don’t have a gym on that facility, so 

we have a partnership with the YMCA there locally, and we buy 

a membership for our sailors and their families. Because I want to 

make sure that they can be out in the community, I want to make 

sure that they can have a place for their kids to do stuff, they can 
16 

go to the gym. I can’t do that on the base, so we do that at the 

YMCA. 

So we focus on that very carefully wherever we are to make sure 

our families are being taken care of. We are an All-Volunteer Navy, 

we are an All-Volunteer Force. We have to provide for our sailors 

and our families. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. 

Admiral Smith, I am trying to again sort of get the timeline of 

the 2013 budget resolution, the one we just passed in the fall, the 

omnibus, and just sort of how that sort of is, you know, flowing into 

your decision-making process. 

Again, you just described a moment ago how you were able to restore some gym hours, which I guess was probably sometime in 

2015? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So, obviously, you are still living with, you know, 

the 2-year 2013 budget resolution and the prior omnibus. So now 

we have a new omnibus that is, you know, 3 weeks old. 

And just, again, if you could just sort of tease that out a little 

bit in terms of what you are anticipating. Or have you digested it 

yet, even? 

Admiral SMITH. So there are some things we have been able to 

buy back. So I had mentioned we take risk in grounds maintenance. We have bought back some grounds maintenance. 

Grounds maintenance isn’t just necessarily about how pretty the 

base looks, which I think is important because if it looks good, you 

work good, but it is also important around our airfields. He is very 

concerned about his ground maintenance around the airfields, because if we are not maintaining that ground, it brings in rodents, 

it brings in birds, it brings in air strikes, and that becomes a safety 

and a mission impact. 

So we have been able to buy that back a little bit. We have been 

able to buy back some of the hours in the gym. We have been able 

to buy back some of the hours in our child development centers. So 

it is not huge gains; it is incremental gains. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Can you give, like, a percentage? I mean, is it, 

like, half? 

Admiral SMITH. Expand that a little more. 

Mr. COURTNEY. In terms of—you are saying ‘‘gains.’’ You know, 

I mean, obviously, you are sort of using, like—— 

Admiral SMITH. Right. So let’s just use the gym for example. And 

my hours may be off just a little bit. I think we were at 96 hours 

a week. We have gone up to 112. That is an example. 

Childcare was 12. We are trying to go to 16; in some places, we 

are going to 14. So it is a couple hours here, a couple hours there. 

But, in the case of child care, if you have someone that has to be 

at work at 5 o’clock in the morning and the CDC is not open at 

5 o’clock in the morning—— 

Mr. COURTNEY. That is a problem. 
17 

Admiral SMITH. They weren’t open at 5 o’clock in the morning before. They were open at 6. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. 

Admiral SMITH. But we are now starting to slowly roll out getting them opened at 5. And I can’t just turn a switch and do that, 

because I have to do the hiring process, I have to do the training, 

I have to do the security vetting, but we are slowly working that. 

But, again, it is small stuff, but it does make a difference to the 

quality of life for our families. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And I think probably, you know, having these 

nail-biting, you know, moments when we finally get stuff done 

doesn’t make it any easier for you in terms of planning. But, as I 

said, we finally now have an omnibus in place, so, you know, the 

horizon is clear at least till October 1. And then we have a budget 

resolution that actually goes into 2017. 

Admiral SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So, you know, again, in terms of just your job, 

you know, I mean, are you in a better place than you were in 2014? 

Admiral SMITH. I am in a better place. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay. 

Admiral, you look like you want to jump in. 

Admiral JACKSON. I would just like to add, so we get the operating report from the CNIC [Commander, Navy Installations Command] down to the region, and it gives us predictability. It gives 

us the ability to articulate to our tenants what operating levels 

they can expect. It kind of takes out that angst of not really knowing what type and what level of services, the common operating 

level of services that they might get. So we are able to articulate 

that, and then there is a better understanding, and that is good. 

It also gives us the ability to stay on line with preventive maintenance. We are still, though, in reactive mode often. But that predictability planning and then planning our projects, having them 

on the shelf and ready so that we can execute early as opposed to 

waiting, waiting, waiting, and then getting inside the turning radius and not being ability to execute, is also very valuable. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, again, the 2-year budget resolution I think 

was a healthy move forward, and hopefully we can continue that 

without torturing you guys. 

And, Admiral, again, you are welcome to come up to Groton, to, 

you know, your old stomping grounds anytime. 

Admiral SMITH. So I was up there last winter, and I will be up 

there the Thursday before Easter visiting the base. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Awesome. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. 

We will now go to Mrs. Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to each of you for your service. I appreciate what 

you do. 

I was wondering, given the trend of funding, that MILCON accounts below the model’s requirement over the past few years, 

what level of investment and over what period of time do you think 

will be necessary to fully restore the readiness of our installations 

and our facilities? 
18 

Admiral SMITH. The current funding level is not going to be able 

to fully restore our installations. There is very little military construction dollars coming. The amount that we get budgeted for does 

not meet the requirement that we have. 

So, while the budget we have now is helping us make progress 

and moving forward, it does not meet the need that we have over 

the long term. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. You indicated that earlier and that you are decreasing—you have 90—below 90 percent, and you talked about an 

index of 80 and something about it is decreasing at 21⁄2 percent or 

something. I don’t remember those numbers. 

But can you give us the dollar amount? How much money would 

you want Congress to invest in this infrastructure in order to help 

make up the shortfall and to help you catch back up to where you 

need to be? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. Can I get back to you on that? 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 47.] 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sure. 

Admiral. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, maybe I can give you some numbers 

that we have looked at in our region. 

