    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 117-69]

             ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 16, 2022

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    48-576                   WASHINGTON : 2023

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                      JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    JACKIE SPEIER, California            JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    JASON CROW, Colorado                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
    ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan, Vice       JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
        Chair                            MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
    KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
    MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington

                   Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
                     Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
                              Naajidah Khan, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1
    Waltz, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Florida, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Berger, Hon. Meredith A., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
      Energy, Installations, and Environment, Department of the Navy.     9
    Cramer, Paul D., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of
      Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Office of
      the Secretary of Defense.......................................     5
    Farnan, Paul W., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
      Installations, Energy, and Environment, Department of the Army.     7
    Oshiba, Edwin H., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
      Energy, Installations, and Environment, Department of the Air
      Force..........................................................    10

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Berger, Hon. Meredith A......................................    68
        Cramer, Paul D...............................................    36
        Farnan, Paul W...............................................    57
        Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    33
        Oshiba, Edwin H..............................................    83

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Kahele...................................................   115
        Mr. Scott....................................................   114
        Ms. Speier...................................................   113
        Mr. Wilson...................................................   111

        .
               ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                                     Subcommittee on Readiness,
                             Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 16, 2022.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
    room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
            CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

        Mr. Garamendi. Good afternoon, all. Welcome. I want to
    welcome our witnesses. Thank you so very much for joining us
    today.
        We have got a very important hearing here. It's on energy.
    It's on installations and environmental programs. So we're
    going to cover a lot of what all of you need to do and what the
    military needs to do today. It's an important part of our work.
        So the meeting is called. I call to order this hearing of
    the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
    Today's witnesses oversee a wide range of programs of
    considerable interest to this subcommittee.
        The last several NDAAs [National Defense Authorization
    Acts] have included significant reforms on issues related to
    installation resiliency, privatized military family housing,
    the treatment of emerging contaminants, sustainment of military
    infrastructure, energy resiliency, and climate change.
        Today, we will receive testimony from the witnesses on the
    Department's progress in executing these reforms.
        Of these topics, I'm particularly focused on two main
    areas--first, the chronic failure of the military departments
    to adequately maintain quality of life infrastructure, such as
    barracks, dormitories, child development centers. For years,
    I've sat in these hearings and listened to you or your
    predecessors across multiple administrations tell us that you
    have chosen to take risks to the detriment of our service
    members by underfunding, under-maintaining, and delaying
    recapitalization of quality of life infrastructure.
        While you may be comfortable with the risks, we are not.
    Over the years, you have told us that barracks and child
    development centers just don't compete well in the budget.
        Well, the inadequate annual investments does not match the
    lip service from your service secretaries about the importance
    of service members and their families.
        In the fiscal year 2022 NDAA we just plain got tired of
    waiting for you and your predecessors to make good on your
    promise to take--to make service members a priority and take
    some of your ability to take the risk away.
        The fiscal 2022 NDAA forces the military departments to
    allocate a fixed percentage of the facility sustainment and
    renovation funds to unaccompanied housing. Combined with the
    nearly annual congressional plus-ups of the related budget
    lines, the forced emphasis on these facilities should start
    remedying a problem which you have proven to be incapable of
    fixing on your own.
        I know it will require adjustments in your thinking. But
    I'm confident that your operational needs will continue to
    compete favorably while our service members finally start to
    see relief from the poor and failing conditions that they have
    been forced to endure.
        Now, my second focus is on the issues of resiliency and
    demand--energy demand reduction. While there are those of us
    that believe mitigating climate change is an end of itself, the
    idea that the measures of demand reduction are inherently
    detrimental to our readiness and lethality is simply not true.
        The danger of this false dichotomy prevents us from taking
    action necessary to address the problem of climate change. It's
    now time for a clear-eyed look at how to evolve our platforms
    and our installations to succeed in an environment of near-peer
    competition.
        We know that demand reduction is necessary to address our
    contested logistical challenges both in the Pacific and with
    that oceanic tyranny of distance and in the more terrestrial
    areas of operation.
        This was true in the Pacific in World War II, and as all of
    us are watching this issue play out in Ukraine with Russian
    convoys, that are learning their own lesson about the tyranny
    of distance and supply/demand.
        While supply is part of the answer, it can only take us so
    far. Logistic lines will always be targeted and tactical
    vehicles that use less fuel will help us lengthen the tether
    our fighting forces have to resupply and extend their reach and
    on station time.
        I applaud the Army. I applaud the Army for its recently
    released climate strategy that seeks to transition our tactical
    fleet away from a sole reliance on fossil fuels, and look
    forward to hearing more not only from the Army but from all of
    you on how you will execute the Army's vision and your own
    vision while remaining the world's premier fighting force.
        Installation resiliency remains a key focus to ensure our
    military bases can continue to perform their critical missions
    in the wake of natural disasters or disruptions to the
    electrical grid.
        I strongly support the Department's transition to
    nontactical electric vehicles. Not only will those vehicles
    lower the Department's carbon footprint, but if we pair them
    with the right support infrastructure, they can become another
    source of resilient power for critical missions.
        I look forward to hearing about the Department's progress
    on energy and water master plans as well as for the full
    installation master plans, which we mandated in fiscal 2020
    NDAA.
        Finally, we must look at our critical missions outside of
    the continental United States as well. One of the most extreme
    examples of the need for effective climate and energy
    resiliency planning can be found at the Kwajalein Atoll.
        The atoll is already experiencing sea level rise fueled by
    high surf that will lead to increasingly frequent overwash
    events that destroy freshwater supplies and infrastructure on
    the atoll. This is not a concern of the distant future but this
    is a concern now and will certainly be in the days ahead.
        By 2030 it'll be a constant problem. In addition, although
    Kwajalein is almost completely dependent on outside liquid fuel
    sources for energy, nothing has been done to increase
    conservation and resiliency to mitigate that vulnerability.
    This is but one example.
        With the critical missions performed on Kwajalein, these
    two issues combine to make it a compelling test case for
    installation resiliency master planning and readiness focused
    on energy conservation measures.
        I look forward to the hearing, to the witnesses, their
    testimony, and to their discussion about their work in these
    critical areas, as well as providing an update on these and a
    myriad of other topics of mutual interest over the next 2
    hours.
        And with that, I turn to our ranking member--our new
    ranking member--Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida.
        Mike, welcome. I look forward to your remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
    the Appendix on page 33.]

     STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE WALTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA,
               RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome all
    of our witnesses today for our hearing to discuss MILCON
    [military construction], environmental and energy programs, as
    well as base and--as well as the base and facility accounts.
        And I think I speak for all of us and that we all wish we
    could have this important conversation after reviewing the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2023. But I look
    forward to follow up with you after it's released.
        But even without the budget request, I appreciate the
    opportunity to address and have a conversation with you about
    these challenges, and for too long the services have kicked the
    can, frankly, down the road failing to prioritize important
    investments in aging and failing infrastructure.
        We're seeing years and years of deferred maintenance that
    have made facilities inefficient or even incapable of
    supporting their intended mission, which has negatively
    impacted readiness and retention.
        And the very real consequences of this are on display with
    the recent fuel leak at the Red Hill bulk storage facility in
    Hawaii that has now led to the decision to close that facility.
        While I, personally, support the defueling of Red Hill, I
    am particularly concerned that the Department's long-term plan
    to remediate Red Hill could weaken our national security. We
    cannot allow our national security to atrophy because of a
    deficient and expedient planning process and we have to strike
    that--we have to strike that balance.
        Failure to modernize and maintain our facilities will make
    them less sustainable for the future because they will be
    either less resilient or potentially more vulnerable to risks
    like extreme weather events.
        I'm also particularly concerned about the lack of emphasis
    on our soldiers and sailors. It is imperative that we provide
    safe barracks free from mold and mildew.
        I also look forward to understanding options for Navy and
    Air Force to adopt the Army's privatization of lodging
    initiative that thus far, my understanding, has been
    demonstrated to have about a 20 percent savings.
        Being from Florida, I'm certainly aware of the challenges
    of sea level rise and extreme weather and the challenges they
    pose to our installations, to our people, and to our mission.
        We can prepare our military installations at home and
    abroad for future challenges with better planning that focuses
    on resilient infrastructure investments.
        We have made progress to this end for certain by requiring
    master plans to consider these risks, but we have more work to
    do.
        Our installations also remain largely dependent on
    commercial electric grids, as we've--I've discussed with each
    of you, and are vulnerable to any disruptions that those
    commercial grids may suffer.
        So to protect our mission capability, I hope we continue to
    pursue solutions like islanding capabilities and generation
    from microreactors.
        I also wanted to express my dismay at our European force
    structure's failure and I think it's been an absolute failure
    from a deterrent standpoint to dissuade Russian aggression. It
    is obvious that our forces in Germany--it's obvious to me, at
    least, that our forces in Germany should be relocated further
    east to Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states.
        Additionally, such forward basing should be done on a
    permanent, not a temporal, basis. And finally, we need to
    ensure our European force structure is not reliant on Russian
    oil and gas.
        It is time to restructure our European force posture to
    this new reality.
        On the operational side, I am concerned the Department is
    not as far along as we should be. Given the threats on the
    horizon, we must be able to supply energy forward and sustain
    operations in contested environments.
        I, certainly, have sad and tragic personal experience with
    soldiers and Marines that would be alive today if we weren't
    carting so much fuel across contested supply lines. These
    contested and challenged environments for our logistics will be
    the new normal and this will require us to shed old approaches.
        The Chinese Communist Party [CCP] is prioritizing supply
    chain disruption. It's a key part of their strategy. We cannot
    and we can no longer afford to admire the problem--to have
    hearings like this to talk about the problem without meaningful
    action and I certainly expect and hope you'll come to this
    committee for the resources you need for those solutions.
        Energy demand also requires attention and better
    coordination within the Department as we develop future
    systems. The services must work with acquisition teams up front
    to drive efficiency at all levels.
        I understand that President Biden has made climate change a
    national priority, but we cannot sacrifice the capabilities
    that our men and women in uniform need.
        DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] has published their
    climate action plan. Last year, the services were beginning to
    roll out their own, and as these initiatives turn into actions,
    they turn into programs, we must maintain a mission first mind
    set. We must stay focused on winning wars and we must keep that
    mind set with solutions that are cost effective, efficient, and
    realistic.
        So as global events like the invasion of Ukraine and
    Russian hostilities against Ukraine, the growing threat of
    China, have made clear, we must make smart investments. We're
    running out of time and the warfighter must come first.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA authorized an historic
    level of spending for the cleanup of PFAS [per- and
    polyfluoroalkyl substances] in contaminated military
    installations [and] surrounding areas. We all hope to see that
    momentum continued.
        A lot of good work has been done. But I'd appreciate an
    update on the efforts underway to replace AFFF [aqueous film
    forming foam] and their efforts to reduce accidental releases.
        Again, I want to thank you all for coming, for appearing
    today. I look forward to our discussion.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Waltz. I concur in
    everything that you laid out there.
        I'm now going to turn to our witnesses. I'll introduce all
    four of them and then call on Mr. Cramer to be first.
        Mr. Paul Cramer is the Acting Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Office of
    the Secretary of Defense.
        Mr. Paul Farnan is the Acting Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Energy, Installations, and Environment, the Department
    of Army.
        The Honorable Meredith Berger is the Assistant Secretary of
    Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment at the
    Department of Navy.
        Mr. Edwin Oshiba is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Air
    Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment at the
    Department of Air Force.
        I now call on Mr. Cramer for his testimony.
        Mr. Cramer.

