[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]