So, in Region Southeast, we have 16,000 facilities. Of those facili- ties, the plant replacement value for those facilities is $23.3 billion. 

I have condition indices for all of those facilities. And the percentage by value of those facilities that are in the ‘‘poor’’ or ‘‘failing’’ 

category is 42 percent. So 42 percent of $23.3 billion, and then what you need to get 

them better, will give you a rough idea. But that is a number that 

I have for you. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. I look forward to getting those figures, because 

that is certainly very important, that we have at least an idea of 

the goal of what is needed to fully have our infrastructure where 

it needs to be. So that is very helpful. 

And just as we go out and talk to the public and others about 

this, reduced readiness and the concerns we have had with the 

budget cuts, it really helps to have those specific examples that we 

can use. 

And I appreciate your example, Captain, about the hangar issue. 

That makes sense, as people come back from deployment, to be 

able to get in there. 

But can you give me some more specific examples of a decrease 

in readiness of our Navy because they haven’t had the money that 

you have needed for the infrastructure investments that we have? 

So if you could give me three or four examples like the hangar one, 

that would be helpful. 

Admiral SMITH. So Mr. Courtney just left, but I can give one up 

at New London. So Pier 15 up there, which is the pier that we have 

the floating dry dock at, we did our periodic inspection and found 

it was more deteriorated than we thought, so we had to take that 

pier off line. 

We have mitigations in place in case we have to do an emergency 

dry docking. We will now to go Electric Boat. We will lease their 
19 

floating dry dock if we have to put a submarine in dry dock up 

there in an emergency. 

We want to get that thing back on line as soon as possible, you 

know, for the next scheduled dry docking, so we are fixing that. 

But we have taken those resources from other things that we 

would have gone and fixed of lesser importance to get that pier 

back. 

So we are still meeting mission, but we are deferring maintenance on something else, because that was an unexpected challenge that popped up. We realized that is a top-priority challenge 

because I have to get the pier fixed so I can use that floating dry 

dock. And so that is what we are going after. 

That is an example. I know, Mary, you have a couple. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, in Kings Bay, the Trident Refit Facility has a dry dock, and we have chillers in that dry dock that are 

critical to the ability of the dry dock to operate. And the chillers 

have reached the end of their life cycle, need to be upgraded. And 

we didn’t have the money to be able to update the chillers and do 

all the controllers with it. 

So we replaced a chiller, but we are not able to replace the supporting controllers. So we are in a condition right now where we 

often have to operate those chillers manually as opposed to the way 

they were originally and ideally designed. So that is one example. 

Another example that will drill down to some specific numbers 

is I have—every naval aviator that is going through training goes 

through my region to one of my installations, so a lot of naval aviation training. One of my biggest customers is the Chief of Naval 

Air Training. 

So my airfields, such as Whiting, Jacksonville, Meridian, we are 

looking at everything from pavement indices, whether the pavement on the runways is appropriate, hangar facilities, just envelopes of buildings. 

So an example in Pensacola is that we have a hangar suppression system that is not operating. Again, it is towards the end of 

its life cycle. It had Band-Aid repairs to it. In the past 4 years, we 

have had it dump, suppress, eight times, which is not ideal to happen on aircraft, causes problems to the warfighter directly. So that 

means we have to not use those portions of the hangar. And that 

correlates to 17 percent less available space for those training 

wings that are trying to operate out of those hangars. 

So that is an example that has some specific numbers. Thank 

you, ma’am. 

Admiral SMITH. So I can give you another airfield example at 

Naval Station Norfolk, where the AMC [Air Mobility Command] 

terminal is the apron there. That is a part of the apron that needs 

to be repaired. It has challenges. But we can make it work, because 

the sailors and airmen go out every morning and do a walk-down 

of the apron for 35, 40 minutes, 25 sailors, airmen, to go out and 

do that. So they go out and police it, make sure there is no foreign 

object or debris on the apron, and then we can use their apron. 

But that is 45 minutes of an individual that is going out and 

doing that instead of something else, instead of training or making—whatever, repairs, maintenance. And so we make it work, but 

that is a project that we would like to get—will eventually get 
20 

funded, but right now it doesn’t meet the priority, so it is impacting 

the sailors and the airmen. 

And, Lou, I know you have an example. 

Captain SCHAGER. Thanks for the question, ma’am. 

At Dam Neck Annex, we have a facility, the Navy-Marine Corps 

Intelligence Training Center. It is where information dominance 

sailors, information warfare specialists are training. And, in the 

last year, fiscal year 2015, we had 57 calls that the fire department 

had to respond to. And these weren’t fires. These were various 

things like water leaks, they were orders, they were sensor faults. 

Each time that call goes out, you have to have all these students 

leaving the building. It is disrupting their training. We mitigated 

that, of course. You know, the instructors and the sailors and the 

students eventually got their training done, and they are executing 

very well out in the fleet right now. 

But, in the short term, we are putting a Band-Aid on it. We have 

a couple hundred thousand dollars going this year to help those fire 

protection systems as well as others, but it is a $12 million unfunded project to really, truly fix the problem and not treat the 

symptom. And that is another example. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler. 

We will now go to Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate our witnesses here today. Thank you for your leadership and your families for their sacrifice. 

Much of what I was interested in has been addressed, specifically 

with regard to base operations and quality of life and the impact 

on retention of high-quality sailors and marines. But perhaps we 

can put a finer point on it. Let me frame it. I would be very interested in your feedback. 