    STATEMENT OF PAUL D. CRAMER, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT
          SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND
            ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

        Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi, and to Ranking
    Member Waltz, distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        On behalf of myself and my service colleagues, thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the Department's energy,
    installations, and environment programs. Our priority is to
    address mission requirements, ensure service members have a
    safe and resilient place to live and work, and also begin to
    address installation resilience challenges.
        We are committed to protecting our personnel and their
    families using a robust all-hazards approach that addresses the
    wide range of natural and manmade threats.
        For example, DOD is building upon our long track record of
    addressing PFAS issues, responsibly following the science and
    the direction of Congress.
        As you know, the DOD PFAS task force was established in
    July 2019 to provide strategic direction to ensure a holistic
    approach on the Department's efforts to address PFAS.
        The strong interagency collaboration of the Department is
    well structured and, thanks to Congress, well resourced. We are
    well positioned to eliminate the use of current AFFF with
    several agents performing well in initial testing. We are
    continuing to evaluate these agents to determine toxicity and
    identify engineering challenges related to transitioning
    equipment to a new formulation.
        We have also expanded our efforts through outreach to--on a
    quarterly basis to talk to communities that are affected by
    PFAS and these are hosted by senior officials.
        As part of these events, we solicit questions and provide
    responses that are posted on our DOD PFAS website. In addition,
    we are updating our existing website with installation-specific
    data while developing a more robust, interactive, and user-
    friendly website.
        The Department continues to focus on ensuring that service
    members have access to safe, quality, affordable family and
    unaccompanied housing. With regard to privatized housing, the
    Department continues to prioritize actions that improve the
    tenant experience and rebuild tenant trust.
        Our initial phase was predominantly focused on implementing
    the updated MHPI [Military Housing Privatization Initiative]
    Tenant Bill of Rights, which was published on August 1st, 2021,
    and the requirements embedded in these rights are now being
    implemented.
        The Department has issued all policy guidance necessary to
    implement all rights at all MHPI projects. With few exceptions,
    all 18 tenant rights are now available.
        Finally, the Department depends on resilient installations.
    To prepare for peer competition, where even the homeland is
    contested, the Department is addressing a range of
    technological, operational, and policy initiatives to enhance
    the use of energy in warfighting.
        We have seen firsthand the effects climate and severe
    weather has had on our installations. To that end, we released
    the DOD Climate Adaptation Plan to guide DOD activities and
    investments to enable operations to continue under changing
    conditions while also preserving operational capability and
    enhancing the natural and manmade systems essential to the
    Department's success.
        We released the Defense Climate Assessment Tool to enable
    installation leaders and planners to understand consistent
    exposure assessments and identify regions or installations for
    additional climate-related studies.
        We are prioritizing investments in both installation energy
    and operational energy. This includes investments in the Energy
    Resilience and Conservation Investment Program [ERCIP],
    Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program, and
    our research and development programs.
        We appreciate Congress and specifically this subcommittee's
    continued support as we work together to provide the best
    support possible to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines,
    guardians, and their families.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cramer can be found in the
    Appendix on page 36.]
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Cramer.
        I'm now going to turn to Mr. Farnan, who is setting, well,
    the words you military folks like to use, the pacing threat.
    I'll say this is the pacing challenge.
        Mr. Farnan, if you could you explain to us what the Army is
    doing with regard to your energy and climate adaptation model.

    STATEMENT OF PAUL W. FARNAN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
    ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
                                THE ARMY

        Mr. Farnan. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Waltz,
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the soldiers,
    families, and civilians of the United States Army, thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the contributions made through
    the Installation, Energy, and Environment portfolio to overall
    Army readiness.
        The Army foundational priorities of people, readiness, and
    modernization guide our strategies and investments. Secretary
    Wormuth recognizes that the Army's greatest strength, most
    valuable asset, and most important weapon system is our people.
        At the core of our installations mission is the support for
    the training, education, work, and the lives of our soldiers
    and families. The Army's mission is to fight and win the
    Nation's wars. This begins at our installations.
        Power projection in any future conflict will occur from a
    contested homeland. Installation resiliency will be the
    critical enabler to allow us to conduct our operations under
    these conditions, as well as to continue operations following
    extreme weather events.
        Last month, we published the Army Climate Strategy, which
    enables our force to effectively operate in a climate-altered
    world. It increases the capabilities of the force and it
    modernizes and increases the resilience of our installations.
        Installation resiliency will be greatly enhanced through
    such measures as onsite renewable generation, battery storage,
    and microgrids, enabling the Army to self-sustain our critical
    missions and making us less dependent on a vulnerable electric
    grid.
        On the operational side, greater fuel efficiency of our
    tactical vehicles will increase our capabilities by extending
    the range of our combat forces while simultaneously reducing
    the vulnerability and burden on supply lines.
        Hybridizing our combat vehicles will allow for silent
    overwatch, reducing the acoustic and thermal signature of our
    platforms, thus reducing the threat to our soldiers. These
    measures will protect our soldiers and will increase their
    capabilities on the battlefield.
        The Army Climate Strategy will enhance the Army's ability
    to accomplish our core mission of fighting and winning the
    Nation's wars.
        As the Army transitions to carbon-free energy, the primary
    focus will be on ensuring and increasing the resiliency of our
    installations. In this effort, we will seek partnerships with
    local utilities, with industry, and other willing partners. We
    will use every authority and tool available to us to modernize
    our installations while being good stewards of taxpayer
    dollars.
        One such tool is the Energy Savings Performance Contract,
    which enables us to increase our efficiency with no up-front
    cost to the Army. We recognize the importance of this tool as a
    key component of our overall energy strategy, and we are
    committed to continuing and expanding its use.
        The Army's greatest strength and most valuable asset is our
    people, and the efforts we take to sustain and invest in our
    installations directly support our people and their quality of
    life.
        Our soldiers and families deserve high-quality safe
    housing. That has been and will remain a priority for our
    senior leadership. The Army has made significant progress
    implementing reforms to enhance our oversight of privatized
    housing and to hold companies accountable.
        The Army has fully implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights at
    all of our installations with privatized housing, providing
    soldiers and their families negotiating power with the private
    companies that own and manage military housing.
        We are also addressing the challenges with our
    unaccompanied housing. We have invested $2.4 billion in
    barracks over the last 3 years and will continue these
    investments into the future.
        Another important component of taking care of people is
    ensuring access to quality and affordable childcare. The Army
    is building and expanding childcare centers that will increase
    our capacity by over 4,000 spaces by 2026. Where on-base
    childcare is not available, the Army is taking steps to provide
    subsidies for childcare in the local community.
        Through our environmental programs, the Army will remain a
    good steward of the land where we work, train, drill, and live.
    The Army is responsible for 13.6 million acres of land and we
    will continue to work with Federal and State agencies to ensure
    we comply with all environmental regulations and safeguards to
    protect the health of the community and the environment for the
    American people.
        Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Waltz, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for your continued support for our
    soldiers, civilians, and families. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Farnan can be found in the
    Appendix on page 57.]
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Secretary Farnan.
        And I want to also now turn to Assistant Secretary Meredith
    Berger from the U.S. Navy, and welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MEREDITH A. BERGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
    THE NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT
                              OF THE NAVY

        Ms. Berger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waltz,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify in the Department of the Navy's
    Energy, Installations, and Environment portfolio.
        Since August, I've been honored to serve as the Assistant
    Secretary, and I'm proud to lead a team of dedicated Marines,
    sailors, and civilians who contribute to the important work of
    making our Navy and Marine Corps the best fighting force the
    world has ever known.
        Each day we enable readiness through modernized and
    climate-ready installations, unrivaled testing and training
    ranges, resilient facilities and operations, safe and healthy
    conditions for our people, and stewardship of the environment
    as a strategic asset.
        At the top of the Department of Navy's priorities is the
    expansion of the Fallon Training Range. With the expansion of
    this unique range we'll be able to ensure that we train like we
    fight, a critical readiness imperative.
        I had the chance to visit Fallon in October. I saw
    firsthand the value that it brings and where we fall short
    without expansion. I met with the community there and learned
    about the importance of the land, about the strong, proud,
    present history and heritage of the tribes who live there. The
    Department remains committed to working with all stakeholders
    to find a viable path to expansion of the range and I look
    forward to working with this subcommittee to move this
    important initiative forward.
        I also look forward to working with you on living
    conditions and quality of life for our sailors, Marines, and
    their families, something that I view as foundational to the
    readiness of our force and an area in which I'm grateful for
    your persistent attention.
        We have a lot of work to do and a most recent reminder of
    that are the issues uncovered at Bethesda. However, we have
    also made some progress. We're beginning to see sustained
    improvement in the operation, maintenance, and customer service
    in the privatized housing.
        I've had the opportunity to visit Navy and Marine
    installations and I've seen commanding officers involved in
    housing issues. I've seen the housing advocates in action. I've
    talked to residents and I've gotten their feedback.
        We will continue to apply lessons learned to provide our
    service members and their families all that they deserve.
        I look forward to working with you on climate change. It's
    a destabilizing force, exacerbating other national security
    concerns and posing serious readiness challenges. Our naval
    forces are in the crosshairs of the climate crisis. The threat
    increases instability and demands on our forces while
    simultaneously impacting our capacity to respond to those
    demands.
        For that reason, for Navy and Marine Corps climate
    readiness is mission readiness. Mitigation and adaptation to
    increase our resilience is an operational imperative. With
    those guiding factors in mind, we'll soon release our climate
    strategy.
        Lastly, you don't need to look any further than today's
    headlines to know that energy can be used as a weapon, and it
    is for that reason that the Department of Navy is focused on
    reliable energy sources.
        Our installations are essential shore platforms from which
    our naval forces train, deploy, and maintain forward presence.
    Their access to reliable energy ensures the success of the
    Department's mission critical infrastructure in our readiness
    pipeline.
        For that reason, we are grateful for and continue to focus
    on the energy authorities that advance and preserve our mission
    readiness.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Berger can be found in the
    Appendix on page 68.]
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
        Now I turn to Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
    Edwin Oshiba.
        Mr. Oshiba, your turn.