Is there any specific data and analysis of the stress that you 

have done well communicating in terms of impacts on retention 

and maybe a little bit more on systemic programs you have in 

terms of getting feedback? Some of that has been addressed, but 

if there is anything more you want to mention in terms of how you 

get the feedback from your sailors and marines. 

And then with regard to specific programs, we have heard today 

about housing, child development, MWR, single sailor, and that 

was helpful to get that report. And particularly, thank you for 

being creative in your support of families. You talked about the 

YMCA membership. That is very helpful. 

I am thinking in terms of one of the things I remember from the 

Army is—which in some ways we were gaining in some of the experiences that you guys deal with forever, and that is the repetitive 

deployments. And, you know, one of the ways the Army addressed 

that is we had this program, ‘‘Building Strong and Ready Families,’’ where after a deployment, a family would actually be funded 

to do an off-site. And, you know, the family would go together. It 

would be a nice place either by the water or maybe up in the 

mountains, and there would be, then, experts who would come in 

and help with the reintegration process. Chaplains would head this 

program, and they had counselors that came in and just a lot of 

insight. It was very helpful. 
21 

And then, similarly, we brought forward a program that had, 

like, life counselors that were brought onto base to help particularly the younger folks just dealing with the stress of everything 

that is going on. So I am interested in, you know, perhaps some 

thoughts on that. 

And then also, finally, schools, any impact in terms of any of 

that. So really sort of an open-ended question to pursue a lot of, 

I think, the great testimony you have already brought forward on 

quality of life, but maybe with a little finer point on how that is 

impacting retention. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. Thank you. So I am going to defer to 

Lou in a couple of minutes to talk specifically how he works at the 

installation, and he has a process in place to do that to get the 

feedback that you asked for, but much like you describe for the 

Army, it is—Force Master Chief right back here, on the deck 

plates, out and about talking to sailors, talking to families. It is me 

out and about talking. It is all of us out and about talking to our 

sailors and getting that feedback: How are things going? What are 

the challenges? What do you need? We have our Fleet and Family 

Service Centers. We do return and reunion seminars on all our— 

with our squadrons and our ships when they come back for reintegration. Much like you have offsites, we have a CREDO [Chaplain’s Religious Enrichment Development Operation] program 

where our families can sign up and go spend a weekend on whatever specific topics are that that CREDO is focused toward. 

In our schools, you know, we have our school liaison officer program that helps transitioning families from one location to another, 

getting them integrated into the school. The program is working 

superbly, from my perspective, right now, very good. 

So what I am giving you are informal processes to get that feedback to understand what the pressures are on our families, what 

the challenges, concerns are, so then we can go off and attack 

them, bring up, start up new programs so our programs are working correctly in our Fleet and Family Service Center. 

What I would do is I would ask Lou now to talk specifics how 

he gets feedback on his tenants on the issues and challenges that 

he has seen at Oceana. 

Captain SCHAGER. Thank you, Admiral. 

Thank you, sir, for the question. 

Thank you for your service as well. 

There is a, on a higher level, on the installation level, there is 

a senior level survey that goes out yearly, and we receive that feedback directly from the tenant leadership, but as the admiral mentioned, my best feedback comes back from walking around and 

talking to sailors and talking to families, which I like to do all the 

time. I would rather be doing that than emails, like most. 

We also have other avenues, MWR and through the CDC and, 

you know, child development centers and child and youth programs. There are boards there that the parents chair and provide 

some feedback, and I see those as well. There are a lot of different 

avenues, but a specific quantifiable data point, I don’t specifically 

have for you, sir, but I know that—you asked about schools also. 

To continue the admiral’s thought, with our school liaison officer, 

you know, at Oceana, being at Virginia Beach, and I also have Fen-
22 

tress—outlying airfields in Chesapeake, the schools are amazing, 

but through that, we have—you know, a lot of times, sailors and 

their moms and dads have to work at 5 a.m., 6 a.m., so there is 

a program where they drop their children off on the installation at 

one of our buildings, and then we have buses, MWR will bus the 

students out to the city schools, and then vice versa. I mean, that 

relationship is—you can’t put a number on that, and it really is 

great peace of mind for these families to know that their kids are 

cared for before and after school and, of course, while they are 

going to some wonderful institutions of learning in the cities. 

Admiral JACKSON. Sir, I would like to brag about two programs 

in Southeast that, again, have talked to the tailorability of being 

able to respond to a request. So we have started a pilot program 

where out of Fleet and Family, we have developed a curriculum so 

that people who want to learn about how to take care of ailing parents—so that is an example of something that wasn’t part of our 

normal curriculum and the courses and the counseling that we provided, but we realized there was a real demand, so we put that together, rolled it out, piloted it. That is one example. 

Another example is we continue to work toward resiliency of our 

force and sexual assault and prevention. We started some selfdefense courses that had not previously been something that we 

had in our toolkit, and now we have added that. So there are some 

examples of—the closer we are to understanding the needs, then 

we have the ability to work within some of the controls that we already have to be able to provide these resources, which are so valuable to our force. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you to all the witnesses for that testimony. 

And just one quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

And I know this goes across jurisdictional or functional lines, but 

so you haven’t, just to confirm, there has been no red flags as far 

as retention is concerned for the Navy? Based on the stress on base 

operating support and quality of life, you are not getting any feedback from SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] and Navy that that is 

something that—— 

Admiral SMITH. I am not personally aware of. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, good. Great report. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. 

I want to draw the association between what you have laid out 

with installation support, infrastructure, and readiness. And you 

all have laid out a number of those different elements, but Captain 

Schager, I want to go to you to kind of get your perspective as a 

base commander. 

As you look at the things you have to deal with, you have decisions and directives coming down from corporate Navy saying: 

Here is the installation support you need to provide. Here is the 

infrastructure we want you to provide. 

So you get that direction. Obviously, you have to respond, because there are the unexpected elements of what goes on. Your job 

is to provide that mission support for training and operations there 

on the base, so you have to reconcile those two things. Your job is 

to do those things while making sure that you are generating readiness. 
23 

So my question is this: As you are juggling all those different 

pieces, give us a specific example—and you have given some, like 

a hangar that didn’t have some fire suppressions in certain areas— 

but take the next step further. What does that mean as far as operational readiness? So while you may not be able to keep aircraft 

there, what does that mean as far as training missions? What happens in reduction in training missions? What happens in deployment schedules? What happens with all the things that potentially 

stack up? So if you can take that the next step, and that is, in generating readiness and making sure that as your air wings are coming in there and doing pre-deployment training or getting ready to 

do workups to go for the carrier to leave, give me an example about 

how that infrastructure, how that installation support, how that facilities capability totally affects what you are having to generate 

every day. 

Captain SCHAGER. Thanks for the question, sir. 

You know, what helps is I was a recipient of this customer service for the last 24 years. And having operated at Oceana for a majority of my career, both as a young pilot and continuing on to the 

squadron commander level, I recognize the importance of making 

sure that the runway is ready to go when we have sorties available. 

I will say, and I want to thank you again, we have a special project currently underway, $100 million project, to replace the 

aging lighting system on our airfield. It is 1950 technology. When 

I first came into this position as the executive officer of the installation, I think the first night, we had one of the electrical vaults, 

you know, went out, which meant half of the airfield went out as 

far as lighting. And for a base that needs 24/7, 365 kind of support, 

that was very disconcerting. So this $100 million is greatly needed, and that is kind of an example of the process working. Those requirements were articulated 

well before I got there, and we finally had the funding. But to continue on to that discussion or thought, at Oceana, we also have 

VFA–106, which is the Fleet Replacement Squadron. That is the 

home of the East Coast training for new pilots and WSOs—weapons systems officers—to become fleet aviators. You know, they are 

held to—their structure and their throughput is crucial to feed the 

fleet squadron so that they are fully manned when they deploy. 

And so we really can’t afford a whole lot of delays, whether it is 

a lack of air traffic controllers or airfield lighting problems or hangar challenges, where they can’t get the maintenance done because 

the hangar is not equipped. 

So I work closely with the commodore and the operational side. 

And we speak every day, and we talk about our needs and challenges. And he works up through his chain of command, as I do 

with mine. And I think that works well and that we are constantly 

checking and making sure that the readiness is available. And I 

will say that, you know, at least since I have been there in this position since—you know, the USS George Bush in 2014, with three 

F–18 squadrons from Oceana, the Theodore Roosevelt and now the 

Truman. Both those squadrons deployed ready. But as we described, the airfield renovations are greatly needed. If those are delayed any further, I think that would be a great impact. 
24 

And the hangar situation as I described, I think to have that predictable programmatic funding for the hangars and get those repaired, I think will go a long way. 

Admiral JACKSON. Sir, I think we are very good at finding alternatives when we need to, when we are in extremis and we know 

that the warfighter can no longer do what they need to do; they 

can’t produce the pilots they need to or they can’t train. 

We also work very hard to make sure that the process by which 

we look at all these projects are racked and stacked and that we 

are able to articulate from an installations perspective the direct 

correlation to the readiness, as you have asked. So an example is 

at Mayport, we have a wastewater treatment plant that is currently not meeting environmental criteria, and we are operating 

under a consent order. The relationship that we have with the 

Florida Department of [Environmental Protection]—the FDEP—our 

relationship with them is important. But it is also equally important that as I prepare these projects and push them up my chain 

of command, that I am able to articulate what will happen if we 

are no longer are able to use that wastewater treatment plant and 

what that will mean to the ships that are berthed in Mayport, that 

they may have to go to a different port or that we may have to pay 

to move the waste, which now has high levels of metals in it because we have increased the ship loading in Mayport, and be able 

to articulate that so that it is a unified front from the warfighter 

to the installation all the way up to articulate that readiness. And 

it is easier to articulate in specific projects than it is across the entire enterprise. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me expand upon that a little bit. As you look 

at your mission overall and then your job in supporting that mission, we know that you are looking at infrastructures—you are 

looking at infrastructure. You are looking at installation support, 

trying to manage risk within that area, while at the same time our 

effort now is to re-establish full-spectrum readiness. It is an arduous path to get there, and what you are having to do is to manage 

that through that resource gauntlet that we have gone through 

here recently. 

Let me get your perspective. As you are making those decisions 

and looking at how you balance those things, trying to get to fullspectrum readiness as quickly as we can, as Mr. Courtney pointed 

out, we are now with some certainty in a 2-year budget, give us 

your perspective on how far you believe you can get within your 

mission set to get to full-spectrum readiness. 

And then, secondly, is, where do you see yourself in a 10-year 

window down the road in a scenario of either level funding from 

this point on or back to sequestration levels because that also introduces a fair amount of risk? And the reason I ask for static 

funding levels is we are trying to regain readiness. So we have lost 

some in the last 3 years, and to regain that obviously is a challenge 

but also the slope of the curve we have to ascend to get there is 

also steeper. So give me your perspective within those scenarios 

about how you get back to full-spectrum readiness. 

Admiral JACKSON. I suppose I am not as optimistic as perhaps 

others that we will get to full-spectrum readiness. So sequestration 
25 

takes us a step back. Where we are today is holding—a little bit 

of improvement, as Admiral Smith articulated. 