    STATEMENT OF EDWIN H. OSHIBA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
         AIR FORCE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT,
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Waltz, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today and provide updates to the Department of the Air
    Force's installation, energy, and environment priorities.
        Our Nation faces an array of complex challenges to include
    the continued rise of competition with pacing adversaries
    across multiple domains, intensifying rates of technology
    change, and fiscal pressure.
        Additionally, we continue to experience the growing
    strength and frequency of extreme weather events, which,
    unmitigated, endanger our airmen, guardians, their families,
    and their installations and critical infrastructure.
        In addressing these challenges, the Department continues to
    orient our infrastructure priorities in line with the interim
    national security strategic guidance and National Defense
    Strategy.
        Coupled with the Department's guiding principle of One
    Team, One Fight, we can and will overcome these challenges and
    provide installations which underpin our Nation's security.
        Accordingly, we view our installations as foundational to
    enabling and protecting combat power in air, space, and
    cyberspace. The Department remains committed to ensuring they
    are ready by investing in the right capabilities at the right
    time in the right place with a diverse inclusive team of
    trained and equipped airmen and guardians, resilient against
    natural and manmade threats, and balanced to be effective,
    efficient, and optimally postured.
        Since 2019, the Department's infrastructure investment
    strategy has guided our efforts to make our installations ready
    and resilient through decisions meant to balance effectiveness
    and efficiency.
        The strategy informs policy investment decisions supporting
    weapon system modernization and combatant command priorities
    while balancing the need to recapitalize our aging
    infrastructure and facilities which improves the quality of
    work and life for our airmen, guardians, and their families.
        Our strategy also emphasizes adoption of smarter business
    practices by investing at the optimum point in facility life
    cycles, identifying smarter acquisition methods, strengthening
    installation planning, and leveraging partnerships and third-
    party investment.
        Finally, we continue to implement installation and
    operational energy resiliency initiatives, which harden our
    infrastructure against a myriad of threats and significantly
    reduce energy consumption.
        We are cognizant that challenge--that changing climate and
    severe weather events have and will continue to severely impact
    our installations and the missions they enable.
        Climate change effects are accelerating and the time for
    action is now. The Department is on the cusp of releasing its
    climate action plan, aligned with our operational imperatives
    to enhance resiliency and readiness while balancing mission
    effectiveness and fiscal efficiency.
        It will lay out priorities and actionable objectives to
    address the challenges of a changing climate through
    improvement--through improving operational energy efficiency,
    enhancing installation resilience, diversifying energy sources,
    and developing a climate literate force.
        We continue to emphasize continued quality of life
    investments in housing, dormitories, child development centers,
    and other support facilities as one of our top priorities.
        This underscores the need to balance operational priorities
    with preserving the readiness and resilience of our most
    important resource, our airmen and guardians. We appreciate
    Congress investing in five additional child development center
    projects in fiscal year 2022's budget and we will work toward
    unaccompanied housing investments in compliance with the fiscal
    year 2022 NDAA.
        Additionally, the Department is committed to ensuring our
    privatized housing projects provide safe, quality, well
    maintained housing for all airmen, guardians, and their
    families.
        With the help of Congress, our project owners have agreed
    to adopt the Tenant Bill of Rights and we added over 200
    government housing management positions to maintain our focus
    on improved oversight, long-term project health, and
    sustainment of the privatized housing inventory.
        Finally, we remain firmly committed to executing robust
    environmental programs and protecting human health.
        Regarding PFAS, no one on or off our installations is
    drinking water with PFAS and PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]
    concentrations above the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]
    lifetime health advisory attributable to our operations. We
    developed a robust framework to identify and remediate impacted
    areas within our legal authorities and remediate impacted
    areas--I'm sorry--and remediate impact areas with no legal
    authorities.
        We will also continue to proactively communicate and
    partner with local communities, State and Federal agencies, and
    elected officials at all levels in addressing this issue.
        In summary, Department of the Air Force is committed to
    preserving ready, resilient installations, our platforms to
    enable and project combat power, using a strategy which
    balances operational effectiveness and resource efficiency as
    part of a broader one team to win our one fight.
        Chairman Garamendi and Ranking Member Waltz, thank you
    again for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward
    to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Oshiba can be found in the
    Appendix on page 83.]
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Oshiba.
        We're now going to turn to questions, but before I do,
    without objection, the written testimony as supplied by the
    witnesses will be entered into the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Also, any written testimony from any of the members that is
    available through the course, without objection, that too will
    be entered into the record.
        Moving on, as I said a moment ago, the pacing issue--the
    pacing seems to be from the Army right here, having put forth
    its climate strategy. I'd like to, first, begin with the Army
    for a fuller explanation of how that climate strategy affects
    the three fundamental issues of this hearing: energy, the
    installations themselves, and then the environment.
        So, Mr. Farnan, if you would go into that in some depth and
    detail I would appreciate it. Let's just say you got about 5
    minutes to do that. Have at it.
        Mr. Farnan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So on the installation front, the goal of the climate
    strategy will actually increase the resilience of our
    installations. As I said in my opening statement, we believe
    that any future war will be fought from a contested homeland.
        So the Army's mission to project our forces to the overseas
    battlefield we'll first have to deal with the contested
    homeland. So the fight will start at the installations. Whether
    it's a natural disaster or a nonkinetic cyber attack on the
    grid, we need our installations to be able to maintain power,
    to continue our missions, to project our forces.
        The climate strategy lays out steps with renewable energy
    generation that's self-contained on the base using battery
    storage and tying everything together with microgrids so that
    in the event of a grid failure our installations--our mission
    critical systems on our installations will still be powered and
    will still be able to operate and accomplish our mission.
        This also carries forward to the operational forces--the
    tactical vehicles, hybridizing them and eventually, over the
    course of the next decade or two, getting to fully electric
    tactical vehicles.
        Fuel on the battlefield means long supply lines, and as
    Ranking Member Waltz put, I share your concern about the safety
    of our service members protecting those fuel lines.
        If we can reduce the amount of fuel that our forces need on
    the front lines, we can reduce the burden on our logistics
    lines. That also carries forward to our contingency bases. In
    the climate strategy, we clearly say that we're going to put
    out a contingency basing policy that will call for the
    requirement and the standardization of all forward contingency
    bases, requiring the most efficient structures, requiring the
    most efficient generators, tying those generators together with
    microgrids to ensure they run at their peak efficiency, pairing
    them with battery storage to increase their efficiency even
    more, using portable renewable generation to further reduce the
    fuel load.
        We're looking at every possible way to reduce the fuel
    burden that burdens our soldiers.
        And then on the environment, climate change is affecting
    the Army already. It's affecting our installations. Severe
    storms, wildfires, they are threatening not just the physical
    part of the installation but they're also threatening the
    health and safety of our soldiers and families. They're also--
    it's also impacting our operations.
        There's an increasing need for a permanent Arctic force.
    There's also an increasing need for defense support to civil
    authority missions, which is basically supporting disaster
    response operations here at home.
        So everything that we're doing is being impacted by the
    climate. This climate strategy will do two things. One, it will
    better enable the Army to operate in a changing environment and
    will also do our part to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
    and help mitigate the effects of climate change.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Farnan.
        And now what--for detail about the U.S. Navy with regard to
    its energy, installations, and environmental and your upcoming
    climate strategy, I'm particularly interested on the
    installation side of it.
        How will you be able to--aside from the Fallon Training
    Range, which you've already discussed, could you also discuss
    other installations, particularly those that are impacted by
    rising sea level as well as storms?
        Ms. Berger, if you would carry forth.
        Ms. Berger. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, everything that we
    are thinking about is very mission driven and so as we think
    about where we see impact, you're exactly right, it is where
    we're seeing sea level rise, where we are seeing the impact of
    storms on our ability for installations to withstand impact.
        So while we are in the final stages of preparing our
    climate strategy, what we are doing is implementing a lot of
    these good practices.
        Ranking Member Waltz mentioned islanding. The Marine Corps
    is actually a great example of places that we have seen success
    with islanding and other energy resilience.
        And so at Yuma, at Miramar, and also at Parris Island, we
    have been able to set up an energy infrastructure that allows
    those installations to run for actually 14 days on their own to
    be able to island, to be able to distribute load because of
    exactly what Mr. Farnan was saying.
        If you need to have these installations running on their
    own, if this is a space that we are fighting from we need to
    make sure that they are resilient and able to move forward. So
    that is one place that we have seen some success and that is a
    resilience that will be something that's very important for us
    to be able to operate.
        Sea level rise--of course, Norfolk is a primary example of
    that. I was able to visit Norfolk as one of the first places
    that I went when I came into my job, and there is flooding that
    is happening there that is impacting even the most basic of our
    ability of our Navy service members to be able to operate. They
    can't bring their kids to school, and if they can't bring their
    kids to school then they cannot get to work. If they are not
    getting to work then they cannot get there to train.
        And so when we talk about readiness as a comprehensive
    approach, this is family readiness. This is service member
    readiness. This is the ability to fight and, if necessary, win.
        And so at every point that we take a step backwards because
    of these impacts, we are not able to be as ready as possible.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
        And now, Mr. Oshiba, if you'll take the same set of
    questions and go into more detail about what the Air Force is
    doing to address the climate crisis and how you can do it--fix
    the problems.
        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like we mentioned, we
    are on the cusp of publishing our climate action plan and we
    took a lot of good ideas and lessons learned from the Army and
    the other service members and also took this opportunity to
    really document some of the ongoing actions that we have taken
    up to this point.
        We have been moving out on installation energy plans now
    for the last couple of years. We have published 42 to date. We
    have 16 more that we have planned for this fiscal year, and
    it's focused upon resiliency measures for our installations
    around five key areas: robustness, resourcefulness, redundancy,
    response, and recovery, and in many cases, I think, covers many
    of the different aspects that both of my colleagues have
    already mentioned on the installation space.
        Another big area that we have started to make some progress
    on is we have conducted these energy resilience and readiness
    exercises at our installations, or what we call pull the plug
    exercises, and the idea there is to understand where our
    vulnerabilities is in terms of energy sources so that we can
    apply fixes to those vulnerabilities should that time come when
    we are disconnected from the grid.
        That helps to inform our planning, moving forward, in
    upcoming years and ensure that the right investments are made
    at the right places to mitigate those vulnerabilities.
        And then the last area to cover is some exciting things
    we're doing in the operational energy realm. There has been
    some work being--that's been going on over the last couple of
    years in testing drag reduction technologies primarily for
    mobility and refueling assets--things like microvanes and
    winglets--that allow us to extend the range of our assets that
    provides operational reach with fewer assets and what we call
    create more, if you will, loiter time to refuel our fighter
    assets once they're in that--their refueling tracks.
        So those are things that are being tested at the moment.
    We'll capture all of those things in our climate action plan. I
    really look forward to some exciting things coming up in the
    future.
        Mr. Garamendi. If I might follow along, Mr. Oshiba, what
    you just raised, in your written testimony you went into some
    detail about the structures themselves and the new building
    codes that are being implemented, specifically at Tyndall and
    at Offutt, two Air Force bases that were severely impacted by a
    hurricane and flooding.
        I'm not going to take into detail now in this hearing the
    issues of the building codes and conservation in the buildings
    themselves--installation and the like. But I want to get into
    detail with you and I want to also take this up with the other
    departments with regard to installations' building codes.
        For the Navy, you might think about earthquake building
    codes and China Lake. For the Army, you might want to think
    about deep freezes. For the Air Force, the same way. So we want
    to deal with that. For all of you, the principal purpose of
    this hearing is to develop the necessary changes, authorities,
    and prioritization for the upcoming NDAA.
        So we're going to drill down deeply at the staff level and
    with other communications with each of the departments so that
    we can structure the NDAA to fully address the challenges that
    you face.
        With that, I now turn to Mr. Waltz. Following Mr. Waltz's
    questions, which--for which he has an unlimited amount of time,
    I'll turn to Mr. Kahele, who is next on the gavel list.
        So, Mr. Waltz, your turn.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try not to abuse
    that blank slate there.
        But, Ms. Berger, you mentioned, and I think rightly, that--
    and I agree that energy is being used as a weapon right now and
    we're seeing that on the headlines of all of our news feeds
    around the world.
        My concern, despite that fact, is that our bases in Europe
    are dependent and they're vulnerable. Our bases in Europe are
    just as dependent on Russian oil and gas as Europeans are.
        And I realize that we have a certain dependency on the host
    nation, but I think, Secretary Cramer--because I think there's
    a broader issue. I'll go your way. This is more of an OSD
    [Office of the Secretary of Defense] issue.
        What steps are you taking? What steps is the Department
    taking to eliminate or at least significantly reduce our
    European bases from our addiction to Russian gas?
        Mr. Cramer. So, thank you, Ranking Member, for that
    question. Yeah. So it's a complex answer, as we discussed and
    you mentioned here, is we are dependent and reliant on the host
    nation, regardless whether it's in Germany, Italy, and the
    Pacific, for that fuel source, because even if we ran our own
    we would still have to use that same source.
        And so what the priority within the Department is is to
    build resilience to reduce that hazard so you have multiple
    sources of power, not relying on one source of power.
        So we have really emphasized over the last few years
    microgridding so that we can create grids within grids and not
    rely on that; alternate sources of fuels where we have
    installed renewables; and to the extent that we can't work any
    of those to have some redundant system to continue to operate,
    we're going to get into the point where we're going to produce
    our own electricity.
        Mr. Waltz. So within that--so, for example, the Army has,
    you know, laid out in their strategy their intent to put
    microgrids in. Are we prioritizing European theater bases or
    are we prioritizing home station?
        How are you shifting or are you shifting your priorities
    across the Department but also within the Army, given what
    we're seeing and given that this has really caught a lot of
    people--well, it shouldn't have caught them off guard but we're
    seeing it front and center. I mean, the Germans have gotten
    religion. We should, too.
        Mr. Cramer. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we have done planning.
    I'll leave it up to the Army to talk about the Army bases. Same
    as the Air Force in Europe, they've done a lot of work, too.
        But we have emphasized microgridding in the ERCIP program,
    a MILCON like program, and we have got a lot of flexibility to
    use those funds to build overseas. It's not just CONUS
    [continental United States] based. So where we see a hazard
    that we cannot mitigate through any other means.
        Consumption is another one I didn't mention earlier. But at
    the end of the day, part of reducing reliance is just use less.
    So we got to get conservation in that, and I'll turn it over to
    the Army if they want to speak.
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir. We agree. We do have to look at what
    bases and in what order we're implementing all of this. As we
    put together our implementation plan for the strategy,
    certainly, the power projection platforms here in the U.S. are
    a priority.
        Given the events--the recent events--we do need to relook
    at how we are prioritizing our overseas installations, dealing
    with all the issues that Mr. Cramer has said.
        But as we build out our strategy, we're going to put the
    prioritizations in there and it will include looking--relooking
    at where we're--how we're going to do--how we're going to
    prioritize our European installations.
        Mr. Waltz. When do you think that implementation plan will
    be complete?
        Mr. Farnan. We are looking--this is March--by June. By
    middle of June, we're hoping to have it out. We're looking at
    about a 90-day plan.
        Mr. Waltz. Okay, great. Just while we're talking about the
    climate strategy, I worry that the timelines included--how
    those timelines included overlay with mission capability,
    right.
        I mean, are we producing the most effective, the most
    lethal, vehicles for our soldiers in the world? How are we
    prioritizing that with carbon emission? Number one.
        Number two, my other concern is, obviously, as we move to
    an all-electric or your strategy aspires to move to an all-
    electric fleet, while that may be good for the climate--I don't
    disagree with that--I worry that the Chinese control 90 percent
    of the world's lithium, cobalt, graphite.
        They have--they have truly gobbled up and created a
    dependency with those supply chains, not to mention the fact
    that the way they do their mining is some of the most abusive
    and polluting in the world.
        So where--I was looking through it last night--where in the
    strategy do you onshore those capabilities or secure those
    supply chains if we're going to have by--in the next 15 years,
    our nontactical and then eventually our tactical fleet go all
    electric?
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir. So in the climate strategy--the
    Army's core mission of fighting and winning the wars--nothing
    in the strategy will detract from that. We believe it actually
    enhances our ability to do so.
        Every step we take, every plan we make, we're going to do
    everything very methodically and deliberately, and ensure that
    nothing we do detracts from the capabilities of our soldiers on
    the battlefield or reduces the protection of our soldiers.
        So as we plan this out, certainly, a lot of the
    technologies aren't developed yet. We're going to work with
    industry on the RDT&E [research, development, testing, and
    evaluation] front to advance these technologies over the next
    decade or two.
        That's why the tactical vehicle electrification timelines
    are so long, feeding out into the 2030s and beyond.
        Mr. Waltz. Just that risk--sorry--just that risk--I don't
    want to take up too much time--we produce oil and gas here in
    the United States. Those supply lines are secure. The critical
    minerals to produce an all-electric fleet are not secure.
        So can you assure me we will have secured those supply
    chains before we make this transition? Because otherwise you're
    leaving us incredibly vulnerable.
        Mr. Farnan. So, sir, as we make the transition, just like
    the rest of society, the Army has the same issues with supply
    lines and the constraints that we're under.
        How we move forward on this, like I said, we're going to
    make sure that everything we do nothing will detract from our
    capabilities. We will work with industry to figure out how we
    can ensure those supply lines. We look forward to working with
    the committee and with Congress as a whole to find solutions to
    these problems as we move forward.
        Mr. Cramer. Ranking Member, if you don't mind, I----
        Mr. Waltz. Sure.
        Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Can emphasize some of that.
        So while--we're not talking about the 2023 budget. We have
    talked within the Department about onshoring some of those rare
    earth minerals at the interagency level. So it is a priority
    within this administration to do that onshoring. Is it going
    to, you know, magically appear that we figured out how to work
    through our environmental regulations, everything that's
    stacked up over the years?
        No, but it is a priority and we're going to start knocking
    some of those down and----
        Mr. Waltz. I think you would find enthusiastic support here
    with this committee.
        Mr. Farnan. Yes. That's why I want to make sure that----
        Mr. Waltz. I can't speak for the chairman but at least for
    myself.
        Mr. Farnan. Yeah. Make sure that you know that we are
    looking through those onshoring, recycling of the current
    batteries. That's another, you know, area that we can get rare
    earth minerals out of batteries as they get end of life. And so
    we're investing heavily in that analysis to help us, you know,
    overcome some of the supply chain vulnerabilities.
        Mr. Waltz. I just hope those solutions will be in place
    before we transition a fleet and find ourselves vulnerable.
        Last question, Mr. Chairman, and, really, this is all our
    witnesses but I'll start with you, Mr. Cramer.
        Obviously, hypersonics are a critical issue and will be
    critical to the future flight. The concern is are we prepared
    as we should be here at home when it comes to the availability
    of ranges and areas for fifth- and sixth-generation weapons.
        What challenges do you face in the path forward to having
    ranges and testing facilities that can support the next-gen?
    How can we help?
        Mr. Cramer. Sir, from the OSD level, we're making sure that
    we have our policies and procedures in place to allow that. The
    individual--I'll let the military departments talk about
    ranges, specifically, because that's in their purview.
        But we're making sure that through our clearing house that
    we have set the priorities so that we can expand ranges, you
    know, overflight and we're working through those issues as they
    come up.
        And so, to date, we have not had a lot of issues that
    bubbled up to the OSD level because I think we're still in the
    nascent phase of that, and I'll turn it over to----
        Mr. Waltz. I'll just open it up if anybody, you know, wants
    to make sure they highlight anything for the committee.
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir. So I can't speak to a specific
    system. But what I can say is that we work very closely with
    our G-3 and as they're looking forward to any future weapon
    systems where the basing and trainings can be held we lay out
    our budget process and our planning process to ensure we're
    tied with them so that we are ready as the systems come online.
        Mr. Waltz. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Waltz.
        You've correctly identified a set of problems and we will--
    we will be pursuing that set of problems. I will point out that
    the administration's policy is buy America. Make it in America.
        That also extends to key allies being able to provide the
    critical ingredients for future electrification and those--
    certainly, Australia being one and other allies around the
    world that can augment our own domestic supply for rare earth
    for but one example.
        We can go into that in more detail and we will, and you're
    absolutely correct that this entire strategy doesn't work if
    we're depending upon Russia for oil and gas and then Europe, or
    rare earth materials from China.
        So that is part of the administration's overarching policy
    on make it in America, buy America.
        I'm now going to turn to Mr. Kahele, who is the next up on
    the gavel order.
        Mr. Kahele.
        Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
    mahalo to our witnesses for appearing here today. I'd also like
    to extend personal thanks to Secretary Berger for personally
    coming to Hawaii back in December, reaching out to me and other
    members of the delegation and the community, and I'd like to
    address the number one military issue in the State of Hawaii
    today and that is Kapukaki, otherwise known as Red Hill.
        A difficult but necessary decision by Secretary Austin to
    de-fuel Red Hill within the next 12 months and permanently
    close the facility is one that I fully support. It's the right
    decision and I commend him for his leadership, as well as
    Admiral Aquilino, Admiral Paparo, General Flynn, and everyone
    else in Hawaii moving heaven and earth to secure this 80-year-
    old World War II era facility that has outlived its useful life
    while also restoring safe, clean drinking water to the people
    of Oahu and the almost 100,000 military service members and
    their families who depend on the Navy's water system every
    single day.
        Although I respect opening comments from the ranking member
    from Florida, I don't think that many of my colleagues in
    Congress and many on this committee fully understand the
    complexity of the ongoing crisis at Red Hill.
        Fresh clean drinking water is national security and it's
    imperative to readiness. Without it, we severely affect the
    operational capability and readiness of INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-