To get to 100 percent funding still doesn’t get us to full-spectrum 

readiness because we have degraded so significantly over time. So 

it is hard for me to imagine how we get as far as we need to, to 

get to full spectrum. 

Admiral SMITH. At our current funding and if we continue that 

out, we will continue to lose ground. And if we were to get to the 

OSD funding level of 90 percent, that is only 90 percent of an already deteriorated infrastructure. So to get back to 100 percent, 

you have got to shoot ahead of the duck, and we are not shooting 

ahead of the duck. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me get this perspective from you, too. Not only 

are you having to look at recapitalization on existing assets, you 

are also faced with new mission sets. You have Littoral Combat 

Ship. You have the P–8. You have an upcoming Ohio-class replacement. All of those things, too, those new mission requirements also 

create new demands on infrastructure. So how does that exacerbate 

your challenge in just trying to maintain status quo when those 

new mission sets are set upon that and the challenges that you 

have to face there with infrastructure and installation support? 

Admiral SMITH. So a couple of things I would like to talk to. First 

is the process and how we accommodate those new mission sets 

and how we understand what the requirements are. So we have a 

strategic laydown dispersal process where when those new mission 

sets come out and we as a Navy and as our operators, our forces, 

decide where they want, we want—those assets need to be to meet 

our country’s mission, we then go and look at those installations, 

whether it be the skipper or one of the other 69 COs and saying, 

you are getting this asset, whether it is people, a submarine, a 

squadron, whatever it is. Can you accept them with what you have 

got? Do you have the pier? Do you have the runway? Do you have 

the hangar capacity? Do you have the housing? Do you have the 

child development centers? What does it do to your wait lists in 

those different things? And then they come back and feed that into 

the regional commander. And then she racks and stacks that, and 

it comes up to us. So we now know what the requirement is and 

what our gaps are and what we need to do. And those gaps then 

generate requirements that Lou will then at Oceana create and 

then pass through the regional commander. And then that then 

gets pushed up so we now know what we have. Then we go down 

with the priorities. Those are going to take the priority to make 

sure that we can meet those new mission sets. When those come 

in—that gets to your question—that pressurizes the discretionary 

funds we have to do existing things. And those are directed, so they 

are going to get funded. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Right. 

Admiral SMITH. And that is a good thing because we need that 

capability. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

Admiral SMITH. But it does, as you say and indicate, pressurize 

further on existing assets that we have that are declining. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So in your rack-and-stack scenario then, if you are 

placing that new mission set requirement there and you have to 
26 

provide infrastructure installation support for that, does it then 

push out other things that are on your recapitalization list that 

say, well, we just—now we won’t be able to do that because we 

have these additional requirements that we have to find resources 

for? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir, it does, and that is what puts us into 

the reactive mode that we have talked about and how Mary down 

in New Orleans reacted to fix the mold challenge she had in the 

UH, as an example. 

Mr. WITTMAN. One last question is, how are these new mission 

sets affecting the size of the things or the number of items that get 

pushed out because of that? And if you don’t have it now, just take 

it for the record and get it back to us, but I think that is critically 

important for us to understand because that gives us some measure of the magnitude of the issue that we are dealing with. 

Admiral SMITH. Sir, I will take that. I am trying to quantify in 

my mind, and I can’t do it justice here. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 47.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. If you can do that because that is going to be extraordinarily important for us as we are going into this year’s 

NDAA to make sure we quantify that because people have to understand the magnitude. And the reason behind these hearings is 

to make sure we draw a direct association between infrastructure, 

installations, and facilities support with operational readiness and 

restoring full-spectrum readiness, so we need to get a gauge on 

where the gaps are and then the path to get back to full-spectrum 

readiness. So if you could provide that to us, that would be great. 

And now I am going to go to Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Vice Admiral Smith—or the other witnesses here—could you 

please describe at what level the connections are being made between the training requirements of a unit and the ability of an installation to support those training requirements, and how often 

are they re-evaluated? And as a follow-up, have you found the Facility Condition Index to be an effective system for tracking maintenance needs? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. I will start off and then ask the two 

of them to add on. 

Bottom line, those decisions are being discussed at all levels. The 

skipper talks to it with his tenants and requirements and needs. 

Admiral Jackson does it at her level, and I do it at my level. So 

we have talked about the strategic laydown dispersal process, generating requirements. The Facility Condition Index code that you 

talk about, that is very accurate. We track that closely so we know 

what the condition is of every single one of our facilities. That then 

feeds into the priority list that we have talked about. 

So when it comes time to figure out what we are going to fund, 

we use an integration process at the regional level. So Mary will 

take all of her installation requirements, and all of those projects 

have been prioritized and we have a ranking formula we use based 

upon safety, based upon operational necessity, based upon condition, and that prioritizes it. 
27 

So she will in her region prioritize that out, push it up to me at 

the enterprise level, and then I will take in all 11 regions’ requirements and then we—I sit down because she has already done this 

at her level with the fleet at the region. And then I do it with the 

fleets. I sit down with PAC [Pacific] Fleet. I sit down with Fleet 

Forces Command. I sit down with OPNAV [Office of the Chief of 

Naval Operations]. I sit down with the SYSCOMs [Systems Commands], and we look at how that prioritization came out to determine what we are going to fund. 

So to double back to your original question, we address that at 

all three levels, and we use the Facility Index Code, Condition 

Index, very closely to do that. 