    Pacific Command], USARPAC [U.S. Army Pacific], PACFLT [Pacific
    Fleet], PACAF [Pacific Air Force], and MARFORPAC [U.S. Marine
    Corps Force Pacific], all of which are within a 5-mile radius
    of the leaking Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, where over
    100 million gallons of fuel sit 100 feet above one of Oahu's
    main water aquifers.
        On February 11th, I introduced the Red Hill Watershed and
    Aquifer WAI [Watershed and Aquifer Initiative] Act, a bill that
    spells out a number of Navy responsibilities, in addition to
    de-fueling and permanently shutting down the facility.
        I have two questions for Secretary Berger. I believe that
    the Navy should retain ownership of the Red Hill facility and
    remain responsible for the long-term environmental condition of
    the property.
        There's still a high probability that a petroleum plume
    exists in the aquifer and that thousands of gallons of fuel are
    still unaccounted for as we speak. In the Red Hill WAI Act, it
    would be the Navy's responsibility to continue conducting
    hydrology studies and to invest in a permanent water treatment
    facility and water quality testing facility at Red Hill.
        And so my question to either Mr. Cramer or Secretary
    Berger, do you support a Department of Defense investment in a
    permanent water treatment facility and water quality testing
    facility at Red Hill that would alleviate the sending of water
    samples to the mainland and the delay in that response time for
    those tests that we do?
        Ms. Berger. Representative Kahele, it's nice to see you and
    thank you, again, for the time that we got to spend together
    and it was particularly meaningful to have some time to spend
    with Native Hawaiian organization leaders as well.
        So I appreciate that very much.
        To your question, first, we're grateful because we did get
    a little bit of funding to look into the planning for long-term
    water quality testing and maintenance and health, and as you
    and I have talked about, it is the top priority of the
    Department of Navy to make sure that we are taking care of the
    water, taking care of the environment, taking care of people.
        I want to assure you and the rest of the subcommittee that
    we will not rest until we have done that completely, and so
    that is still very much on our list. Part of doing that is
    doing that in an informed and evaluated way, and so as we
    continue in our third-party investigation, as we continue to
    make sure that we are making informed decisions and making
    complete decisions as we go forward, we'll take in that
    information to make sure that we are understanding the full
    implications of the environmental responsibilities of the water
    quality responsibilities and others to include what it means to
    do long-term testing, which we are evaluating through this
    process.
        And I'll turn to Mr. Cramer if he has anything to add.
        Mr. Cramer. Yeah. The only thing I would add is that, yes,
    the Department is not going to walk away from our requirements
    to, you know, clean up whatever the damage is done, and as
    Honorable Berger said, we're going to follow the science and if
    it requires long-term treatment, we're going to do that. We'll
    use the CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act] process that we use in a lot
    of cases and we'll work through that long-term remediation
    process. Over.
        Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you. I know I'm running out of time
    so I'll save my second question if I get another chance.
        Mr. Chairman, Mahalo.
        Mr. Garamendi. You will get another chance. Let me give the
    gavel order. Mr. Scott and Ms. Strickland will be the next up.
    We now turn to Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman.
        And, Under Secretary Cramer, what percentage of the energy
    that we use in the Department of Defense comes from the
    civilian power grid?
        Mr. Cramer. It's almost virtually 100 percent. It's just
    short of that. But we rely heavily on the local grid for the
    prime power. We have got backup sources and, you know,
    primarily, it's off the grid.
        Mr. Scott. That's my understanding is----
        Mr. Cramer. Except for remote areas we have got still
    some--like in Alaska. But yeah.
        Mr. Scott. That's my understanding. It's in the range of 99
    percent that--of the energy that we use on our DOD facilities
    comes from the civilian grid. There's been a lot of discussion
    about potential cyber attacks from Russia with everything
    that's going on in the Ukraine and their ability to make
    America pay.
        I'm concerned about the capabilities of the private sector,
    especially in the energy sector, to defend themselves against
    cyber attacks. If there were a cyber attack that shut down the
    energy at one of our installations, it shuts down a significant
    portion of our capabilities, even if we have backup generation.
        What is being done to work with the private sector in the
    resilience in defense of cyber attacks?
        Mr. Cramer. So we have set up a CMMC [Cybersecurity
    Maturity Model Certification] process. It's a cyber maturity
    model we use for the defense industrial base but it also has
    applicability to the grid. So we have got a website with all
    these links on that helps them out.
        And then the real trouble spot with any of the cyber
    attacks is if you think you've answered the mail then you've
    really made yourself vulnerable to more attacks, and so it's a
    repetitive process. It's an education process.
        Mr. Scott. It is.
        Mr. Cramer. Our CIO [Chief Information Officer] runs that
    not--you know, it's not within A&S [Acquisition and
    Sustainment] or EI&E [Energy, Installations, and Environment],
    but we work hand in glove on the facility-related control part
    of that. And so----
        Mr. Scott. So the backup generation is that predominantly
    generators that are powered by diesel?
        Mr. Cramer. It is--it is a mix of fossil fuel generators.
    Some of them are microgrid. There's ones we're getting into
    large-scale battery power, as Honorable Berger said. There are
    ones that island.
        We have multiple sources of power that feed those
    microgrids and, you know, in essence, that's why we do the
    backup power--our backup--excuse me, the black start exercises
    so that we can test all those systems out to continue to
    operate absent a grid.
        Mr. Scott. But the bottom line is diesel is dependable, and
    I am--I will just tell you I'm concerned about our desires
    getting ahead of where the technology is.
        And, Mr. Farnan, I know you spoke to this a little bit and
    Mr. Waltz spoke to this as well. But when we talk about
    electrical tactical vehicles, those tactical vehicles have to
    be charged, correct?
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Scott. And that technology is significantly into the
    future in which we would be able to move to electric tactical
    vehicles. Is that correct?
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir, and that's why in our strategy we put
    full electrification of tactical vehicles not until 2050.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Would you agree even in 2050 some type of
    power supply has got to push forward?
        Mr. Farnan. Yes, sir. We have to--before we can have fully
    electric tactical vehicles, we have to figure out the problem
    of battlefield charging, and Army's Futures Command is working
    on that already.
        Mr. Scott. I'm very concerned about the issue of
    battlefield charging, I don't mind telling you. I think that's
    a scenario in which you take out one you take out all because
    if you take out the power generation then you've taken out
    everything that is dependent upon that power generation in that
    battle.
        One last question. Mr. Oshiba, you spoke to the PFAS issue
    before. I represent both Moody and Robins Air Force Base in
    Georgia. Where are we in the cleanup of the contaminated areas
    and what is needed to accelerate the process of the potential
    contaminations?
        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    don't have the details specifically to those two--to those two
    installations. I'd be happy to come back and provide you that
    information specific to those two.
        Overall, we have assessed all of our 204 installations. We
    are--we have done preliminary assessments and site
    investigations for at least two-thirds of them and we're
    following that CERCLA process in order to do the long-term
    cleanup.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I look forward to any information on the
    two bases I represent. I do not believe that our testing is
    above what is recommended, but if it is, we certainly want to
    know and be a part of that solution.
        So I appreciate all of you, and I'm just very concerned
    that with everything going on in the world today we don't let
    our need to win get ahead of where the technology is.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
        We now turn to Ms. Strickland.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I don't have any specific questions at this time. But I
    thank you all for this very important discussion, and I would
    like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
    Hawaii, Kai Kahele.
        Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Kahele, your turn.
        Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chairman, and I sincerely
    appreciate the time yielded to me from my colleague. Thank you
    so much, Representative Strickland.
        I'll take this time to ask that second question I wanted to
    ask about Red Hill and, you know, as Secretary Berger and other
    members of the committee may also know that in the bill that--
    the appropriations bill we passed last week included $736
    million in new funding to continue to support the displaced
    service members, civilians, their family, to address the
    drinking water contamination and to comply with the State of
    Hawaii's emergency order.
        This was in addition to $403 million in emergency funding
    that was obtained a few weeks ago, bringing the Congress' total
    funding for Red Hill for this current fiscal year alone to over
    $1.1 billion.
        We know that billions more will be required to complete all
    aspects of the cleanup, the stabilization, the de-fueling and
    closing of Red Hill, and the relocation of that fuel to other
    fuel storage capacity locations elsewhere throughout the
    INDOPACOM AOR [area of responsibility].
        And so my question is in the Red Hill WAI Act that was
    introduced, the Navy was required to reimburse the Honolulu
    Board of Water Supply and the Hawaii State Department of Health
    and Education for the enormous expenses that they have incurred
    as a result of this Red Hill fuel spill. I'll give you one
    example.
        The Red Hill Elementary School, which sits less than a mile
    from Red Hill where several hundred elementary school students
    go to, in the ensuing weeks after the November fuel spill
    started to see their toilets at the elementary school start to
    leak because the fuel in the water was eroding the seals in the
    toilets and they had to change many of the toilets at Red Hill
    Elementary School.
        So there's a lot of expenses out there that have not been
    reimbursed to the State Department of Health, Education, and
    Board of Water Supply.
        Secretary Berger, do you believe that the Department of
    Defense is responsible for reimbursing the State of Hawaii and
    its associated State agencies and the Board of Water Supply for
    any costs associated with the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage
    Facility water crisis?
        Ms. Berger. Representative Kahele----
        Mr. Kahele. Could also be for Mr. Cramer as well.
        Ms. Berger. Representative Kahele, I will not speak for the
    Department of Defense and leave some space for that portion.
    But thank you for raising these specific issues.
        We have been in constant communication with the Department
    of Health and others of the State to make sure that we are
    fully understanding what the costs are of Red Hill.
        And so this is one that I will make sure is one that we are
    all aware of and accounting for. As you said, this will be
    expensive in terms of the full remediation, and at this point,
    we likely don't know all of the costs that are associated.
        But this is another one that it is important to be aware
    of. It is on our list now. Thank you for raising it for me
    specifically, and it is one that we need to continue to pursue
    so that we understand fully all of the steps that we need to
    take to remediate the harm that is caused by the contamination
    of the water.
        Mr. Kahele. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Cramer.
        Mr. Cramer. Yeah, I'll just emphasize--yeah. So we have got
    a well-documented process to go through claims and
    reimbursements, and I think they're on the cusp of kind of
    going through what is the next step of remediation activities
    when you get beyond the initial blush and you get into the
    seals and the rest of those.
        As you know, petroleum breaks down petroleum. So some of
    those things aren't going to be known for several months, and
    we have got a process--we have processes in place that will
    address those over time.
        Mr. Kahele. Yeah. It may be very probable that we may never
    bring the Red Hill well back online to serve the Navy's water
    system, which removes over 10 million gallons of fresh water
    from the NWS.
        We may need to drill new drinking water wells or to
    establish new monitoring wells in that area. The Board of Water
    Supply is already calling for water conservation efforts for
    individuals in the affected area and also to plan for water
    restrictions during the summer.
        So this is something that, clearly, is not going away. We
    are still distributing water at the Pearl Harbor Navy Exchange.
    I saw it with my own eyes the other day.
        So I just want to make everyone aware that this has not
    gone away and it's still an ongoing crisis in Hawaii.
        But thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleague from
    Washington State for the time. I really appreciate it.
        Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Kahele, just one more comment here. The
    military will do what the law requires, and if you want to