So, Mary, I would turn it over to you for your area and then ask 

Lou at his installation level. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, I have been doing installation business for about 5 years, starting in Naval Station Norfolk, and I 

would say, over those 5 years, we have gotten much more rigorous 

in understanding how we have to articulate our requirements tied 

to readiness as we go forward. And we do that, as Admiral Smith 

said, at all levels. Our installation COs, as the landlords, have to 

be talking to their tenants to be able to quantify that. And I say 

this somewhat in jest, but it does become a bit of a competitive environment. Every CO is fighting for their projects, and they have 

to have it as clear and as concise and as tight as they can as they 

move it up to me at my level at the region. And the process that 

Admiral Smith articulated through a regional mission integration 

group [RMIG] up to the SMIG [senior management integration 

group] is very valuable. And we have warfighter representation at 

the region level. We have it at the CNIC level as well, so it is not 

like we are doing it without them. 

Another process that Admiral Smith has continued in his tenure 

as Naval Installations Command is something called the ‘‘warfare 

enterprise flight officer assignments,’’ in which he has regional 

commanders, usually tied to their warfare specialty, assigned to be 

the linkage with that warfare enterprise. So, for myself, I am a 

surface warfare officer, so I support the surface warfare enterprise. 

And I have a regular drumbeat to talk globally, not just my region, 

about those projects and those things that are going on in CNIC 

that should be of interest to the surface warfare enterprise, and 

vice versa. They talk to me about what they are concerned about 

so, again, we get that unified front. And that ‘‘warfare enterprise 

flight officer assignment’’ exists for surface warfare, for strategic 

programs, of which I also have, naval aviation, information dominance, and undersea enterprise. So that is another means—it is another layer by which we are able to make sure we understand the 

requirement. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Captain. 

Captain SCHAGER. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. And 

as I mentioned before, I was the recipient of customer service for 

many years. Now I am the provider of that. And around my installation, when I talk about it, I talk about providing great customer 

relationships, not just service and that—communicating with all 

my warfare commanders and leadership, whether it is the Com-
28 

modore of the Air Wing, if they had a bad day—even irrespective 

of facilities, it was a bad weather day, and we have to fly on the 

weekend—I am aware of that that day. 

I mentioned the example about the intelligence school which was 

having a lot of fire alarms go off and how that affected their training. Their leadership was calling me up, and I put that into my calculus. When the regional mission integration group meets, I bring 

those topics up. And I can speak eloquently—well, I like to think 

I can—because I have spoken to those folks. And their leadership 

is also in that decision process. So, you know, naval aviation is also 

in the room at the RMIG—it has the information dominance. 

And so, through that, I think I am comfortable that the requirements that our tenants are looking to achieve are articulated on 

our side so we can provide the facilities necessary, prioritizing as 

such. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So I am gathering, then, that the systems are 

working? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I have another question real quickly. This is to 

Rear Admiral Jackson or perhaps the captain. 

Earlier you gave an example of hangar maintenance and how the 

lack of predictable FSRM funding can impact facility maintenance 

plans. Now, can you provide similar examples on the base operating support program, specifically how repeated reliance on continuing resolutions, late appropriations, and the lack of predictable 

funding has impacted base operating support? 

Captain SCHAGER. I can start, ma’am. Thank you. 

Commonly, when someone like, you know, from my family, for 

example, we talk about readiness and going out to war and doing 

combat missions, they think about the aircraft I am going to fly, 

and is that ready? But there is a lot more to it. And so when you 

mentioned base operating support, it is, do the sailors have a room 

to go back to that is comfortable and heated and hot water? Do 

they have a galley that is ready? Do they have the Fleet and Family Support Center that is providing the services? So it is not just 

the runway; so the full spectrum of support affects readiness. 

And as we had spoken and both admirals have articulated, we 

are taking risks. The mission is still being met, but I do think that 

if it is not properly funded in years out, I think things will—you 

know, the risks are going to get greater. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And in a timely manner. 

Captain SCHAGER. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Rear Admiral. 

Admiral JACKSON. Ma’am, when we started decreasing our BOS 

because of the continuing resolution and sequester, the areas that 

we saw it the most were in FX, so facilities—excuse me, ground 

support, so ground maintenance; TR, transportation vehicles; and 

then also utilities. And so our customers feel the effects of that. 

And it is more than just cosmetic, to give you an example in 

ground maintenance. So the higher grass may mean increased pest 

control. It may increase greater risk in the BASH [bird/animal 

strike hazard] program for our aviators as they are flying. For TR, 

it may mean they have less ability to get vehicles to move things 

around that they need to do. And so that is where we have felt it 
29 

in terms of BOS. And, of course, as we have been able now to increase those common operating levels in that and articulate that 

back to our customers, that is good. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Vice Admiral. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, ma’am. So a CR, it just makes the process 

harder. It creates uncertainty for our workforce. We can’t execute 

projects. We can’t do design until the CR is—we are through the 

CR. So now you are doing things—you are awarding contracts on 

top of each other, and we can’t spread the work out—workload out 

over the year, and so we are either doing it in 9 months, or we are 

doing it in 6 months, what the requirement is. And, of course, that 

increases workload. It increases stress. And so it comes down to it 

just makes the job harder. We still get it done, but it just makes 

it more difficult. 

Admiral JACKSON. And every time you have to change a contract, 

that takes time. It is not free. So as you decrease operating levels, 

it is not like you just stop cutting the grass. You have to go in and 

do contract mods [modifications], and that is people, and that is 

time. And so that has a drain as well. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

I want to thank our witnesses today, Admiral Smith, Admiral 

Jackson, and Captain Schager. Thanks so much for joining us. 

Thanks for your responses today. 

We would ask that you provide the written responses that we 

have asked for. We will be using them as we put together this 

year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which, by the way, is 

going to take place earlier this year by a 3-week window. So we are 

going to push things to the left and hopefully get our jobs done 

more quickly so we can get the appropriations part of this done 

more quickly too. 

So, again, thanks very much for your service. Thanks for your 

perspective today. This is very, very helpful to us, and we will continue the conversation with you. 

Thanks again. 

And our subcommittee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JANUARY 8, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JANUARY 8, 2016 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JANUARY 8, 2016 

(47) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Admiral SMITH. The new ships, submarines, planes, and weapons systems often 

require changes in facilities; examples include pier extensions and widening, dredging depth increases, stronger runways, secure mission spaces and utility modifications. The new mission sets also often require re-designed and upgraded training 

facilities and may drive new administrative and security requirements at Navy 

bases and support locations world-wide. In addition to new systems, changes to the 

strategic laydown of Navy Forces also call for new capabilities, to support changes 

in the number of personnel, dependents and operational units. As we prioritize our 

limited facility investments to enable operational readiness, we underinvest in supporting infrastructure—such as barracks, administrative buildings, and research 

and development facilities—all of which support future readiness, improve the quality of life for our Sailors, and enhance the working conditions of all our personnel.

[See page 26.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

Admiral SMITH. Significant investment is required to increase the overall condition of the Navy’s infrastructure to achieve steady state, sustained readiness across 

the installations and facilities portfolio. As reported in the Department of Defense’s 

FY15 Financial Report, Navy has a backlog of approximately $41.8 billion of deferred restoration and modernization requirements across all shore infrastructure. 

Navy’s current facility condition is at 79. To eliminate the projected additional 1⁄2

point each year decline over the FY17 FYDP at current budget levels, our models 

show an additional $620 million of facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization is required annually. [See page 18.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Admiral SMITH. There is no standard Navy definition for obsolescence. Navy 

buildings are designed for a specific service life, which will vary by function and 

type of facility. Since not all buildings are designed to last the same number of 

years, it is difficult to develop an obsolescence metric based on the age of facilities. 

DOD uses a metric called facility condition index (FCI) which provides an overall 

rating of the condition of a building based on repair costs of its subsystems compared to the replacement cost of the subsystem. The Navy provides an annual report 

to DOD on the number of buildings with an FCI less than 60 (which is considered 

failing) as well as the planned action for each building (demolition, repair, replacement, disposal, etc.) 

Of those failing facilities, some are not necessarily obsolete but are considered excess inventory, and are disposed of through demolition, transfer, or sale. Others still 

have a valid mission requirement and are slated for repair or demolition and replacement. These could be considered obsolete since they can no longer meet all of 

their mission requirements. 

In 2015, the Navy reported 2,123 buildings that are slated for repair or demolition 

and replacement in the FYDP. [See page 7.] 

Admiral SMITH. Navy consistently utilizes best value source selection procedures 

to select the proposal representing the best value to the Government. In accordance 

with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the best value can be obtained by using 

either tradeoff or lowest price technical acceptable source selection procedures. The 

tradeoff process is appropriate when it is in the best interest of the Government to 

consider award to other than the lowest priced proposal. The lowest price technically 

acceptable process allows for selection of the technically acceptable proposal with 

the lowest evaluated price that will adequately satisfy the government’s minimal requirements. Navy carefully reviews each requirement when making the determination whether to use tradeoff or the lowest priced technically acceptable procedures.

[See page 8.] 
48 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. RUSSELL 

Admiral SMITH. CNIC supports 70 Installations throughout the world. OCO resources are requested and used for base operations support, facility maintenance 

and quality of life programs at only three overseas locations. [See page 13.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JANUARY 8, 2016 

(51) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. To what extent do the reported readiness levels of installations 

take into consideration the condition of their facilities? Are there other metrics or 

data points used to assess the effect of facility condition on readiness? 

Admiral SMITH. The condition of installations’ facilities plays an important part 

in the reported readiness levels of those installations. Installation Commanding Officers are required to report the readiness of their installations against capabilities 

and assigned Navy Mission Essential Tasks (NMETs) in the Defense Readiness Reporting System–Navy (DRRS–N). Frequency for reporting is every 30 days or when 

the status of readiness changes. Additional information is displayed in the DRRS– 

N Facility (F) Resource Pillar, including facility condition, to assist Commanders on 

the availability and shortfalls in facility resources required to deliver capabilities 

and their associated NMETs. Installation commanders use (F) Resource Pillar data 

to make informed assessments of their installations readiness and ability to accomplish assigned NMETs and capabilities to support operational and training requirements. 

Other facility based metrics include a Facility Condition Index (FCI) that quantifies the financial liability of needed maintenance and repair work for each facility. 

This metric will better position Navy to direct our limited facility funds to the most 

critical repairs. This information is also being used by facility professionals to develop short- and long-range maintenance and repair work plans. In addition, we are 

incorporating the principles of condition-based maintenance across all buildings, 

utilities and structures. This means we will prioritize work toward the most critical 

components at our most critical facilities or on components that relate to life, health 

and safety. This strategy enables us to focus resources on specific building components and systems where failure jeopardizes personnel safety, operational readiness 

and warfighting missions. 

Mr. WITTMAN. How has the Navy attempted to quantify the risks they are taking 

by perennially reducing their investments in base support services and infrastructure, if at all? 