    write the law and get the support of Congress then the military
    will carry it out. So we'll keep that in mind----
        Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. As your legislation proceeds.
        The gavel order is now Mr. Moore and Mrs. McClain.
        Mr. Moore, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Waltz.
        Mr. Cramer, I'm going to ask a question to you first on an
    update on where we are with respect to answering the
    requirement laid out in section 2679 authority, and I don't
    give those out lightly. I will explain a little bit and provide
    some context. I don't expect every bylaw of everything ever
    done in the NDAA to be fully on--at the ready.
        But I was given some advice by--I won't name him
    personally, but the chair of this committee--of this
    subcommittee, to keep up my passion about what we can do with
    our deteriorating facilities and to keep up my passion about
    military housing. There are private sector solutions--there are
    community-based solutions that can compensate for the lack of
    MILCON funding that we have, and we need to be willing to
    engage in this.
        And I'm really, really passionate about it and I'm going to
    continue to push on it and that's what this is regards to.
    Section 2679 authority, written into the NDAA, it allows DOD to
    enter into agreements with communities noncompetitively.
    Colloquially, we use the term IGSA authority--intergovernmental
    support authority.
        Again, we were able to put this into the NDAA that can
    accelerate construction and the repair of deteriorated
    facilities and infrastructure at our military installations. It
    requires the Secretary of Defense to present options to address
    scoring limitations associated with these provisions and
    additional options to expand this 2679 authority.
        Thoughts on this, updates on this, and any thoughts on it?
        Mr. Cramer. Yes, sir. I'm familiar with its authority--
    2679--and used extensively within the military departments and
    quite well with services, and we just started in the cusp of
    construction, and I'll leave it up to them to get into the
    details.
        But if there's a need within the community or the
    installation to expand their authority, we're all on board. I
    don't know that we would stand in the way.
        I know there's been recent updates to extend from 5 years
    to 10 years--if we got to go to 20 years. In a lot of cases
    when you look to finance construction you want a longer period
    of time so you don't--you can reduce those annual payments.
        And so if that's--if the period of performance has to
    increase then I think we're on board with that, too.
        Mr. Moore. So are on board with extending that period,
    because I know that's what some of our local communities are
    hoping for, from 1 to even 10 years.
        Mr. Cramer. Yeah, because that's the only way you're going
    to get the financing--they're going to be able to finance is
    through a longer period, and I'll leave it up to the----
        Mr. Moore. Mr. Oshiba, thoughts at all you want to share?
        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Congressman. We would be supportive
    of any proposal to extend the timeframe. I think that's one of
    the things we have seen in terms of limitations of using the
    IGSA authority.
        As Mr. Cramer pointed out, some of those arrangements
    require just a longer period of payback.
        Mr. Moore. Okay, thanks. I'll take the chairman's advice
    again on putting this into law and following up on this. I
    think there's an enormous amount of appetite out there in our
    communities that serve these bases and in building that
    connection.
        Let me continue on. Affordable housing crisis across the
    Nation--it's obvious. In Utah alone, 43 percent increase just
    in the last year.
        Mr. Oshiba, I represent Hill Air Force Base, but I think
    this is very consistent across the country. Seventy percent of
    military members and their families live off military
    installations. They move every few years.
        They receive a basic allowance for housing that does not
    keep up with rent prices. Consequently, many of our military
    members are now having to live great distances from their duty
    station and pay much more than they get in their BAH [Basic
    Allowance for Housing].
        I understand current Air Force policy is to rely on the
    local community to satisfy these shortfalls. Can you tell me
    how you plan to partner with communities around Hill Air Force
    Base to identify needs and develop a plan together?
        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you very much for your question,
    Congressman.
        So, coincidentally enough, I had a chance to meet with the
    Utah Defense Alliance earlier this month during the Association
    of Defense Communities. We actually talked at great length
    about different opportunities that we could partner, moving
    forward.
        It is currently our policy to rely on the communities for
    housing in the--off the installation. But I can understand and
    clearly see some of the issues regarding specific locations
    that have experienced either housing shortages or increases in
    costs, particularly over the past couple of years.
        There are processes in place within the Department of
    Defense to adjust Basic Allowance for Housing entitlements. But
    even given that, I do think there's an opportunity for us to
    partner more closely with these communities. Utah is one. Up in
    Fairbanks, Alaska, is another, and we actually discussed that
    with them as well, and we did commit to continuing that
    discussion to see what kind of opportunities that we can forge,
    going forward.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you. I know it's one of the most pressing
    needs for our families to be able to help cover some of these
    gaps. You mentioned the Utah Defense Alliance. They've been
    incredible to work with.
        But the Utah Farm Bureau steps in and just provided a full
    day of service to provide some of that gap, that they're even
    experiencing food shortages. So this is something we have got
    to be able to address and I will----
        Mr. Cramer. Congressman, if you--I would just add it's the
    Department's policy that it's community first and it's always
    been not just Air Force. Let's make sure we clarify that.
        And so the other----
        Mr. Moore. Very good.
        Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Moore, I'm going to call a little gavel
    down on us. I know Mr.--Mr. Waltz, I know that you're going to
    have to leave momentarily. If you'd like to make another
    comment or question, and then I'll turn to Representative
    McClain.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mrs. McClain
    so we can get her questions before votes.
        Mr. Garamendi. Very good.
        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Oshiba, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, obviously,
    is in my district and has been competing for the future basing
    of next-generation fighters aircraft mission. Securing this
    mission would ensure Selfridge remains [an] active ongoing
    component of our overall national defense.
        When being reviewed for these new missions, however, the
    base scores incredibly well in a number of areas. However, a
    decision in 1979 when the base still was controlled by the Air
    Force allowed for construction to occur in the clear zone to
    the south of the runway.
        For the past two mission attempts by Selfridge the
    encroachment issue has been a key deciding factor for the base
    not being awarded the mission.
        My question is this. Why is the Air Force not willing to
    recognize that a single-engine fighter aircraft, the F-16, were
    allowed to operate previously at Selfridge, essentially being
    grandfathered into the encroachment concerns, but now Selfridge
    is told this is a barrier that prohibits Air Force from
    selecting the base for any next-generation fighter aircrafts
    like the F-35s?
        We seem to be at Selfridge always the bridesmaid, never the
    bride, and this seems to be, you know, the issue that everyone
    hangs their hat on and we'd just like some answers.
        Mr. Oshiba. Thank you very much for the question,
    Congresswoman. I'm not familiar with that specific issue in
    terms of construction in a clear zone. I do know that's a
    safety of flight issue that we take seriously. There are
    different remedies to that that we could explore, perhaps.
        Mrs. McClain. But we let the F-35--the F-16 but not the F-
    35.
        Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, I'll have to take that for the
    record and come back with a more specific response to that
    specific situation.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mrs. McClain. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. My second
    question would be, in layman's terms as much as possible, what
    does Selfridge need to actually do to be considered for a next-
    gen, you know, fighter aircraft mission?
        Every time I ask this question I get the runaround, and if
    we're never going to be the bride just be honest with us so we
    can take our focus somewhere else. But, really, what do we need
    to do to prepare ourselves to actually secure a flying mission?
        Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, that's a--that's probably
    something I would love to sit down with you and discuss. You
    know, I think you're familiar with our strategic basing process
    and the criteria that we use in order to evaluate candidates
    for a new mission.
        Mrs. McClain. But the issue for us and the frustration part
    for us, with all due respect, sir, is it changes. So I would
    welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk with you on both
    of those questions because, again, the community gets excited,
    you know, the base gets excited, and then the rules of the game
    change.
        And although I'm not happy about not having a flying
    mission, that's clearly what we want. I think we need to have
    some honest and tough answers and some honest and tough
    dialogue on Selfridge Air Force Base because for far too long,
    like I said, we're just tired of being the bridesmaid, never
    the bride, and we got to change that or we got to move
    directions differently.
        Mr. Oshiba. Ma'am, it's--we pride ourselves on the fact
    that the strategic basing process should be clear, transparent,
    and consistent, and, apparently, we have not communicated that
    well with you and that's something we will strive towards. And,
    again, if it means that I need to come sit down with you and
    walk you through some of those specifics to that flying mission
    I'd be happy to do that.
        Mrs. McClain. I'm here all week. Thank you, sir.
        With that, I'll yield back.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mrs. McClain.
        I believe we have run through all of the questions from the
    members. If that is incorrect, let me know or let the staff
    know.
        With regard, Mr. Moore, your issue on housing is on all of
    our minds. With regard to privatized housing or on base, there
    is this little problem called scoring, and until we figure out
    how to deal with scoring where the Budget Committee seems to
    think that a privatized program somehow is a cost to the
    military, we're going to have to figure that out and get past
    that. Otherwise, you're not going to make much progress. But
    your legislation will be of great assistance in that.
        Mr. Kahele, carry on. Write the law, get the President to
    sign it, and I'll guarantee that the military will follow along
    to provide whatever support the State of Hawaii and the
    communities need there. I will work with you on that.
        There are a series of other questions that we didn't get to
    at this hearing. But we're definitely going to follow up.
        I do want to comment on the issue that Mr. Scott raised
    having to do with the question of electrical power being
    available in the field. Absolutely appropriate question. The
    same thing applies to petroleum energy, and you might talk to
    the Russians about why their convoy was so long held up. The
    general thought is that it was for lack of fuel.
        And so, Mr. Waltz, you raised this question at the outset
    and that, too, is part of this equation.
        Going forward, I want to, before I close it up, I don't
    know of any other member that has not had an opportunity and
    Mr. Waltz has now left the committee.
        So with that, I want to thank our witnesses.
        Mr. Cramer, thank you very much for overseeing the
    departments and their efforts to deal with the energy, the
    installation issues, and also the environmental issues, all of
    which have been brought to the attention of the committee
    today.
        Mr. Farnan, thank you for leading, providing the pacing for
    your fellow departments, and we'll let them catch up to the
    Army on the energy installation and the climate strategies that
    they will follow along. You've given them the pacing, correct?
        Ms. Berger, thank you. You were very forthcoming to answer
    Mr. Kahele's questions. There are a host of others that we'll
    come back to you on that are in--that I have been plagued with,
    like, what in the world are we going to do with the public
    shipyards and when will we get them up to date, and also the
    Navy's ability to properly schedule the availability in those
    shipyards.
        Mr. Oshiba, I still don't know why we rebuilt a facility
    that we know is going to get slammed again. You provided some
    detail in your testimony about the two bases that were
    mentioned earlier today and we'll want to follow that along.
        And for all of you, as we go forward on the installations,
    think about energy conservation. A one percent decrease in the
    fuel consumption by the Department of Defense takes 70,000 cars
    off the roads of America.
        So there are thoughts here that we can pursue.
        With that, I want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank
    the participation of the committee. I, particularly, want to
    thank Jeannie [Jeanine], who I see sitting there at the dais.
    Thank you so very much for the staff work that went into this,
    both minority and majority staff. Thank you.
        And with that, this hearing is ended. Thank you so very
    much.
        [Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 16, 2022