Admiral SMITH. The Navy has several processes in place to assess risk as we deliberately and carefully accept it in certain areas of shore readiness. We use the 

principles of condition-based maintenance to identify specific building components 

and systems where failure jeopardizes personnel safety or a warfighting mission. In 

addition, we have standardized our facility inspections and are in the process of 

transitioning to Facility Condition Index (FCI), which enables us to quantify the financial liability of needed maintenance and repair work for each facility. Regarding 

installation support services, in particular base security and emergency services, the 

Navy uses dedicated analytic models to program the resources needed to meet the 

requirement and to validate we are meeting the budgeted requirement in execution. 

Mr. WITTMAN. What is the impact of funding sustainment, restoration and modernization and military construction below requirements over the long term? What 

level of investment and over what period of time do you think will be necessary to 

fully restore the readiness of our installations and facilities? 

Admiral SMITH. Long-term underinvestment in our shore infrastructure will cause 

our facilities to degrade and our overall facilities maintenance backlog will increase. 

This means our infrastructure will be less efficient and less capable when it comes 

to supporting the warfighter. In addition, as we defer needed facility investments 

year after year, they generally become more expensive. 

As reported in the Department of Defense’s FY15 Financial Report, Navy has a 

backlog of approximately $41.8 billion of deferred restoration and modernization requirements across all shore infrastructure. 

Navy’s current facility condition is at 79. To eliminate the projected additional 1⁄2

point each year decline over the FY17 FYDP at current budget levels, our models 

show an additional $620 million of facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization is required annually. 

Mr. WITTMAN. What impact has the substantial reduction in MILCON spending 

had on the ability of installations to support readiness and serve as power-projection 
52 

platforms? How has significant new mission beddown requirements impacted ability 

to recapitalize existing mission facilities? 

Admiral SMITH. Navy’s Military Construction program is focused on providing 

maximum readiness to support current and new mission requirements, and we 

prioritize projects that directly enable operational readiness and the initial operating capability of new platforms and systems. Reduced budgets compel us to increase the risk Navy is taking in recapitalizing our shore infrastructure, forcing us 

to continue deferring vital MILCON projects until we can get some fiscal relief. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Why has the Navy slowed their implementation of Utilities Privatization efforts? Does the Navy plan to continue the program on their remaining utility systems? If not, why? 

Admiral SMITH. The Navy fully intends to continue the Utilities Privatization program where economically feasible and in support of evolving resilient, cyber secure 

and energy efficient directives and initiatives. We have an ongoing study, expected 

to complete in CY16, to determine if there are other areas of infrastructure that 

Navy can privatize. In addition to privatization, the Navy utilizes Utility Energy 

Service Contracts (UESC) to improve utility condition and performance while reducing energy consumption. For example, we have $7M (est) UESC effort under development at SUBASE New London which is projected to reduce consumption by 12%. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Are there any legislative gaps or impediments that hinder implementation of Utilities Privatization? Does the Navy need specific funding authority 

for UP contracts or other changes in authorities to allow program implementation 

to be more efficient? 

Admiral SMITH. Current legislative authority (10 USC 2688) is sufficient. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Have reductions in civilian- or contract-provided services for utility 

system operations; installation equipment maintenance; engineering services including fire protection, crash rescue, custodial, refuse collection, snow removal, and lease 

of real property; security protection and law enforcement; and motor pool transportation operations impacted availability of facilities that support operations and 

training? 

Admiral JACKSON. Base services and shore infrastructure remain a key component 

to support and enable operations and training. The Navy has accepted an increased 

level of risk across a broad range of installation services including grounds maintenance, custodial, and transportation while preserving services and support in installation programs that directly support Fleet operations and training (e.g., air operations which includes air traffic control, ground electronics maintenance, etc.). Within programs that have seen significant service level reductions, like grounds maintenance, the Navy strives to maintain required capability to ensure operations and 

training readiness (e.g. funds grounds work to maintain clear zones around air 

fields and ordnance facilities). 

Mr. WITTMAN. What is the impact of funding sustainment, restoration and modernization and military construction below requirements over the long term? What 

level of investment and over what period of time do you think will be necessary to 

fully restore the readiness of our installations and facilities? 

Admiral JACKSON. Long-term underinvestment in our shore infrastructure will 

cause our facilities to degrade and our overall facilities maintenance backlog will increase. This means our infrastructure will be less efficient and less capable when 

it comes to supporting the warfighter. In addition, as we defer needed facility investments year after year, they generally become more expensive. 

As reported in the Department of Defense’s FY15 Financial Report, Navy has a 

backlog of approximately $41.8 billion of deferred restoration and modernization requirements across all shore infrastructure. 

Navy’s current facility condition is at 79. To eliminate the projected additional 1⁄2

point each year decline over the FY17 FYDP at current budget levels, our models 

show an additional $620 million of facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization is required annually. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Have reductions in civilian- or contract-provided services for utility 

system operations; installation equipment maintenance; engineering services including fire protection, crash rescue, custodial, refuse collection, snow removal, and lease 

of real property; security protection and law enforcement; and motor pool transportation operations impacted availability of facilities that support operations and 

training? 

Captain SCHAGER. Base services and shore infrastructure remain a key component to support and enable operations and training. The Navy has accepted an increased level of risk across a broad range of installation services including grounds 

maintenance, custodial, and transportation while preserving services and support in 

installation programs that directly support Fleet operations and training (e.g., air 

operations which includes air traffic control, ground electronics maintenance, etc.). 
53 

Within programs that have seen significant service level reductions, like grounds 

maintenance, the Navy strives to maintain required capability to ensure operations 

and training readiness (e.g. funds grounds work to maintain clear zones around air 

fields and ordnance facilities). 

Æ