    =======================================================================

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 16, 2022

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 April 2, 2009

    =======================================================================

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The principal source of furnished energy
    for the U.S. facilities in Germany is predominantly sourced from the
    German national natural gas grid. The accelerating concern of the
    Congress on the issue was state in four successive NDAA acts in recent
    years. The German region where grid energy supply is a potent energy
    concern are facilities such as Ramstein Air Base, the Vogelweh Housing
    and Rhein Ordnance Barracks Army logistic center in the city of
    Kaiserslautern, and others in the region, collectively identified as
    the U.S. Kaiserslautern Military Community, the KMC. The exposure to
    Russian sourced natural gas in this military region raises problems in
    light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
        For several years Army planning of furnished energy supply for the
    new Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center (ROBMC) near Ramstein AB
    would increase use of Russian Federation soured natural gas in the
    energy supply via the national gas grid, as planned by the Army. A
    furnished energy agreement for the U.S. facilities in the city of
    Kaiserslautern, originally signed in 1995, is currently being renewed.
    Army planners have informed the furnished energy contractor that German
    gas grid supply will continue; an arrangement made possible because the
    Army obtained a waiver under flawed legislation. Likewise, U.S. LNG
    could be an alternative principal energy source for these
    installations.
        QUESTION--Have other sources of energy been considered, such as
    U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), now available in abundance in Europe?
        QUESTION--Can the current Army planning for the Kaiserslautern
    system be revised to avoid use of the gas grid, with reliance on LNG at
    the new medical center?
        QUESTION--Can the Department of Defense establish a major energy
    acquisition policy for Europe installations that downgrades the
    reliance on Russia natural gas supply for American defense facilities?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing
    policies to increase energy resilience and to reduce the carbon
    emissions of installation and operational energy to reduce climate
    risks. However, DOD may not be fully considering all carbon-free energy
    technologies, nor is it fully assessing the ability of carbon-free
    emitting energy technologies to meet the reliability, resilience and
    performance requirements for installations and operations, especially
    for national security or mission critical activities. Consequently, DOD
    may be developing climate action strategies that do not maximize the
    achievement of both mission objectives and climate goals.
        QUESTION--Is DOD evaluating the reliability, resilience and
    performance characteristics of all existing and emerging carbon-free
    energy technologies, including grid-scale and micro advanced nuclear
    energy;
        QUESTION--How can carbon-free energy technologies meet the
    reliability, resilience and performance requirements for all agency
    energy uses, including installations and contingency operations, and
    especially for national security and mission critical activities?
        QUESTION--Under current energy plans, will DOD be able to maximize
    its critical capabilities essential for strategic readiness, such as
    force electrification, directed energy weaponry, and multi-domain
    operations?
        QUESTION--Describe any efforts to ensure that development of energy
    infrastructure in the near term can incorporate emerging technologies
    in the future.
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing
    policies to increase energy resilience and to reduce the carbon
    emissions of installation and operational energy to reduce climate
    risks. However, DOD may not be fully considering all carbon-free energy
    technologies, nor is it fully assessing the ability of carbon-free
    emitting energy technologies to meet the reliability, resilience and
    performance requirements for installations and operations, especially
    for national security or mission critical activities. Consequently, DOD
    may be developing climate action strategies that do not maximize the
    achievement of both mission objectives and climate goals.
        QUESTION--Is DOD evaluating the reliability, resilience and
    performance characteristics of all existing and emerging carbon-free
    energy technologies, including grid-scale and micro advanced nuclear
    energy;
        QUESTION--How can carbon-free energy technologies meet the
    reliability, resilience and performance requirements for all agency
    energy uses, including installations and contingency operations, and
    especially for national security and mission critical activities?
        QUESTION--Under current energy plans, will DOD be able to maximize
    its critical capabilities essential for strategic readiness, such as
    force electrification, directed energy weaponry, and multi-domain
    operations?
        QUESTION--Describe any efforts to ensure that development of energy
    infrastructure in the near term can incorporate emerging technologies
    in the future.
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The principal source of furnished energy
    for the U.S. facilities in Germany is predominantly sourced from the
    German national natural gas grid. The accelerating concern of the
    Congress on the issue was state in four successive NDAA acts in recent
    years. The German region where grid energy supply is a potent energy
    concern are facilities such as Ramstein Air Base, the Vogelweh Housing
    and Rhein Ordnance Barracks Army logistic center in the city of
    Kaiserslautern, and others in the region, collectively identified as
    the U.S. Kaiserslautern Military Community, the KMC. The exposure to
    Russian sourced natural gas in this military region raises problems in
    light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. For several years Army planning
    of furnished energy supply for the new Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical
    Center (ROBMC) near Ramstein AB would increase use of Russian
    Federation soured natural gas in the energy supply via the national gas
    grid, as planned by the Army. A furnished energy agreement for the U.S.
    facilities in the city of Kaiserslautern, originally signed in 1995, is
    currently being renewed. Army planners have informed the furnished
    energy contractor that German gas grid supply will continue; an
    arrangement made possible because the Army obtained a waiver under
    flawed legislation. Likewise, U.S. LNG could be an alternative
    principal energy source for these installations.
        QUESTION--Have other sources of energy been considered, such as
    U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), now available in abundance in Europe?
        QUESTION--Can the current Army planning for the Kaiserslautern
    system be revised to avoid use of the gas grid, with reliance on LNG at
    the new medical center?
        QUESTION--Can the Department of Defense establish a major energy
    acquisition policy for Europe installations that downgrades the
    reliance on Russia natural gas supply for American defense facilities?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing
    policies to increase energy resilience and to reduce the carbon
    emissions of installation and operational energy to reduce climate
    risks. However, DOD may not be fully considering all carbon-free energy
    technologies, nor is it fully assessing the ability of carbon-free
    emitting energy technologies to meet the reliability, resilience and
    performance requirements for installations and operations, especially
    for national security or mission critical activities. Consequently, DOD
    may be developing climate action strategies that do not maximize the
    achievement of both mission objectives and climate goals.
        QUESTION--Is DOD evaluating the reliability, resilience and
    performance characteristics of all existing and emerging carbon-free
    energy technologies, including grid-scale and micro advanced nuclear
    energy;
        QUESTION--How can carbon-free energy technologies meet the
    reliability, resilience and performance requirements for all agency
    energy uses, including installations and contingency operations, and
    especially for national security and mission critical activities?
        QUESTION--Under current energy plans, will DOD be able to maximize
    its critical capabilities essential for strategic readiness, such as
    force electrification, directed energy weaponry, and multi-domain
    operations?
        QUESTION--Describe any efforts to ensure that development of energy
    infrastructure in the near term can incorporate emerging technologies
    in the future.
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. BACKGROUND--The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing
    policies to increase energy resilience and to reduce the carbon
    emissions of installation and operational energy to reduce climate
    risks. However, DOD may not be fully considering all carbon-free energy
    technologies, nor is it fully assessing the ability of carbon-free
    emitting energy technologies to meet the reliability, resilience and
    performance requirements for installations and operations, especially
    for national security or mission critical activities. Consequently, DOD
    may be developing climate action strategies that do not maximize the
    achievement of both mission objectives and climate goals.
        QUESTION--Is DOD evaluating the reliability, resilience and
    performance characteristics of all existing and emerging carbon-free
    energy technologies, including grid-scale and micro advanced nuclear
    energy;
        QUESTION--How can carbon-free energy technologies meet the
    reliability, resilience and performance requirements for all agency
    energy uses, including installations and contingency operations, and
    especially for national security and mission critical activities?
        QUESTION--Under current energy plans, will DOD be able to maximize
    its critical capabilities essential for strategic readiness, such as
    force electrification, directed energy weaponry, and multi-domain
    operations?
        QUESTION--Describe any efforts to ensure that development of energy
    infrastructure in the near term can incorporate emerging technologies
    in the future.
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Cramer, in 2020, the Department told Congress that
    9,000 children of military families were on waiting lists for child
    care with immediate need. Now, those waitlists have more than doubled
    to 19,000 children. We have a child care crisis in this nation and
    within the military. The FY 2022 House NDAA committee report included
    language directing you as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Energy, Installations, and the Environment to report to Armed Services
    Committee with specific waitlists and wait times for each childcare
    facility and an assessment of efforts by the Department to identify
    solutions to improve child care availability and reduce wait time. This
    report was due on February 15, but we have not received it yet. When
    will this report be complete, and what are you doing to expand child
    care availability and reduce waitlists?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Cramer, now that the Tenant's Bill of Rights is in
    effect at virtually every installation, how many times has the formal
    dispute resolution process been used, and of those, how many times has
    the family prevailed, and how many times has the privatized housing
    partner prevailed?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Cramer, what has the Department learned from the
    standardized complaint system for privatized housing? Has the
    Department identified any notable trends or operators and projects that
    are particularly troubled?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Farnan, in 2020, the Army announced with great
    fanfare its 10-year, $10 billion plan to modernize and replace its
    barracks so that all are brought up to good condition. What progress
    has been made toward this goal, and is the barracks modernization plan
    on track for completion by the end of this decade?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Ms. Speier. Ms. Berger, I understand that the Navy is responsible
    for the upkeep of the tarmac at Hickam Field because it is part of
    Joint Base Pearl Harbor, where the Navy is the lead service. I am told
    that Hickam Field's tarmac is in disrepair and has not had a
    modernization for many decades. Why has the Navy failed to prioritize
    maintenance of this critical airfield? Is it because it is primarily
    used by the Air Force? And what is the Navy's plan to repair Hickam
    Field's tarmac going forward?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Ms. Speier. Ms. Berger, I plan to lead a congressional delegation
    to San Diego this year to visit Navy and Marine Corps child care
    centers. In preparation for this trip, I learned that Navy child
    development centers in San Diego have a range of unmet deferred
    maintenance needs, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
    systems that need replacement and unreliable plumbing systems that must
    be replaced because they regularly back up, yet the Navy has not
    budgeted any maintenance funding, known as FSRM funding, for these
    needs. Why does the Navy fail to keep up its child care facilities like
    a responsible building owner would, and what are you doing to fix this?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
        Mr. Scott. What is the impact of industrial wind farms on
    readiness?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What impact does the unprecedented size of U.S. offshore
    wind leases compared to existing wind facilities overseas have on the
    ability of the United states to defend the entrances to major U.S. East
    Coast ports? makes this type of impact also unprecedented
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Are the ARSR-4 long range air surveillance radars, which
    are located along the U.S. East Coast and all U.S. borders, ``very
    susceptible'' to interference from wind turbines? Does the ARSR-4's
    target tracking abilities decrease as turbine number, size, and density
    increases?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. How does the Vineyard Wind Project enhance the national
    security of the United States?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Is radar interference from offshore wind farms is an
    impediment to air traffic control, homeland security, national defense
    and weather forecasting?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the criteria used to measure whether or not
    industrial wind farms pose an unacceptable risk to national security?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the cost in terms of $$$ and full-time
    equivalents of the DOD personnel and contractors tasked with measuring
    the carbon footprint of the Department of Defense?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What radars have experienced a reduction in the
    probability of detection (PD) due to land-based wind farms? What is the
    impact of this reduced PD to U.S. National Security?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Do you support legislation that would increase the cap
    on minor military construction? If so, what should be the new cap on
    minor military construction?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the impact of industrial wind farms on
    readiness?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Is radar interference from offshore wind farms is an
    impediment to air traffic control, homeland security, national defense
    and weather forecasting?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the cost in terms of $$$ and full-time
    equivalents of the DOD personnel and contractors tasked with measuring
    the carbon footprint of the Department of Defense?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Do you support legislation that would increase the cap
    on minor military construction? If so, what should be the new cap on
    minor military construction?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of buildings across
    your respective service branch? How does it compare to the same rate in
    private industry?
        Mr. Farnan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the impact of industrial wind farms on
    readiness?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Is radar interference from offshore wind farms is an
    impediment to air traffic control, homeland security, national defense
    and weather forecasting?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the cost in terms of $$$ and full-time
    equivalents of the DOD personnel and contractors tasked with measuring
    the carbon footprint of the Department of Defense?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Do you support legislation that would increase the cap
    on minor military construction? If so, what should be the new cap on
    minor military construction?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of buildings across
    your respective service branch? How does it compare to the same rate in
    private industry?
        Ms. Berger. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the impact of industrial wind farms on
    readiness?
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Is radar interference from offshore wind farms is an
    impediment to air traffic control, homeland security, national defense
    and weather forecasting?
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the cost in terms of $$$ and full-time
    equivalents of the DOD personnel and contractors tasked with measuring
    the carbon footprint of the Department of Defense?
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. Do you support legislation that would increase the cap
    on minor military construction? If so, what should be the new cap on
    minor military construction?
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of buildings across
    your respective service branch? How does it compare to the same rate in
    private industry?
        Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KAHELE
        Mr. Kahele. The Navy's undersea training ranges play an essential
    role in maintaining the readiness of the fleet. However, many of these
    underwater ranges are well beyond their design life and are losing
    capability. Hawaii is home to the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater
    Range (BARSTUR), which is located on Kauai at the Pacific Missile Range
    Facility (PMRF). The PMRF and its location in the Pacific makes BASTUR
    a critical asset for training, readiness, verification, and testing. It
    also supports the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, which
    has participants from all over the world including dozens of nations,
    hundreds of ships, aircraft, and other vehicles. The reality is that
    the BARSTUR range has passed design life and needs to be replaced as
    quickly as possible. Roughly 30% of the Barking Sands Tactical
    Underwater Range (BARSTUR) in-water sensors are inoperable due to the
    aging infrastructure, resulting in reduced tracking coverage area. This
    is concerning because the failure or significant performance
    degradation of BARSTUR will require the Navy and our allies to transit
    to other ranges (i.e. Pacific Northwest and San Diego) to accomplish
    training and testing. Hawaii-based submarines, surface ships and
    aircraft will need to transit long distances consuming time, energy,
    and other resources. Can you provide an update on BARSTUR's restoration
    and the role that it will play in this year's RIMPAC exercise?
        Mr. Cramer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Kahele. Mr. Cramer/Mr. Oshiba, as you may know I have the honor
    of flying the C-17 for the Hawaii Air National Guard. The C-17 is the
    backbone of our nation's strategic airlift capacity and its unique
    capabilities and exceptional readiness continue to be called upon
    around the world--most recently in support of the conflict in Ukraine
    and prior to that in Afghanistan. The C-17 is also the number one
    consumer of fuel in the USAF fleet. Our international allies who fly
    the C-17 have been leaning forward by leveraging digital analytical
    tools which have already reaped dividends in fuel savings while making
    substantial improvements in readiness as well as training and
    operational efficacy. Our international partners have already
    demonstrated fuel savings of more than 4.5 million pounds across a
    fleet of about 35 equipped aircraft-largely by eliminating unnecessary
    engine runs, which has the added benefit of increasing the time an
    engine can stay on wing. Imagine the results if these same digital
    tools were applied to the 222 aircraft strong U.S. fleet. What can your
    office do to support the adoption of these innovations across the USAF
    C-17 fleet and, more generally, how are you using the section 2912
    authority to fund further investment in operational energy-related
    technologies?
        Mr. Cramer and Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of
    printing.]

                                      [all]